I’m not debating whether the system is “fleecing” or not. I’m not disagreeing with you about whether affordability is different in other countries. I’m not arguing about whether the system is convoluted or whether the way different providers package their services leads to an “apples and oranges” situation
because you are right (well not sure about the fleecing since that’s an emotive response to what is clearly a problem)
the views I’ve expressed on this thread are a response - just like everyone else’s . Australia is awash with reports and research on the sector. The problem is not that we don’t have information but no one has apparently been able to absorb it and deal with what has been made a complex issue. At the heart of the problem is funding. Governments make decisions about where they will spend money raised through taxes and no government has prioritised aged care. It has always been a non sexy, low priority recipient of funds. It doesn’t catch votes. It’s regulated in some areas and not others. The funding guidelines are these
this is the instrument used to help evaluate how much funding gets allocated for what. It is complex and in some areas downright weird in the assumptions it makes about levels of care required. It is reviewed regularly and those reviews are one of the mechanisms by which funding becomes circumscribed by government to balance THEIR budget - not yours.
that funding mechanism influences staffing levels and the numbers providers have of different types of staff.
The post on bonds was intended to show where some of the future financial risks lie for the sector. If you have people dying and/or elderly removed from these homes then bond refunds are going to impact cash flow. So is the reduction in funds flowing in from the federal government because the number of residents has reduced. It’s that simple. Expect the current crisis to have flow on financial effects and possible collapse of many providers.
this is a federal system. The funding is a federal decision. The training requirements are under the Australian qualification system - federally defined. We run a mix of private (for profit) and not for profit. Guess what you get.
let’s look at the latter. Dementia care is not part of the core curriculum despite the bulk of people in residential facilities experiencing some level of dementia. it’s a specialist set of skills. Health care workers experience a high proportion of work place injury and abuse and some of this comes from dementia residents who may be acting out because their needs aren’t being met (communicating the only way they can) or the part of their brain the controls impulses or aggression is affected.
Yet the sector also preaches consumer centred care. To achieve that with dementia residents requires an approach quite different from the funding model and from the training model. Dealing well with dementia requires time - not harassed care workers trying to fit too much into too little time
australia also has all the data it needs to pick out and model the best systems.
the problem is going to be whether there is the political will to fix it rather than paper over the cracks, do a bit of window dressing or blame others.
it lies fairly and squarely in the hands of the federal government. Do you think they give a stuff about your mother? Or the impact on you? It would be nice if the answer were “they do”. I suspect the answer is different
