Aged Care Bill May Not Encourage People to Stay Home as Intended, Industry Warns

Volodymyr Baleha/Shutterstock

The Senate Committee on Aged Care Reforms heard testimonies from prominent aged care providers, unveiling concerns regarding the proposed Aged Care Bill.

While the reforms are largely embraced, many providers have raised alarms about the practical challenges of implementing these changes, especially in rural and regional areas.

Their insights reveal deep-seated issues, including 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, including $5.6 billion for reforms and $4.3 billion for home support, effective from July 1, 2025.

Taxpayers will cover 100 percent of clinical care services, while the lifetime contribution cap for non-clinical care will rise from $78,000 to $130,000, ensuring seniors incur no additional costs.

Though the proposed Aged Care Bill marks a significant move towards addressing longstanding sector challenges, these testimonies highlight that unresolved obstacles could jeopardise the potential improvements in care that older Australians urgently need.

Challenges with the ‘Support at Home’ Program

From July 1, 2025, the new Support at Home program will replace the existing Home Care Packages and Short-Term Restorative Care programs. The program is expected to be more client-centred and prioritises flexibility and access to a broader range of services.

But representatives worry about the viability of the transition to the new program. This, they argue, will increase demand for residential care instead of supporting people to remain in their homes, as intended.

“The proposed limits of one hour a week for domestic services raise questions about whether the term ’support' is appropriate,” Sheldon-Stemm said.

Providers also highlighted the complex transition that will involve upgrading IT systems, retraining staff, and updating care plans for clients.

Stephanie Buckland, CEO of Amana Living, explained that the changes would require significant time and resources.

“We will need at least 12 months to implement the ‘Support at Home’ program, once all details are finalised. This includes retraining thousands of staff, adapting IT systems, and updating client care plans,” she noted, stressing the importance of clear timelines from the government.

Staffing Shortages

One of the major issues raised was the shortage of qualified staff, particularly registered nurses (RNs), as well as the bill’s failure to recognise enrolled nurses (ENs) as qualified nursing professionals.

Providers pointed out that the estimated shortage of between 10,000 to 20,000 RNs in the aged care sector is creating a severe strain on service delivery, particularly in rural areas.

Mark Sheldon-Stemm, a leading consultant and CEO of aged care service Valley View, commented on the difficulties of meeting the staffing requirements set by the bill under the current circumstances.

“Many rural providers are unable to recruit RNs and rely heavily on ENs to provide nursing care. The Act should recognise both registered and enrolled nurses as part of the nursing workforce,” he said.

Roulé Jones, CEO of retirement village services Bethanie, stressed that rural aged care facilities will struggle to meet the staffing targets set by the bill without recognising ENs.

“If the Act does not make allowances for the inclusion of ENs, we risk seeing significant gaps in care coverage in remote areas where recruiting RNs is extremely difficult,” she added.

Regulatory Burden Diverting Resources from Care

Another recurring concern raised by the providers was the increasing regulatory burden that is diverting resources away from direct care.

The bill’s provisions demand extensive reporting, which providers argue is both time-consuming and resource-draining.

For residential aged care facilities, 1,236 pieces of information need to be collected to meet the Quality Commission’s accreditation processes. Similarly, home care providers are required to submit 1,092 pieces of evidence.

Sheldon-Stemm criticised the regulatory framework as “bureaucratic box ticking” that fails to improve the quality of care.

He stated, “The regulatory system proposed is doomed to failure. The overwhelming evidence collection does not guarantee improved quality on the floor of aged care facilities.”

The sentiment was echoed by other providers, who believe the focus on compliance is detracting from their ability to focus on actual care delivery.

Providers also raised concerns that the increasing compliance requirements would take time away from frontline care staff.

The additional administrative burden, they argue, risks diverting attention from the core mission of aged care: providing personalised, high-quality care to older Australians.

Funding Shortfalls for Regional and Remote Areas

Providers also criticised the current funding model, particularly the Modified Monash Model, which does not reflect the additional costs of operating in regional and remote areas.

Travel costs and staffing shortages in these areas often lead to higher operational expenses, which are not adequately addressed by the current funding structure.

Buckland urged for an increase in the value of home care packages and pricing caps in regional areas to account for these additional costs.

“We are concerned that the competitive grants program for regional services may not be enough to cover the extra costs. Travel to clients and other expenses in rural areas need to be factored into the funding model,” she said.

Providers also emphasised the need for capital investment to refurbish ageing facilities and meet the growing demand for residential aged care.

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