Paying for aged care - should the family home be counted?

Parliament house flag post

Paying for aged care - should the family home be counted?

Posted 2/05/2012 by Rebecca de Boer

The Government’s Living Longer. Living Better package represents a new way of paying for aged care in Australia. From 1 July 2014, means tested co-payments, annual and lifetime limits for care costs and accommodation bonds for all aged care residents will be introduced. For further detail of the package see here.

One of the long running debates in the financing of aged care in Australia is the treatment of the family home and whether is should be included in any asset or mean-testing calculations when individuals access publicly funded aged care. In its recent report to the Government, the Productivity Commission (PC) put forward two recommendations (7.3 and 8.1) that would draw on the value of the family home to finance the costs associated with aged care.

These were not accepted by the Government in its response to the PC Report. When announcing the aged care reforms, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing argued that the package would ensure that ‘more people get to keep their family home’ and prevent ‘emergency fire sales’. The decision not to include the family home may reflect the Government’s commitment to improving the access to aged care services in the community through additional Home Care packages.

As part of the aged care reforms, aged care providers will be able to charge a bond to all residents and all aged care providers will be able to charge for ‘extra service’ (beyond what is subsidised by the Government). In both instances, the charges must be approved by the Aged Care Financing Authority to be established. These will serve as another source of income for residential aged care providers.

While the introduction of bonds has largely been welcomed by the aged care sector, concerns have been raised that the package will not improve the overall sustainability of the aged care system.

Changes to the financing arrangements for residential aged care

Accommodation bonds are effectively an interest free loan to the aged care provider and are negotiated as part of the entry into residential aged care facilities. They provide an income stream to aged care providers which, as stipulated by legislation, must be used for capital infrastructure and improving the quality and range of services. Aged care providers can also charge a monthly retention amount for five years. Under current arrangements, the bond amount is at the discretion of the provider but residents must be left with a minimum amount of $40 500 in their bank accounts. The average bond in 2010–11 was $248 850, with significant variation across the sector.

From 1 July 2014, all aged care residents will pay a bond. The amount will require approval from the Aged Care Financing Authority and must be publicly available to prospective residents. The monthly retention amount has been abolished. After entering residential aged care older Australians will have a set period (defined in the legislation) in which they can decide how they will pay their bond. As is the case now, there will be three options: lump sum amount, periodic payment or a combination of both. This is likely to improve the transparency and accountability of aged care bonds. Some advocates have been arguing for the introduction of bonds for all aged care residents for many years and this aspect of the announcement has been welcomed. However, support for bonds is not universal, and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (NSW) have commenced a campaign against bonds.

The Government will also raise the subsidy for residents who are unable to meet the costs of their accommodation. This will be increased from $32.58 to around $50 per day (in 2014). However, this supplement will only be paid to aged care facilities that built or significantly refurbished after the announcement of these reforms. Concerns have already been raised that the increased subsidy will be insufficient for new infrastructure or to address regional cost differences.

While the increase in aged care packages and additional funding has been welcomed by the sector, it remains to be seen whether this will be sufficient to meet the current shortfall in residential aged care. In the last Aged Care Approval Round, there was a lack of applications for residential aged care. Industry reports suggest that under the current arrangements the subsidy is well short of the cost of providing aged care services (the additional payment will apply from1 July 2014) and it is not clear whether the new arrangements will address this. Some providers argue that they will be worse off as a result.

The Government’s residential aged care package has been described as a ‘band-aid’, partly because of the pressure that the aged care sector is currently under and partly because the proposed reforms do not change the underlying structure of aged care financing. Like community care, limits remain on the number of residential aged care packages thus restricting future growth of the sector. In deciding not to pursue the family home as a source of finance for aged care, the Government has ignored a significant source of future funding. With some arguing that the proposed reforms may compromise equity and lead to higher copayments, aged care lobby groups have (again) renewed their call for the family home to be used as a way for individuals to pay for aged care.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




immigration refugees elections taxation asylum Parliament criminal law election results Australian Bureau of Statistics social security disability citizenship Indigenous Australians political parties United Kingdom UK Parliament Census statistics banking early childhood education Middle East Australian foreign policy OECD Australian Electoral Commission voting mental health Employment military history by-election election timetable China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Productivity Defence income management asylum seekers High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Senate ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories leadership aid Papua New Guinea emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding Electoral reform politics refugees immigration asylum Canada procurement Australian Public Service firearms Indigenous health constitution High Court e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament women 2015 International Women's Day public policy ABS Population Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade skilled migration Private health insurance Medicare Financial sector EU national security fuel China soft power education violence against women domestic violence Fiji India Disability Support Pension disability employment welfare reform Tasmania Antarctica China Diplomacy Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Sport ASADA Federal Court WADA ADRV by-elections state and territories terrorism terrorist groups Bills corruption anti-corruption integrity fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform science innovation research and development transport standards Afghanistan Australian Defence Force NATO United States social media Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism higher education Higher Education Loan Program HECS welfare policy pensions social services welfare ASIO Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Australian Secret Intelligence Service intelligence community Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors labour force workers

Show all
Show less
Back to top