Albanese campaigned on fixing aged care, then sold out seniors for political survival

Well, we are finally here. The new Aged Care Act, with all of its insidious bells and whistles, is upon us. Seven years on from the announcement of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety that brought hope to so many, we now stand at a precipice.

Despite a multitude of warnings from financial experts, aged care advocates, providers, Australian seniors, and even the Governor General of Aged Care, the Albanese government opted to embrace the only opinion that it ever cared about: its own. It is as if they consulted a mirror instead of the masses, and the reflection nodded back with electoral approval. What a pity the seniors relying on this system cannot vote themselves a better deal.

When the aged care sector’s lobby groups were consulted during the development of the Act, a high-profile Minister made the government’s intentions known: ‘We are happy to hear what you have to say, but don’t recommend a levy.” Sadly, this was the precise funding method the Royal Commission recommended after extensive research and consultation, a shared contribution across the working population, perhaps starting at age 40 or 45, akin to the Medicare levy.

But the Albanese government bypassed that, amplifying the minor recommendations they did implement while ignoring the most meaningful change. Why? A levy risked alienating voters under 60, preoccupied with housing and daily pressures. Seniors, by contrast, are often overlooked, their concerns fading from public discourse. 

This avoidance was no oversight; it was deliberate. The government prioritised political expediency over equitable funding, shifting the financial strain onto the vulnerable. Support at Home, marketed in polished campaigns as enabling longer, happier lives at home, exemplifies this calculated misdirection. In truth, it is a bear trap disguised as a stepping stone.

The 2023 Aged Care Taskforce, steered by Minister Wells, leaned on a $396,000 Kantar Public survey where only 9 per cent of respondents understood the changes, yet it was used to justify co-contributions for Support at Home. Briefings sparked anger among seniors once realities emerged, but ministers remained wedded to the idea.

The co-payment structure ensures clinical care remains free, but independence services like personal care require up to 50 per cent contributions, and everyday living aids such as cleaning or shopping demand up to 80 per cent for self-funded retirees. Pensioners face 17.5 per cent for everyday services, with part-pensioners paying more based on means. The top $78,000 package includes these contributions, not additional funds, potentially costing individuals $30,000 or more yearly.

The outcomes are predictable and, crucially, intentional. Seniors will forgo essential services, risking infections from skipped hygiene support or falls from unaided tasks. Accompanied shopping, vital for social connection, becomes unaffordable, fostering isolation and mental health decline. Reassessments for changing needs drag on for months, leaving individuals exposed during health crises.

Unspent funds carry over at a mere 10 per cent, insufficient for fluctuating requirements. Palliative care funding ends after four months, withdrawing aid at the most critical juncture. Caps on restorative care spots delay interventions that could prevent deterioration. Providers, capped at 10 per cent for care management, become unwilling debt collectors, pursuing payments from clients who cannot afford them. Regional services may collapse under unrecoverable debts and administrative burdens.

These flaws are not unintended consequences; they are collateral damage in a system designed to cut costs at seniors’ expense. The government’s $18.8 billion savings projection is illusory, as hospitalisations and premature residential care, far costlier, will surge – but that’s a problem for future administrations. 

The Single Assessment System compounds the issues, with privatised assessments inviting conflicts of interest. Providers evaluating needs while profiting from services risk biased outcomes. Assessors receive minimal training, leading to delays and errors that exacerbate vulnerabilities, particularly in rural areas.

After eight years covering the aged care sector for HelloCare, I have never felt so deflated. We devoted much of this year to amplifying the most respected voices across our news platforms, ringing alarm bells about the impending disaster, yet all warnings fell on deaf ears.

When criticism of this Aged Care Act becomes an election talking point, do not let politicians plead ignorance. They made the conscious and deliberate decision to sacrifice the well-being of seniors to curry favour with younger voters who don’t yet realise that their future just got a lot harder and that they may have lost their inheritance.