sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

A looming crisis means New Zealand must rethink how it pays for aged care, Claire Dale says

Public Policy / opinion
A looming crisis means New Zealand must rethink how it pays for aged care, Claire Dale says
ac
The aged care sector in New Zealand is facing a funding and staffing crisis. Maskot/Getty Images.

By Claire Dale*

The recent submissions to parliament’s Health Select Committee makes one thing clear: a crisis looms for the aged care sector in New Zealand.

This crisis centres on the funding and staffing of residential aged care (ARC) and in-home care and support services.

But to address the problem, the government doesn’t have to look far. Australia has changed how the sector is funded, calling on wealthier members of society to pay a fairer share of the costs.

New Zealanders in aged care

Last year, an estimated 32,000 people were in residential aged care. A means-tested government-funded residential care subsidy pays for most of the cost of care for those who qualify – around 63% of ARC residents.

The eligibility threshold for the ARC subsidy is total assets of NZ$284,636 or less for a couple aged 65 or older. New Zealand superannuation, the universal age pension, pays the remainder and provides a modest weekly spending allowance.

Those whose assets exceed the threshold pay for their own care, increasingly in “care suites”. These beds, only available to those who can afford the cost, reduce what is available for subsidised residents, raising equity issues.

In 2022/23 Health NZ contributed $1.352 billion to ARC providers. Residents’ fees contributed a further $1.1 billion.

During the same period, around 80,000 people aged over 65 years, with a community services card or suffering from a long term condition, accessed home support services (at a cost of $2 billion). These services included personal care, cooking, cleaning and respite care. Personal care services were not income or asset tested.

Reviewing aged care

In July 2023, Health NZ launched a review of funding and service models for aged care services.

The purpose of the review is to provide recommendations that will ensure equity of access and outcomes for older people across New Zealand, while balancing the need for a cost-effective system.

Phase One of the review was completed in late December 2023. The report identified five key issues and no surprises:

  • aged residential care and home and community support services are under-funded
  • the funding models used to distribute funding to the sector are not fit for purpose
  • there are material ethnic inequities in accessing aged care services
  • the aged care sector continues to face significant workforce pressures
  • issues with aged care are exacerbated in regional and rural New Zealand.

Phase Two is to develop recommendations for service and funding models that will result in a more integrated care model, efficient use of resources, and fit-for-purpose regulatory and funding regimes.

Despite the government’s demand for $1.4 billion in savings from Health NZ, Seniors Minister Casey Costello says the government is not intending spending cuts in aged care.

A recent survey found that 56% of respondents’ ARC facilities made a net loss in the 2022/23 financial year.

Inadequate funding has caused some retirement village providers to scale down the number of ARC beds in their care facilities. Many smaller providers have closed beds, or closed their doors for good.

Further, due to the acute shortage of registered nurses in 2023, over 1,000 beds were closed permanently and 1,200 closed temporarily. Unsurprisingly, Health NZ estimates a shortage of 12,000 residential care beds within eight years.

Yet underfunding of the sector is clearly a false economy. The cost of hospital-level care in ARC facilities is less than a quarter of bed-day cost in a public hospital medical ward.

As Aged Care Commissioner Carolyn Cooper states in a recent report:

Critically, there is a lack of dedicated strategy and planning for the health needs of an ageing population.

A shared crisis

The crisis in aged care is not limited to New Zealand.

The Australian government has just completed a review of the sector and adopted the aged care taskforce’s 23 recommendations.

One major change is requiring wealthier people to contribute more to the overall costs instead of relying on taxpayers subsidies.

The urgency of this change is driven by the reality that over half of all aged care homes in Australia are not financially viable. Providers need sufficient revenue to cover the costs of the services they deliver. Every facility that closes reduces the availability of residential care for older people.

The Australian government will continue to pay 100% of clinical care services, while more means-testing arrangements for everyday living and non-clinical care costs will ensure those who have the assets are self-funding their care.

Taxpayer funding will ensure those without assets still have access to the care they need.

These changes will improve the financial viability of care providers, and will also improve intergenerational equity by reducing the taxpayers’ burden.

An impossible burden

New Zealand could learn from the Australian example. Stats NZ projects the proportion of people aged 65+ will reach 20% of the population by 2028. In four years, there could be 30 people aged 65+ years for every 100 people aged 15–64 years.

Older people are high users of health services, and the bulk of aged care and support is currently taxpayer-funded. Without a change in the funding model, an increasingly impossible burden will be placed on working-age citizens.

The sector review needs to ensure wealthier users of aged care services contribute appropriately. Intergenerational equity needs to be considered in any redesign of the provision of aged care.The Conversation


*Claire Dale, Research Fellow, the Pensions and Intergenerational Equity (PIE) research hub, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

38 Comments

The super fund needs to be supercharged and expanded to help with future elder care costs.

Keeping people healthy for longer needs to be made a priority, URGENTLY. Yes, this may mean curtailing some freedoms to save people from themselves.

How we treat out elderly is a barometer for our society, we're not doing well. Mabye the changing demographic will help here, Asian/ south Asian cultures pay more respect to the elderly.

Up
2

Asian cultures are generally more respectful across the board.  If their elderly behaved even a fraction of how our Western elderly do, I suspect their youth would harbour a similar resentment.

If elders in this country have an issue with respect, they should do a bit of self reflecting and just live with it because resentment and lack of respect is not something people are born with.  

Up
10

That's a lot of generalizing right there. Lots of intra-family tension in Japan (for example) about caring for elderly people too. 

Up
1

Your comment is somewhat in agreeance with me then.  That lack of respect for the elderly is in fact not a cultural thing, but the resentment (as per my original comment) is from the way people treat each other.  

In summary, if the elderly have an issue with lack of respect they should look in the mirror.  

Up
1

Start with a hoofing great tax on sugar ( offset taxes collected to give all NZ'rs free dental care ) ... 

Up
6

Putting more money into the Superfund will not increase the total amount of wealth in NZ in the future.  It will simply mean that a higher proportion of that total wealth is earmarked for elder care, and so not available for spending by and on the non-aged population, eg on education, infrastructure, child protection etc.  It doesn't address the problem of increasing costs at all

 

 

Up
4

The entitled NZ boomer generation are about to get what’s coming for them when they lose the last of their political power. And it’s not respect.

Up
1

Every generation generally has something negative to say about their children's generation. 

The difference with the Boomers is they're the first generation in a long line to really try undermine basic living standards for the next generation in the pursuit of financial prosperity, while simultaneously suggesting that it's successive generation's fault for being "too frivolous".  

That's why they're despised.  

Up
1

Sounds like a 'nice-to-have' like that Ferrari.

Up
3

We don't pay for it, as we will never ever be able to afford it.

What we do, is we go back to multigenerational living arrangements.

We also need to accept that life does indeed end, and that we shouldn't try and keep people alive past their natural expiry.

Up
2

Is it sustainable to expend more in the last six months than in the previous sixty years on medical expenses, just to eke out that last six months of existence? (Not life, but existence.) 

Is a retirement village that charges $7,500 a month good for intergenerational wealth preservation in families? (Are you prepared to look after your parents in their twilight years? Especially when senility and a stroke reduce them to diapers and the need for constant supervision?) 

Up
2

With most households now requiring 2 full time incomes the option of care in the home (multi generational or not) is mostly not available once care needs reach the level of constant companionship.

Up
4

Also, the huge numbers of new builds that don't have separate living or the space to add them on. 

I'm willing to bet there are far fewer homes being built with granny flats than there used to be. 

Up
2

Older people are high users of health services, and the bulk of aged care and support is currently taxpayer-funded. Without a change in the funding model, an increasingly impossible burden will be placed on working-age citizens.

The sector review needs to ensure wealthier users of aged care services contribute appropriately. Intergenerational equity needs to be considered in any redesign of the provision of aged care.

Same goes for the pension. I still have to chuckle that the generation that needs the care the most all at once, failed to plan as a society to manage the costs and resources associated with the increase in demand in their time of need. It's like musical chairs, with everyone clamouring over each other, pushing each other down to get a seat, then smugly looking around once they get one, only to have the seats pulled out form under them before any winner or loser is announced and being left in the room as equals. 

Up
8

"Those whose assets exceed the threshold pay for their own care, increasingly in “care suites”. These beds, only available to those who can afford the cost, reduce what is available for subsidised residents, raising equity issues"

This is illogical. These people paying are paying the market price. Rather than reducing what is available for subsidised residents, total number of beds supplied expands. I can only assume the author has as tenuous a grasp on economics as the average Green party member. Was enjoying the read until I saw this. Please take NCEA level 1 economics. Sad :(

Up
3

Sounds more like you are assuming unlimited resources so the only restraint is the ability to pay. Economics is great at assuming that.

Up
1

These beds, only available to those who can afford the cost, reduce what is available for subsidised residents, raising equity issues.

This doesn't make much sense. If they couldn't afford a care suite, they'd still need a bed right? If anything those paying their own way surely reduces the strain on public funding. As buyandhodl notes, its not like the number of spaces is fixed, over the long term more money (either private or through the ARC subsidy) incentivises more quantity of supply. 

Up
4

It makes sense to the providers however...self funders will pay a minimum of 200-300 p/w more than the government subsidised rate....if you have excess demand, who are you going to prioritise to fill it?

 

Up
1

This overlooks the cause of the problem.  To prosper a polity needs a young, dynamic population. Young families need infrastructure, schools and so on, and earn the money out of which taxes are taken to fund these things. Many consequent economic benefits follow. But young households with children tend not to form in large enough numbers when housing is too expensive; there is a direct cause and effect.  Without enough new, young, households you get an imbalance of older ones and problems of the kind in this article.

Housing is expensive because the discount rate is too low, as has been for many years. This has occurred by the state, in the form of the reserve bank, distorting the natural (market) rate as the only means of keeping a lid on the commercial banks creating money (credit). Such an artificial distortion causes others. Everything is connected to everything else, as a wise man once said, and interest most certainly gets into everything.

Distorting downward the cost of money over time, distorts upward the price of assets bought with money required to be repaid over time. Which is pretty much all of it.  And has done every time those controlling a polity have tried it. The assets affected include houses. QED.

Up
3

"In an interview with TVNZ's Jack Tame, Labour's Chris Hipkins mislead Tame & five million New Zealanders about the economic implications of population ageing, which he states requires imposing capital & asset taxes..."

https://www.downtoearth.kiwi/post/labour-chief-hipkins-must-be-held-to-…

 

Up
1

"...requires imposing capital & asset taxes..."

How will families accumulate inter-generational wealth so that they can pay for the education, healthcare, and retirement of their members without having to go cap in hand to the government?

Are we forever to be dependent on the taxpayer? Does the Labour government want everyone to be dependent upon the State? 

Up
1

Yes, yes, that is exactly what they want. Dependency means leverage and leverage means votes.

Up
2

+1

Up
0

…..or we could say…yip yip, that’s what it is.

Up
1

Exactly. That's why National repealed Labour's contributory superannuation scheme in 1975. Particularly the loss of productive investment because of this stupidity is killing us. And National now wants to increase productivity by increasing speed on some roads. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. 

Up
3

I guess going back 50 years is relevant.

Up
1

I don't agree with roads, as the more they build, the more will drive and the same issue repeats around 3 election cycles later. Better to leave the roads clogged and fund better alternatives, that way people adopt them more readily and the cultural view around public transport changes on a greater scale. People would use it from common sense alone if they found that it shaved 10min off their commute, didn't require concentration, and they got a bit of fresh air in walking form the station to the office etc.

Up
0

'Logans Run' has a good solution. Great fun for the youths and no worries about age care costs and pensions.

Up
5

30 years old?....most would be barely out of uni.

Up
1

Let's not be like Holland where 9500 people mostly the old were euthanized last year. Older people need to be treasured. 

Up
0

Euthanised by their own choice. Who are we to tell them how they should end, when they could rot away with the likes of dementia and forget all they know and love. It is their life, their body, it should always be their choice. 

Up
2

This important issue is always and wrongly described in terms of statistics showing more people over the age of 65. Over simplifying. In fact if we all lived heathily for 130 years and then had current aged care problems then there would be double the potential finance to pay for the care. We do live longer and that is good. 

The real problem is the success of modern medicine. I'm only alive because of modern heart medicine and my wife survived a cancer that killed her sister 20 years ago. Both of us are currently healthy but we are likely to live into decreptitude and need aged care. A problem we would not have faced if we had died quickly with heart attack and aggressive cancer.

Up
2

I like the objective perspective you take. Too many fear death and avoid the thought like the plague, when it is a guaranteed eventuality we must all face.

Up
1

We have Working for Families, a form of per child tax break.  Not saying I like it (as it seems a wage subsidy in many respects; or a cost-of-living compensator), but nonetheless many families who qualify rely on this additional income to pay for basic needs (food, accommodation, etc.).

If you take in an elder relative, aside from them getting their pension, there are no tax breaks (that I know of) for assisting with their care (food, accommodation, etc.).

Perhaps there should be?  In-home care is always going to be far, far less expensive than institutional care. And multi-generational living is good for families and society more generally, as long as it is affordable..

Up
1

Australia just announced their cross party plans for future aged care including provision for increased in home care

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/aged-care-reforms/roadmap

 

Up
2

A delaying tactic we implemented years ago.

Up
2

This actually has a significant burden on the clients and their families for a huge benefit to the govt. The govt does not have to provide say, building services/maintenance & most accessible housing costs while most of that financial burden, which increases significantly as people age in their own homes, is now pushed back onto the families. Just compare the cost even of mowing a lawn and putting in a level entry & accessible bathroom suitable for the needs of someone with joint issues & falls risk and their carer support.

People quickly learn how valuable accessible housing is (that is maintained by others) once they have significant joint injuries, falls, or have to go through stroke recovery. Its not like you can climb up stairs with a walker when you struggle to stay upright in the first place or how to push a vacuum & mop when you cannot even use your hands to cook for yourself and have to relearn even how to smile.

In addition home carer support is already at much reduced hours compared to residential as there is significant training time also required for each new client environment for every worker, along with safety reqs & care plan training. This is continual as they swap workers regularly with the pay being so bad it actually would be a significant improvement to work in a supermarket checkout, hospitality as a waiter or at Mc Donalds. In addition most the tasks covered in a retirement village or rest home are not even funded by the government in home support. So already the human resource costs and staff time funding required by govt is more then halved and those costs fall on clients and their families (as the needs for those tasks don't change but now they have to find a way to cover the new unfunded costs even though they physically cannot). Note you cannot just have retirees move to apartments and expect carer support as there is No Staff or Visitor Parking in most apartments so if you think you will find carer support that wants or can travel to apartment dwellers regularly you will be in for a sharp shock. Especially as more street parking is being removed and the time spent finding parking or traveling is also out of the carer support time available.

So the changes are really great for the Ausi govt, but they have clearly placed a high burden on families and are framing it as if they are doing them a favour. Here is the main outcome of that strategy which is already known in populations that choose not to use retirement housing: more early preventable severe injuries & deaths, more isolation and more emergency callouts (especially when accounting for the clients starting medical condition e.g. comparing those more able bodied in both scenarios, comparing those with different levels of impairment in both scenarios etc). Throw in most families don't have a younger child unemployed anymore who can take on the full time additional carer support, maintenance, management and monitoring needs as well as they don't have the tens of thousands for redesign of housing to be fully accessible and it is a recipe to also reduce the pension costs.

 

Up
0

So the changes are really great for the Ausi govt, but they have clearly placed a high burden on families and are framing it as if they are doing them a favour. Here is the main outcome of that strategy which is already known in populations that choose not to use retirement housing: more early preventable severe injuries & deaths, more isolation and more emergency callouts (especially when accounting for the clients starting medical condition e.g. comparing those more able bodied in both scenarios, comparing those with different levels of impairment in both scenarios etc). Throw in most families don't have a younger child unemployed anymore who can take on the full time additional carer support, maintenance, management and monitoring needs as well as they don't have the tens of thousands for redesign of housing to be fully accessible and it is a recipe to also reduce the pension costs.

People quickly learn how valuable accessible housing is (that is maintained by others) once they have significant joint injuries, falls, or have to go through stroke recovery. Its not like you can climb up stairs with a walker when you struggle to stay upright in the first place or how to push a vacuum & mop when you cannot even use your hands to cook for yourself and have to relearn even how to smile.

Up
0