Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 280

Royal Commission must remove aged care anomalies

The Royal Commission into Aged Care will resolve once and for all the debate about staffing ratios. It is imperative that the Commission identifies appropriate minimum standards of care. It is equally imperative to broaden their scope to identify who pays what for care now, and who should pay what in the future.

Resident contributions system is broken

The current means testing arrangements use a complex formula combining an income and asset test to determine the resident’s liability to contribute to the cost of their accommodation and care. While on the surface this seems fair, the reality is that the current means test protects the very poor and the very wealthy, leaving those in the middle to pay the most.

The formula used to calculate someone’s liability to contribute towards their cost of accommodation and care involves a combination of an income test and an asset test:

  • 50c per dollar of income above $26,985 (single) $26,465 (couple), plus
  • 5% of assets between $49,000 - $166,707, plus
  • 1% of assets between $166,707 - $402,122, plus
  • 2% of assets above $402,122

A few important aspects of the means test are:

  • The former home is exempt if a protected person is living there.
  • When the former home is assessed, it is assessed up to a capped value of $166,707.
  • Any amount the resident pays as a lump sum accommodation payment is included in the asset test.
  • The resident cannot pay more than their cost of care.
  • There is an indexed Annual Cap of $27,232 and a Lifetime Cap of $65,357 (which includes any amount paid as an Income Tested Care Fee in a Home Care Package).

How the means test works

Every resident can pay the basic daily fee, set at 85% of the age pension, currently $51/day. In addition to the cost of care, residents still have personal expenses including telephone, medications, clothing and travel, as well as any extra or additional services provided by the facility.

At the fully subsidised end is Tom, a full pensioner with $40,000 of assets. Tom pays the Basic Daily Fee and the government pays the facility an accommodation supplement up to $57/day to cover the cost of his care.

Three examples of means testing

1. At the low means end, Shirley is a full pensioner with $90,000 in the bank and $5,000 of personal assets.

Based on Shirley’s assets, her Daily Accommodation Contribution (DAC) is $22.11/day. The lump sum equivalent (Refundable Accommodation Contribution or RAC) is $135,067. The RAC is calculated at the government-set interest rate, currently 5.96%/year. With $95,000 of assets, Shirley cannot afford to pay by RAC alone but she can pay by combination. If she pays $40,000 towards her RAC, her DAC will reduce to $15/day. After meeting her cost of care, she has less than $2/day for personal expenses or will need to dip into her $50,000 of remaining capital.

2. Don is a part pensioner. He has $190,000 of investments and $10,000 of personal assets. Because his assets exceed $166,707, his accommodation payment is based on the market price set by the aged care facility. If Don lives in a capital city, the Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD) could easily be $500,000 or more.

If Don moves to a facility with a RAD of $500,000, paying $100,000 towards his RAD, his daily accommodation payment (DAP) will be $65.31/day. Combined with the basic daily fee, his cost of care will be over $42,000/year. Don’s income is just $26,000/year so he will either dip into his remaining investments to meet his cash flow or deduct his DAP from his RAD (an option available to all residents). If Don chooses this option, which would ease the pressure on his cash flow, his DAP will increase each month as his RAD reduces and in less than 5 years his RAD will be exhausted.

3. At the other end of the spectrum is Dot, a self-funded retiree with a home worth $1 million, $1.5 million of investments and $50,000 of personal assets. She is also moving to a facility where the RAD is $500,000. She pays her RAD in full, from her investments.

If Dot keeps her home, it will be assessed at the capped value of $166,707 and she will pay a means tested care fee of $85/day. After 320 days, she will reach her annual cap and stop paying this fee for the remainder of the year and in 2.5 years she will reach her lifetime limit of $65,000.

By keeping her home Dot’s Means Tested Care Fee is around $90/day less than if she sold it.

Inequitable outcomes

If all three retirees live out their lives in aged care, Shirley, as a low means resident, will have just $2/day to cover her living expenses or will need to dip into her limited capital. Dot will keep her $1 million home, $1 million of investments and $50,000 of assets, and her $500,000 RAD will be refunded after she leaves care. She will pay the lifetime limit of $65,000 toward her cost of care. Don, meanwhile, will have lost the entire $100,000 of his RAD within five years. He may still have some investments left, but like Shirley he has needed to draw on his assets to meet his cost of care.

The outcome of the Royal Commission will undoubtedly recommend changes to the cost of providing aged care. The next step will be to ensure that the means testing arrangements share that cost in a way that is equitable.

 

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 for general information only.

 

  •   14 November 2018
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

What the RC, Budget and Keating mean for aged care

Family home no longer the sacred cow

It isn’t just the rich who will pay more for aged care

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

2 billion reasons to fix retirement income

A proposal to address Australia's 'stranded balances' in retirement by requiring super funds to transition members to pension phase at 65, boosting retirement income and reframing super as a source of income.

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Do super funds need a massive wake up call?

UK retirement expert, Guy Opperman, believes super funds are failing at supporting members in deaccumulation. Here is what Australia should do about it. 

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 662 with weekend update

The debate over the budget is increasingly shaped by frustration and perceptions of unfairness, rather than clear-eyed assessment of policy outcomes.

Reforming the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers

As the budget approaches debate continues about the need and method for addressing wealth inequality. Could reinstating wealth transfer taxes be the answer?

Latest Updates

Back to the future - Why indexing CGT is a good idea

A return to indexation of capital gains would be a fairer way to compensate households for the effects of inflation than the current discount. Importantly, it opens the door to future, broader reforms to stop the taxation of inflation.

Australia has no death duties. Technically.

Australia may not levy formal death duties, but a growing web of tax measures is quietly shaping what wealth passes between generations. Now, the 2026 budget adds another layer.

Strategy

The folly of the Iran war

From oil shocks to fractured alliances, the Iran war carries the hallmarks of a historic policy misstep - one that could tip an already fragile global economy into crisis.

Taxation

Noel Whittaker’s take on the budget

Marketed as a fix for inequality and housing affordability, the latest budget instead delivers a tangle of tax changes that leave everyday Australians worse off.

Investment strategies

The red metal's long game

Copper has had a rough few weeks but investors should not ignore the potential for future price increases as supply increasingly falls behind demand.

Taxation

The lesser-known effects of changed property taxes

The budget’s property tax reforms are being framed as fairness measures, but they risk splitting the housing market, penalising lower‑income investors and introducing distortions that may prove costly.

Latest from Morningstar

Why stocks sometimes fall for no obvious reason

The vast and opaque world of private assets is a powerful gravitational force - and when trouble hits, it's the more liquid public equities that often the feel it first.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 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.