With the implementation of the new Aged Care Act only two months away, a 79-year-old pensioner revealed to HelloCare that voluntary assisted dying may be his most appealing option in response to the Government’s co-payment requirements for Support at Home.
This chilling sentiment, shared in response to an article by self-funded retiree Peter Wilcocks, exemplifies the palpable sense of dread spreading among Australia’s elderly who require support to stay in their own home.
The Act’s introduction of co-payments for essential home care services like showering, dressing, and cleaning threatens to force large cohorts of seniors into impossible financial decisions, eroding their independence and dignity. As the deadline approaches, many worry the reforms prioritise profit over people, pushing vulnerable older Australians toward residential care or worse, leaving them feeling betrayed by a system meant to support them.
The Support at Home program will require co-payments based on pension status, income, and assets. Full pensioners face 5% contributions for “independence services” like showering and 17.5% for “everyday living” support like cleaning, while self-funded retirees could pay up to 50% and 80% respectively. For those on fixed incomes, these costs are daunting.
Peter Wilcocks, who lives with the late effects of childhood polio, warns, “This approach risks stripping people of their money and dignity, forcing many into privatised residential care.” His words echo the fears of seniors who see the system as punishing vulnerability rather than fostering independence.
Imagine Ellen, an 80-year-old full pensioner in Perth, surviving on a $572.20 weekly pension. Needing help with showering and housework, she could face co-payments of $50 per week, nearly 10% of her income. To cover this, Ellen might skip meals or delay medical visits, risking malnutrition or infections.
An elderly HelloCare commenter voiced a similar concern: “What country with any human decency places their seniors in a position where suicide is a potential option or choice in lieu of accepting the multiple substandards of aged care?” The prospect of choosing between basic care and survival is a growing fear.
The Act’s restrictions extend to home modifications, capped at a lifetime limit of $15,000, with another $15,000 for assistive technology. Wilcocks notes that the previous system allowed saving package funds for essential upgrades like ramps or accessible showers, but now, with only $1,000 carry-over permitted per quarter, such options are nearly impossible.
“By not enabling older people to stay at home longer, the new restrictive home support system will create a nation burdened by nursing homes instead of a country that respects and values its elders,” he argues. A commenter agreed, stating, “The system is totally unfair, we all paid taxes for many years.”
The misconception that seniors are wealthy fuels further frustration. With nearly 60% of those over 65 relying on the age pension, often less than $30,000 annually, even small co-payments can be crippling. One HelloCare reader, a podiatrist, shared, “I see people every day who are hopeful they will die before they have to enter into aged care.” Another wrote, “I would like to choose my own death, rather than going into an aged care home.”
These comments reflect a deep mistrust in a system that is still being touted as a way to keep seniors at home for longer..
Consider Tom, a 77-year-old part-pensioner in regional Queensland with $12,000 in savings and a superannuation income of $40,000. Needing 10 hours of weekly support for showering, meal preparation, and transport, he could face co-payments of $7,500 annually, nearly a fifth of his income. Unable to sustain this, Tom might forgo care, risking falls or hospitalisations that cost taxpayers more.
As one commenter noted, “The new Aged Care Act will not improve rights for older people or empower them.” The fear of being forced into residential care, where “people live appallingly,” as another commenter put it, looms large.
The Act’s failure to adopt the 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety’s call for a levy-funded, equitable system intensifies the outrage.
Wilcocks states, “The ACRC envisioned a different future: a new Act ensuring universal access to high-quality care, free of fees, rooted in the dignity of the individual.” Instead, the government’s model, influenced by industry insiders, has been branded a “national disgrace” by commenters.
One wrote, “Where there is money, there is corruption, governments allow corruption by failing to simplify legislations.” Another added, “The ageing population is growing, throwing money around in the wrong places doesn’t help those requiring help.”
As 1 November 2025 approaches, seniors are bracing for a system that seems to betray the Royal Commission’s promise of dignity. Wilcocks’ call to exempt pensioners from co-payments and restore human oversight resonates with those who feel “they would like us dead,” as one commenter starkly put it.
The Aged Care Act risks forcing older Australians into unbearable choices: unaffordable care or a loss of independence. With two months to go, the fear is palpable, will Australia’s elders be left to fend for themselves in a system that values their dollars over their dignity?
