Industry Warns: Aged Care Bill May Not Achieve Goal of Encouraging People to Stay Home

The Senate Committee on Aged Care Reforms heard testimonies from notable aged care providers, revealing worries about the proposed Aged Care Bill.

While the reforms are generally welcomed, many providers are alarmed about the practical challenges of implementing these changes, particularly in rural and regional areas.

Their insights shed light on deep-rooted issues, such as staffing shortages, regulatory complexities, funding inadequacies, and the impact of the new “Support at Home” program.

In September, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a $9.9 billion aged care package, with $5.6 billion allocated for reforms and $4.3 billion for home support, effective from July 1, 2025.

Covering 100 percent of clinical care services with taxpayers’ money, the package also includes raising the lifetime contribution cap for non-clinical care from $78,000 to $130,000 to alleviate seniors from incurring additional costs.

Despite the significant progress the proposed Aged Care Bill represents in addressing long-standing sector challenges, these testimonies suggest that unresolved obstacles could hinder the potential improvements in care crucial for older Australians.

Challenges with the ‘Support at Home’ Program

Starting from July 1, 2025, the new Support at Home program is set to replace the existing Home Care Packages and Short-Term Restorative Care programs, providing more client-centered services emphasizing flexibility and access to a wider range of services.

However, representatives are concerned about the feasibility of transitioning to the new program, fearing an increased demand for residential care instead of supporting individuals to age in place, as intended.

“The proposed limitation of one hour per week for domestic services raises questions about the adequacy of the term ’support’,” Sheldon-Stemm commented.

Providers also highlighted the intricate transition that will entail upgrading IT systems, training staff, and updating client care plans.

Stephanie Buckland, CEO of Amana Living, elaborated on the time and resources needed for these changes.

“We estimate needing at least 12 months to implement the ‘Support at Home’ program once all details are finalized. This includes retraining thousands of staff, adapting IT systems, and updating client care plans,” she emphasized, underscoring the necessity of clear timelines from the government.

Staffing Shortages

One of the primary concerns raised was the lack of qualified personnel, especially registered nurses (RNs), and the bill’s failure to acknowledge enrolled nurses (ENs) as qualified nursing professionals.

Providers highlighted the estimated shortage of 10,000 to 20,000 RNs in the aged care sector, significantly straining service delivery, particularly in rural regions.

Mark Sheldon-Stemm, a prominent consultant and CEO of aged care service Valley View, discussed the challenges of meeting the bill’s staffing requirements under current conditions.

“Many rural providers struggle to recruit RNs and heavily rely on ENs for nursing care. The Act should recognize both registered and enrolled nurses as part of the nursing workforce,” he asserted.

Roulé Jones, CEO of retirement village services Bethanie, emphasized the difficulty rural aged care facilities will face in meeting the bill’s staffing targets without recognizing ENs.

“Failure to include ENs in the Act may result in significant gaps in care provision in remote areas where recruiting RNs is extremely challenging,” she added.

Regulatory Burden Diverting Resources from Care

Providers also expressed concerns about the escalating regulatory burden diverting resources from direct care.

They criticized the bill’s requirements for extensive reporting as time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Residential aged care facilities need to collect 1,236 pieces of information for the Quality Commission’s accreditation processes, while home care providers must submit 1,092 pieces of evidence.

Sheldon-Stemm condemned the regulatory framework as “bureaucratic box-ticking” that does not enhance care quality.

“The proposed regulatory system is destined to fail. Excessive evidence collection does not ensure enhanced care quality in aged care facilities,” he stated.

Other providers echoed this sentiment, highlighting that the emphasis on compliance distracts from providing actual care.

They raised concerns that increasing compliance requirements would consume frontline care staff’s time.

They argued that the additional administrative load risks diverting attention from the core mission of aged care: delivering personalized, high-quality care to older Australians.

Funding Shortfalls for Regional and Remote Areas

Providers also criticized the current funding model, particularly the Modified Monash Model, for inadequately considering the additional costs of operating in regional and remote areas.

Higher operational expenses in these areas due to travel costs and staffing shortages often go unaddressed by the current funding structure.

Stressing the need for increased home care package values and pricing caps in regional areas to accommodate these additional costs, Buckland urged for adjustments.

“We are worried that the competitive grants program for regional services may not sufficiently cover the extra expenses. The funding model should consider travel costs and other expenditures in rural areas,” she emphasized.

Providers also emphasized the importance of capital investments to renovate aging facilities and meet the rising demand for residential aged care.

They called for grants and low-interest loans to support developments, particularly in rural areas.