Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 258

Budget 2018 puts aged care at a tipping point

The Federal Budget in May 2018 was widely reported as the ‘Baby Boomer Budget’ with key elements including an additional 14,000 home care packages, expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme (PLS) and an increase to the pension work bonus. Of course, the headlines don’t tell the full story.

Home Care packages

The additional 14,000 Home Care packages over the next four years was welcome news. For the 105,000 people currently on the waiting list for a package based on their needs – a list that grew by almost 25,000 between February and December 2017 – the government seems to have forgotten them. The money to pay for these packages has come out of residential aged care funding, which appears set to see similar waiting lists to home care over the coming decade. The MUCHE Health Report 2018 estimates there is will be a “94,200 gap in residential aged care places by 2025”.

Pension Loan Scheme

The expansion of the PLS to provide payments of up to 150% of the age pension and extended eligibility to anyone of age pension age is great news, particularly for full pensioners that are self-funded retirees who currently cannot access the scheme. The interest rate applied to the PLS is a relatively low 5.25% p.a. or around 1% lower than the rates charged for a commercial reverse mortgage. Unlike a reverse mortgage, the PLS is considered income for aged care means testing, meaning that people who use the scheme to fund aged care costs could actually increase those costs by doing so.

Here’s an example: Jack and Jill are homeowners who receive the full age pension. They have $50,000 in bank accounts, $150,000 of shares and $30,000 of personal assets.

Jack has a home care package and pays the basic daily fee of $10.32 per day. Under the expanded PLS, Jack and Jill would be able to receive payments of up to $17,787 per year. If we assume they receive $17,787 per year of payments, because the PLS is included in Jack’s assessable income and pushes him over the $20,704 per year income threshold, his Home Care Package Income Tested Care Fee would go from zero to around $10 per day. So of the $17,787 per year of payments around $3,800 per year would be lost in additional fees.

If Jack moves into residential aged care, and Jill remains at home, Jack will qualify as a low means resident. Jack’s liability to contribute towards the cost of accommodation through a Daily Accommodation Contribution (DAC) will be calculated based on his assets and income. Assuming Jack and Jill are receiving $17,787 per year through the PLS, Jack’s DAC will be $42 per day and his equivalent lump sum refundable accommodation contribution (RAC) would be $268,468. However, if they didn’t receive payments through the PLS, Jack’s DAC would be $32 per day and his equivalent RAC would be around $66,000 less at $202,237.

Other budget measures, potentially worthier of headlines, included the government undertaking analysis to change the allocation of residential aged care beds away from aged care facilities and give them to consumers, combining residential aged care and home care from 1 July this year and creating a levy to secure the $23 billion of accommodation deposits currently being guaranteed by the federal government.

What wasn’t in the Budget?

Some highly anticipated changes to aged care were not included in the Budget but could still be announced, possibly in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). The changes are expected as a result of the Legislated Review of Aged Care 2017 and the 38 recommendations contained within the report tabled to parliament last September, which include:

In Home Care, the key recommendation is to make the basic daily fee proportional to the value of the package and ensure that providers charge it. Currently the basic daily fee is set at 17.5% of the pension ($10 per day), with funding ranging between $22 and $180 per day. A number of home care providers choose not to charge the basic daily fee and instead just deliver the funded amount of care at a reduced price or free.

In residential aged care, there were several recommendations, including removing the current cap on the basic daily fee which is set at 85% of the pension, $50 per day with the proposed new cap being $100 per day. Aged care facilities would be able to charge more than the new cap with approval from the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner and there would be an exception for people who are financially disadvantaged.

Another recommendation is to increase the price threshold beyond which aged care facilities need to seek approval for their Refundable Accommodation Deposit (and equivalent daily payment). The current threshold is $550,000 and the recommendation is that this be increased by $200,000 to $750,000 and an automatic link created between the threshold and median house prices.

Other recommendations of the report have been publicly ruled out by the government but are not impossible. These include removing the current cap applied to the family home of $165,271, making the full value assessable for residential aged care means testing (except when a protected person is living there). And removing the annual and lifetime caps on income-tested care fees in home care and means-tested care fees in residential aged care.

The industry is now at a tipping point.

The Home Care package waiting list is at 105,000 people and growing, more than 40% of residential aged care facilities are expected to make a loss this year and the industry needs to build an additional 83,500 aged care beds over the next 10 years to meet demand. The industry has only built 35,000 new beds in the last decade. It’s no wonder the government wants to introduce a levy to help secure the $23 billion of accommodation deposits they are guaranteeing.

Change is inevitable, but effective change must do more than shift funding between Home Care and residential aged care. Watch this space.

 

Rachel Lane is the Principal of Aged Care Gurus and has co-authored a number of books including ‘Aged Care, Who Cares?’ with Noel Whittaker. This article is general information only. 

RELATED ARTICLES

Overdue overhaul of Australia’s aged care system

$17.7 billion aged care plan welcome but many will miss out

Why the poor will pay more for aged care next year

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.