In just under three months since the Albanese government’s much-hyped Aged Care Act came into effect, Australian seniors are facing a harsh new reality.
Billed as a “rights-based” overhaul to empower older citizens with dignity and choice, the reforms have instead unleashed a wave of confusion, bureaucracy, and skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of home-delivered meals, a lifeline for many frail elderly who rely on such services to maintain their nutrition and independence at home.
Just over two months into the Support at Home (SAH) program, which replaced the Home Care Packages (HCP), forums and social media are ablaze with stories of inflated prices, inconsistent interpretations, and families forced to choose between essential meals and other basic needs.
The meal delivery mess: Confusion and cost hikes
A recent post on an aged care Facebook forum highlighted the frustration with ordering dinners from a popular meal service for an elderly parent.
Under the old HCP Level 3, the cost was straightforward: a 30% user contribution plus a 10% provider fee. Now, under SAH, it is a murky mess, potentially 30% of the meal cost plus 17.5% on a $20 provider fee per meal.
The service advertises a bundle of 15 meals (five breakfasts, lunches, and dinners) for $99 delivered, equating to about $6.60 per meal. Yet some providers are charging $20 per meal, ballooning the total to $300 for the same package – tripling the original cost.
Even after subsidies, the out-of-pocket hit feels punitive. “No one seems to be able to agree on the cost,” the poster lamented, echoing a chorus of comments from confused users grappling with the cost increases.
This chaos stems directly from the government’s new mandates. SAH requires meals to be priced and claimed on a “per meal” basis, an all-inclusive rate that bundles preparation and delivery and excludes only raw food costs.
Gone are the days of simple bundled invoices under HCP; now, every meal must be itemised separately for government claims, forcing providers into administrative hell. As one commenter explained, the meal service is refusing to change their invoices so providers can automate this, so a human being is entering this manually.
This is why costs are up. Providers, burdened with extra staff to handle the paperwork, pass these costs on, often via surcharges or inflated per-meal rates. One provider in Hobart broke it down: on a $99 package, the client pays $29 (30%), the provider covers $70 from the package, adds a 10% invoice fee ($7), and claims a meagre $5.14 per meal from the government, netting just $7 profit.
But for users, the effective drain on their SAH budget is higher, and with means-tested co-contributions kicking in, out-of-pocket expenses can soar.
The forum comments reveal the human toll. One user described paying $30 on a $100 order, with the provider adding 10% on their $70 share, totalling $77 from the package, still a jump from pre-reform simplicity.
Anonymous participants accused providers of shameful mark-ups, while others suggested stocking up before November 1 or self-purchasing to avoid the rort. “It is so ridiculous,” wrote one commenter. “I could order meals and they make it seem good oh we’re paying 70% oh and a couple of other % as well um why?” Another despaired: “Does this government want them to die?”
These are not isolated gripes; they are symptomatic of a system designed to save the government $18.8 billion over the forward estimates by shifting costs onto seniors, many of whom enter care in their eighties with minimal savings. Only 15% of octogenarians have over $100,000 in super, per expert data.
Fee increases across the board
Leading aged care economist, Kathy Eagar, has been scathing in her assessment of these reforms. She dismisses the “rights-based” rhetoric as a “smokescreen” for ramping up consumer co-payments, arguing that the changes offer no tangible improvements for seniors.
Under SAH, non-clinical services like meal delivery fall into the “everyday living” category, where full pensioners pay 17.5%, part-pensioners face means-tested rates up to 80%, and self-funded retirees bear the full 80% brunt, far higher than the old system’s flat contributions
“We should not be expecting people to choose between a shower or a meal,” Eagar warned, highlighting the unethical nature of these hikes. In the meal delivery context, this means seniors could see their weekly food costs double or triple, forcing them to skip deliveries or opt for cheaper, less nutritious alternatives from supermarkets or Meals on Wheels (which, at $6 per hot meal out-of-pocket, remains a bargain but is not always accessible or suitable).
This meal delivery fiasco is just one thread in a tapestry of devastation. Broader fee increases under SAH compound the pain: gardening rates have leapt from $55 to $90 per hour, with providers pocketing the difference while the service remains unchanged, as one forum commenter noted.
Personal care like showering, now subject to co-payments, has seen hourly fees spike from $68 to $118 for some, forcing reductions in hours or dipping into savings at $1,478 monthly out-of-pocket. Stories like that of a 78-year-old self-funded retiree, whose daily fees tripled to $98.38 despite identical needs, illustrate the inequities. Approved after the September 12, 2024, grandfathering cut-off, she is not “no worse off” as promised, far from it.
Advocates warn of downstream horrors: skipped services leading to falls, infections, social isolation, and premature hospital or residential care admissions, which are exponentially more expensive for taxpayers.
Tough to swallow
Even government-funded advocacy groups have offered only muted defences to the recent aged care reforms, celebrating vague “rights” such as choosing shower times, which were already standard practice.
The Department of Health continues to defend the reforms as necessary for sustainability in an ageing population, ignoring the fragmented and inefficient funding model long criticised by experts.
Sadly, a Medicare-style levy, recommended by the Royal Commission, remains off the table. Why? Because a new perceived tax could get voters offside.
As home care waiting lists stretch to nine or twelve months in some regions and providers morph into debt collectors, the Albanese Government’s reforms stand exposed as a deliberate cost-shift.
Australian seniors are not “cashed-up boomers”. They are ordinary people who deserve dignity in their final years. And when the decision was made to put political preservation over the needs of vulnerable seniors, it was not done on an empty stomach.
