Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 8:37:09 GMT 7
How about instead of TAPPING into family's inheritance that the Federal Government use its power of being a sovereign currency nation, that is being the monopoly issuer and creator of the AUD and do its job and fix the aged care crisis. At every opportunity these neoliberals want to take from the people and thereby the economy, when they actually don't need to. - AWN
Tap family home wealth to fix aged care crisis
The abuse, neglect and sub-standard care in Australia’s $18.1 billion aged care system highlighted by the royal commission’s interim report is shameful. But a knee-jerk political cash-splash before Christmas is not a financially sustainable way to ensure that older Australians receive the quality of aged care services that should be expected in such a prosperous, yet ageing society. Instead of ratcheting up government spending again, more of the 1.2 million Australians accessing aged care services – and those to come – should be expected to self-fund more of their care. Older Australians with the housing and other assets to afford it, could draw on this wealth to help pay for the home-based care and support that will let them live safely and independently in their own homes, and stay out of more expensive nursing homes for as long as possible.
In even the best aged care institutions, the basic needs of individuals are always in danger of falling through the cracks, particularly vulnerable residents with major cognitive impairments such as dementia. But imposing new, costly, tick box "safety and quality" standards on the already heavily regulated aged care sector is a flawed fix when overworked staff already spend too much time filling out funding compliance forms instead of caring for residents. Instead, government policy needs to be directed more at keeping the elderly from needing to enter a nursing home.
Older Australians naturally want to stay living at home, a choice the "consumer-directed" home care reforms of 2015 were designed to support. But the impact has been limited by capping the funding "packages" available to contain the overall cost. Hence, those with higher needs requiring more expensive packages are waiting up to a year before being funded, and lack of access may lead to premature entries into a nursing home. This is a false economy when residential care is far more costly to government. But the answer is not to simply throw more funding at home care services as signalled by the Morrison government.
In 2017-18, government funding for residential aged care was $12.2 billion, and the 240,000 individuals in permanent residential care contributed around $4.5 billion, or one-quarter of total funding. This was made up of daily fees to cover living expenses, and accommodation charges: nursing home residents pay a refundable bond, usually financed by the sale of the family home, which is used to contribute to the capital and operational cost of their care. However, the 850,000 recipients of basic federal home support services contributed only 10 per cent of the cost through payment of a daily fee. And the 120,000 people in receipt of the Home Care packages paid income-tested care fees that covered just 6 per cent ($122 million) of the total $2 billion cost.
The system requires people to pay more for, and use housing equity to fund, residential care they don’t necessarily need or want; but does not impose comparable financial demands on those who receive the home care they want to stay at home. Those continuing to live at home can’t sell up. But the home’s value could be tapped through a reverse mortgage arrangement. This would not only allow older Australians to keep living in their proverbial million-dollar homes just as they wish; greater cost-sharing would also make it financially easier for the government to fund more home care packages to support that choice for more people.
The Morrison government’s retirement incomes review has ruled out including the "sacrosanct" family home in the pension asset test. That’s a political judgment that surely will not survive the Baby Boomer retirement bulge. The family home already has been brought into financing arrangements for residential care. There is no genuine reason why housing equity should not be tapped to pay for home care as well. Scott Morrison was keen to avoid the fiscal pressure created by population ageing when he ruled out the NSW government’s proposals for raising or expanding the GST. Ruling ideas out might help the government get to Christmas without scaring the quiet Australians. But there is no Santa Claus who can magically fix the aged care crisis or pay for the cost of ageing.
www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/tap-family-home-wealth-to-fix-aged-care-crisis-20191103-p536x4
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2505101036426582&id=1415019052101458
Tap family home wealth to fix aged care crisis
The abuse, neglect and sub-standard care in Australia’s $18.1 billion aged care system highlighted by the royal commission’s interim report is shameful. But a knee-jerk political cash-splash before Christmas is not a financially sustainable way to ensure that older Australians receive the quality of aged care services that should be expected in such a prosperous, yet ageing society. Instead of ratcheting up government spending again, more of the 1.2 million Australians accessing aged care services – and those to come – should be expected to self-fund more of their care. Older Australians with the housing and other assets to afford it, could draw on this wealth to help pay for the home-based care and support that will let them live safely and independently in their own homes, and stay out of more expensive nursing homes for as long as possible.
In even the best aged care institutions, the basic needs of individuals are always in danger of falling through the cracks, particularly vulnerable residents with major cognitive impairments such as dementia. But imposing new, costly, tick box "safety and quality" standards on the already heavily regulated aged care sector is a flawed fix when overworked staff already spend too much time filling out funding compliance forms instead of caring for residents. Instead, government policy needs to be directed more at keeping the elderly from needing to enter a nursing home.
Older Australians naturally want to stay living at home, a choice the "consumer-directed" home care reforms of 2015 were designed to support. But the impact has been limited by capping the funding "packages" available to contain the overall cost. Hence, those with higher needs requiring more expensive packages are waiting up to a year before being funded, and lack of access may lead to premature entries into a nursing home. This is a false economy when residential care is far more costly to government. But the answer is not to simply throw more funding at home care services as signalled by the Morrison government.
In 2017-18, government funding for residential aged care was $12.2 billion, and the 240,000 individuals in permanent residential care contributed around $4.5 billion, or one-quarter of total funding. This was made up of daily fees to cover living expenses, and accommodation charges: nursing home residents pay a refundable bond, usually financed by the sale of the family home, which is used to contribute to the capital and operational cost of their care. However, the 850,000 recipients of basic federal home support services contributed only 10 per cent of the cost through payment of a daily fee. And the 120,000 people in receipt of the Home Care packages paid income-tested care fees that covered just 6 per cent ($122 million) of the total $2 billion cost.
The system requires people to pay more for, and use housing equity to fund, residential care they don’t necessarily need or want; but does not impose comparable financial demands on those who receive the home care they want to stay at home. Those continuing to live at home can’t sell up. But the home’s value could be tapped through a reverse mortgage arrangement. This would not only allow older Australians to keep living in their proverbial million-dollar homes just as they wish; greater cost-sharing would also make it financially easier for the government to fund more home care packages to support that choice for more people.
The Morrison government’s retirement incomes review has ruled out including the "sacrosanct" family home in the pension asset test. That’s a political judgment that surely will not survive the Baby Boomer retirement bulge. The family home already has been brought into financing arrangements for residential care. There is no genuine reason why housing equity should not be tapped to pay for home care as well. Scott Morrison was keen to avoid the fiscal pressure created by population ageing when he ruled out the NSW government’s proposals for raising or expanding the GST. Ruling ideas out might help the government get to Christmas without scaring the quiet Australians. But there is no Santa Claus who can magically fix the aged care crisis or pay for the cost of ageing.
www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/tap-family-home-wealth-to-fix-aged-care-crisis-20191103-p536x4
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2505101036426582&id=1415019052101458
