Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 164

Prepare to pay more for aged care

Aged care facilities in Australia are funded by a combination of resident and government payments. In 2013-14, the government spent $14.8 billion on aged care services, with about $10 billion of that going towards residential aged care.

Through a range of different measures, the government is withdrawing about $2 billion of funding from the industry over the next four years, which has left aged care operators with a tough choice - cut their costs to make ends meet or maintain their current standards and ask the residents to pay more. Given that personal care is the greatest expense of an aged care facility, it is not surprising that many operators are choosing the latter.

Levies on aged care residents

While most aged care fees and charges are government regulated, aged care facilities can levy other payments on residents by mutual agreement.

When it comes to accommodation payments, aged care facilities set the market price for each bed. Those who wish to set a price above $550,000 require approval from the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. The price of the beds must be published in the facility’s marketing materials, on their website and on the government’s MyAgedCare website. Residents must also be given the choice of paying for their accommodation by a lump sum (known as a Refundable Accommodation Deposit or RAD), a daily charge (known as a Daily Accommodation Payment or DAP) or as a combination of the two. The daily charge equivalent is regulated, with the government setting the interest rate for the calculation, which is currently 6.01%.

So if the market price is $500,000 the resident can choose to pay $500,000 as a lump sum or $82.33 as a daily charge. If they chose to pay $200,000 by lump sum then the daily charge would be reduced to $49.40.

A number of aged care providers have introduced additional accommodation payments. These payments are set by the individual facilities and take a number of different forms – some are fixed daily amounts, some only apply to residents who pay by lump sum, some are pro-rated (based on the amount of lump sum paid) and some are capped at a dollar amount or after a period of time.

Examples of specific charges

Let’s look at some examples. At one group of facilities residents who pay any amount of their accommodation cost by lump sum are charged an additional $10 per day as what the facilities call a ‘Capital Refurbishment Fee’. The fee is charged for as long as the resident stays. So if they stay there for two years they will pay an extra $7,300 and if they stay for five years it will cost them $18,250.

At another group, the facilities are graded and the residents are charged an ‘Asset Replacement Contribution Fee’ of between $13 per day and $18 per day, depending on the facility. Those in the lowest grade only pay the $13 if they choose to pay towards the cost of their accommodation by lump sum, while those in the highest grade pay the $18 regardless of how they pay for their accommodation. So in the lowest grade, residents who pay by lump sum will pay $9,490 after two years or $23,725 if they stay for five years and in the highest grade everyone will pay an additional $13,140 for staying for two years or $32,850 if they stay for five years.

There is at least one group who both pro-rata and cap their fee, which they call an ‘Asset Replacement Contribution’. That fee is a maximum of $13.70 per day and is charged for up to 2.5 years and prorated based on the amount the resident pays by lump sum. So if the resident pays entirely by lump sum the cost would be $12,501 after 2.5 years, whereas if they paid entirely by daily charge the Asset Replacement Contribution fee would be zero.

While there are a handful of operators currently levying these fees and charges, there are many more considering following suit. We have already seen significant increases to what residents are paying for additional services such as wine, Foxtel and personal therapies and I expect there will be an expansion in both the services offered and the costs associated with them as operators look for more revenue opportunities.

Call the fees and charges what you like. The bottom line is that consumers should expect to pay more, and in some cases a lot more.

 

Rachel Lane is the Principal of Aged Care Gurus and oversees a national network of financial advisers specialising in aged care. This article is for general educational purposes and does not address anyone’s specific needs.

 

  •   14 July 2016
  • 7
  •      
  •   
7 Comments
Martin Barry
July 14, 2016

For families managing this complex matter one option is to finance the lump sum payment.

Paul
July 14, 2016

I have been investigating aged care residences for my mother. One place had their own beauty salon and charged residents a $60 weekly fee for a beauty treatment. I said my mother wouldn't be interested in that. They told me this fee wasn't optional!

Mike Hayter
July 14, 2016

I reckon there might be a business opportunity in developing a "compare the market" type database of facilities, costs, fees and charges and selling the information to seniors like me who are going to be looking for a place in a few years time.

Klaus Bremhorst
July 17, 2016

This article gives a good introduction but I'm told that there is a lot more to the topic and the hurdles to admission to age care/nursing homes. In particular would it be possible to have some details regarding financial guarantees demanded from families even when the financial matters addressed in the article have been met? It seems that the stage has been reached where legal complexities are such that general advice should include the use of a nursing home broker or solicitor before anything is agreed on. If someone has no family to provide guarantees, where does that leave them? What options are available?

Rachel Lane
August 23, 2016

Thanks for the feedback Klaus, happy to look into this as a topic for future articles.
Rachel

Don Slater
July 17, 2016

A question
Should the facility experience financial difficulties and the R.A.D has been paid in full are any guarantees in place to ensure the client is not left penniless and homeless

Rachel Lane
August 23, 2016

Hi Don,
Refundable Accommodation Deposits (known as RAD's) paid to an aged care facility are guaranteed by the government. While this seldom happens, there have been a few occasions where the government have paid any outstanding monies to the residents (or their families).
Hope this helps.
Rachel

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Why super returns may be heading lower

Why we should follow Canada and cut migration

The ‘priced out generation’ and what they should do about it

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.