More than 160,000 Australians live in an aged care home. Recent media reports have highlighted inadequate personal care, neglect, abuse and negligence suggesting that the quality of care in some aged care homes is a disgrace.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
During the past decade, privately owned aged care facilities have grown at twice the rate of those in the non-profit sector. Publicly listed companies are now the fastest growing owners of aged care facilities and receive substantial government subsidies.
The changes to Aged Care Funding Instrument announced in the recent budget are intended to help curb a predicted $3.8 billion blowout in government subsidies. The changes will save $1.2 billion.
The Aged Care Guild, a peak body that represent large providers of residential aged care, has described these changes as a "budget cut".
The Aged Care Guild complains that the budget is fuelling uncertainty in the industry and could force a rethink on future investment plans.
Government subsidies in aged care often serve the interests of the providers more than residents. When a resident is reclassified as requiring a higher level of care, the provider receives more money from the government. Staff levels rarely change nor are extra services provided to the resident.
Funding for aged care homes is based on a "terminal decline model" rather than "restorative care". The provider receives additional subsidies when a resident declines. A provider is rewarded for promoting dependency rather than wellness.
Aged care homes requires greater scrutiny, accountability and transparency. We need to feel reassured that government subsidies are being used to improve the quality of life of residents.
Dr Sarah Russell is the Principal Researcher at Research Matters and a former Registered Nurse.
