Aged care body slams ‘inaccurate’ industry info
A body representing not for profit aged care providers claims there are some inaccuracies in a recent article which states there are “no restrictions” on what the ‘bonds’ (now Refundable Accommodation Deposits – RADs) in aged care could be used for.
Adjunct Professor John Kelly, ACSA chief executive, says aged care information in the public domain needs to be fair and accurate.
The article was written by Alan Kohler and published on The Drum website last week.
According to Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA), the uses of RADs are highly regulated by legislation, and are restricted to expenditure such as building or upgrading aged care facilities.
The amount of a RAD is also highly regulated by the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner and aged care providers have to request approval to charge a RAD above $550,000.
Providers are also required to advertise their accommodation prices on the federal government’s My Aged Care Website to ensure a potential resident can make choices about where they choose to reside with all information available.
In relation to retirement villages, Mr Kohler wrote in the article: “The industry is a booming national disgrace, with three very juicy rackets: deferred fees, ongoing fees that keep going when you die, and bonds.”
Mr Kohler claimed retirement villages and aged care accommodation are the “progeny of the worst of both”.
“Australians get creamed by the financial advice and wealth management industry while they are saving for retirement, and then get scalped when they get there,” he wrote.
According to ACSA, older people making the choice to move to a retirement village are not doing so because of the investment potential, but rather it is because of the lifestyle and support that type of living provides.
They are often co-located with community care services and residential aged care, where a person can make informed choices for the remainder of their lives, in a community well known to them.
With an ageing population, ACSA says information in the public domain needs to be fair and accurate. People who enter nursing homes are in need of the highest levels of care and support and it is unhelpful if scare campaigns prevent them from accessing the care they urgently need.
