Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 396

Overdue overhaul of Australia’s aged care system

The current aged care system has failed many senior Australians and providers for years. By participating in the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, we have contributed to the important ongoing process of industry improvement. We were pleased to see our ideas reflected in many of the commission’s recommendations.

Principles to underpin the design of a fairer system

To support development of a better aged care system that is appropriate to the needs and wishes of all Australians, it is proposed that the following principles should underpin the design of a new financing approach:

  • Quality
  • Respect and dignity
  • Equity
  • Transparency and accountability
  • Sustainability
  • Responsiveness and innovation
  • Streamlined and accessible

Overall, the system that is required is one in which people can access the services they need without delay, with costs and quality standards that are transparent and providers that are accountable and responsive to the needs of people using their services and who will work with them to innovate and drive efficiencies that will enhance sustainability without compromising agreed standards. To achieve these goals fundamentally the system needs to be less complex. The role of the Commonwealth Government is to provide the environment in which that can occur and to ensure the system is fair and equitable.

The principles we proposed can be seen in many of the recommendations, particularly:

  • Recommendation #8: A new aged care programme – designed to be more streamlined, accessible and equitable.
  • Recommendation #9: Meeting preferences to age in place – clearing the waiting list for home care packages and allocating funding and services in ways that are responsive, sustainable, transparent, accountable, equitable and high quality.
  • Recommendation #20: Planning based on need, not rationed – proposes a funding approach that is equitable, respectful, supportive of dignity, sustainable, responsive, streamlined and accessible.
  • Recommendation #82: Immediate changes to the Basic Daily Fee – proposes a boost to fees from 1 July 2021, on condition that providers report on, and accept accountability for, high quality services.

Home Care Packages: limitations in the current model

As the Royal Commission has heard, in 12 months more than 16,000 people died waiting for a home care package. For others, a lack of access to supports has resulted in premature entry into residential aged care. Rationing of packages is out of step with community preferences, denying people access to supports that may allow them to stay home. This impacts quality of life, particularly for those without family or friends to help fill the gap.


For many the expectation of home care is that you simply “order in” the care you need. In reality accessing a home care package is a test of patience, resourcefulness and forensic accounting. You need patience during the long waits for assessment and for care to start; resourcefulness in finding services, volunteers and family members to fill in the gaps; and forensic accounting to determine whether or not you are getting a good deal.

Administration and case management are services that providers must deliver; without them the package doesn’t operate. But they are tasks that are largely invisible, making it difficult to know what is really involved and easy for unscrupulous operators to gouge their customers.

How much care the person can receive with the net funding will depend on where they live, the type of care and services they receive and who provides it.

Care providers who employ care staff have a vested interest in using their own staff to provide care and services which in theory has the potential to offer economies of scale. In practice, consumer choice is often restricted to the services (and rostering availability) of the employed carers with an hourly rate for the services that is far greater than the cost of wages.


A significant concern is the home care package fee structure. Older people are expected to contribute towards the cost of their package which includes a basic daily fee based on the level of package and an income-tested care fee which is calculated by Centrelink.

The costs associated with a home care package can result in affordability issues for low income pensioners. The basic daily fee can amount to 15% of annual income, even without considering expenses associated with daily living or any other supports older people might require but cannot access through their home care package. It is possible that older people may not be able to afford the fee contribution which in turn may become a barrier to accepting a package.

Disparity between Home Care and Residential Aged Care Funding

When you crunch the numbers on the funding models it becomes clear that people living in residential aged care receive more funding for care than those receiving home care.

At the ultimate amount the funding for someone receiving a home care package is just over $192/day while the care funding for someone (potentially the very same person) in residential aged care is around $256/day, that’s more than 34% additional funding for your care based on where you live.

Similarly the converse can also occur, a person with dementia may receive a higher amount of funding through a level 4 Home Care package (with the dementia supplement) than an aged care facility can receive through the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI).

These disparities in funding raise a number of questions, including why the funding arrangements are different, whether it creates a necessity for some people to enter residential aged care when if the funding was the same they could afford to stay at home and whether the funding, particularly as it relates to dementia behaviours restricts access to residential aged care for some.


Current Home Care Package limitations are tackled head-on by the recommendations:

  • Disparity of funding for people receiving care based on whether they remain at home or move to residential aged care service is removed by Recommendation #89: Maximum funding amounts for care at home.
  • Transparency and affordability are the focus of both Recommendation #93: Standardised statements on services delivered and costs in home care, and Recommendation #96: Fees for care at home.

The recommendations make a point of separating fees for care at home, including respite care, from fees for domestic assistance, social supports, assistive technology and other costs. This may assist with some of the pricing anomalies that we draw attention to in the issue of disparity and affordability. It will all depend on the details of the implementation.

Our vision is of a system that offers older Australians a true choice between receiving care at home and moving into residential aged care. In the current situation, too many are forced to move into residential care because they cannot access sufficient government funding or cannot afford the user contributions.

Concluding comment

If an expert is required to assist an older person to successfully navigate the aged care system, then it is by definition failing to meet the needs of all. While we believe that there will always be value in seeking expert advice, a simpler, more user-friendly system with a higher standard of accountability and transparency is needed. Whether the proposed recommendations can achieve this remains to be seen in the implementation.


As the Principal of Aged Care Gurus, Rachel Lane was invited to contribute to the Commissioner for Senior Victorians’ submission to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This is a summary of that submission and its recommendations. You can view the full paper here.


March 03, 2021

Grateful for Rachael's analysis. Adequate aged care is a no brainer for the aged (and those who hope they would be).

The recommendations and the government response are overdue. In moving forward, money - lots of it - is just one part of the solution which the Government has promised. Necessary, but not sufficient.

The underlying problem which the system ignores: in twilight time humans need loving and affectionate care, and professional outfits can only approximate to this ideal clinically. They cannot require those who serve the aged to love and care for them as kith and kin. We cannot build the aged care model based on honourable exceptions.

So why do we, as the default option, permit offspring who owe their life and comforts to their parents by and large to outsource their care, thinking of it as another utility purchase? Parents unable or unwilling to care are rightly shamed as unfit. Uncaring children get off free, waiting for the reading of the parental will.

Barring cases where external care is the only option, children’s care of parents should mitigate the structural excesses perpetrated on exploited elders. If in doubt, ask what the elders would prefer. Better still, ask the current generation of adult kids what would they prefer if and when they reach old age.

If this is western civilisation, it badly needs a Confucian jab intermittently injected to fight the ancient strain of parental agnosticism virus, thereby repudiating Kipling-like deniers of the eventual coupling of cultures of the east and west.

David Williams
February 25, 2021

Well said, Rachel. I suggest the task is even bigger than just aged care. There is compelling evidence that preventive action on all the factors which contribute to ageing will make a huge difference to the ultimate load on our aged care systems and personal quality of life.

There are at least two major impediments to making the best of what we already know:

1. Actions which impact on a healthy and meaningful longevity (the rest of our life) are driven from within bureaucratic silos.

Just think Treasury (super, tax and financial advice), Health (hospitals, health care, medicines, and sadly, aged care) Employment (older employment, discrimination), Social Security (age pensions, disability, housing and communities).

More effective co-ordination will bring with it major savings plus quicker and better outcomes. We should be aiming for a bipartisan agreement on a Longevity Strategy to provide the co-ordination needed for truly holistic solutions.

2. People are typically ignorant about ageing. We must invest in longevity education from midlife. Properly informed people will make decisions which will benefit them and their community. We have spent a bundle on financial literacy, but the real bottom line is improving longevity awareness - what could the rest of my life look like and what can I do about it. Time considerations underpin most financial decisions anyway. We need to get the time dialogue upfront.


Leave a Comment:



Why the poor will pay more for aged care next year

Budget 2018 puts aged care at a tipping point

Home care: the good, the bad, and the ugly


Most viewed in recent weeks

400th Edition Special: 45 of the best investment ideas

Over eight years since February 2013, Firstlinks has become a leading financial newsletter, publishing thousands of articles from hundreds of writers. To mark this milestone, 45 experts have joined the celebration for our 400th edition bringing their best investing ideas for the next few years.

Four bubbly market pockets show heightened risk for investors

At the top of every market, there are signs that investors look back on and say the excesses were obvious. While many parts of the market are fairly valued, here are four bubbles which show irrational exuberance.

Turning point: the 2020s baby boom retirement surge

Every week, 2,500 Australians retire, or at least, reach the age of 65, and 2021-2027 will represent the peak years of the baby boom retirement surge. Longevity of life comes with dangers and opportunities.

Hume and Frydenberg reset super with two buzz words

The solutions to retirement problems are obvious. All we need are 'efficiency' and 'flexibility'. Learn what these two words mean and the future of superannuation policy is clear. Just don't tell Paul Keating.

How long will my retirement savings last?

Many self-funded retirees will outlive their savings as most men and women now aged 65 will survive at least another 20 years. Compare your spending with how much you earn to see how long your money will last.

The world in 2030: Six investing tips for the next decade

Six portfolio managers look at how life may change by the end of the decade and how shifting trends are influencing their investment decisions. It's an optimistic view of the world in 2030 as a better place.

Latest Updates


How long will my retirement savings last?

Many self-funded retirees will outlive their savings as most men and women now aged 65 will survive at least another 20 years. Compare your spending with how much you earn to see how long your money will last.


Why you can't invest in residential property on the stock exchange

Residential property attracts little interest from institutional investors and the listed market. Here are three reasons why retail investors have an advantage over well-resourced institutional investors.

Investment strategies

Three charts on the surprising rise of Australian retail investors

It may surprise even industry insiders that over 30% of all trading on Chi-X comes from retail brokers. What is the growing influence of retail investors on Australian stock exchanges and who are they using?

Investment strategies

Five reasons why EM equities could power ahead in 2021

A broader rebound beyond tech companies is likely to accelerate. Structural reforms may regain momentum after COVID and a lower risk premium is warranted for emerging markets equities compared with prior crises.


Consumers need an effective super performance test

Fund performance varies over time. A fund may have strong capability and perform well over time, but it may fail the performance test at some point. The YFYS reforms create unwelcome and unintended consequences.


Unlimited potential: innovation wrap for March 2021

This month's look at innovations changing the world explores computer chips, cryptocurrencies, renewables, cybersecurity, robotics, mobility, alternative foods, finance ... there is no limit to human ingenuity.


My 'purpose of super' is probably not yours

One problem with defining a single and universal purpose of superannuation is that people have contributed to super for years, even decades, with different ideas and intentions.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.