Report on the impact of the 1 July 2014
financial reforms on the aged care sector
January 2015 Report
Introduction
This is the Aged Care Financing Authority’s (ACFA’s) January report on the impacts of the
1 July 2014 financing reforms.
This report provides an update on previous reports by including an analysis of the sixth
round of data concerning accommodation payments (covering the month ending
31 December 2014), collected through ACFA’s survey of aged care providers. It also
includes an analysis on occupancy and admissions data collected by the Department of
Social Services (DSS). To complement the data collection, ACFA has also continued to
engage with sector representatives, providers and DSS to obtain information and feedback
on the impact of the reforms.
Future reports will be on a quarterly basis until 31 December 2015 with the next report to
cover the period ending 31 March 2015.
This report is split into three parts:

Part 1 – Accommodation Payments

Part 2 – Access to Care

Part 3 – Support for the sector and consumers in transition
Key Findings
Accommodation Payments – Key Findings



Lump Sum Refundable Accommodation Deposits/Contributions (RADs) remain the
preferred method of making accommodation payments, with a share of 41% (declining
from 42% in November 2014).
Periodic Daily Accommodation Payments/Contributions (DAPs) remain the second
preferred method of making accommodation payments, with a share of 35% (same as
in November).
About 23% (same as in November 2014) of residents chose to pay a combination
payment with RAD and DAP components.
Consumer choice of accommodation payment – July to December 2014
1

The month of December recorded a monthly increase of 1.9% from November in the
overall pool of lump sum accommodation payments held and receivable.
RADs1 have consistently offset the accommodation bonds paid out for departing
residents in each month after July 2014.
The overall pool of lump sum accommodation payments held or receivable grew by
7.0% between 30 June 2014 and 31 December 2014.
A projection using the average monthly growth rate of about 1.45% between July 2014
and December 2014 reveals that, lump sum payments would increase by about
$3.0 billion this financial year over last financial year.
ACFA notes that there is a high level of consistency between the November survey
and the December 2014 survey. Even though the November and December 2014
surveys may be considered as the most reliable, given the checks and balances put in
place to rectify errors noted in the October and November 2014 reports, the actual
growth amount needs to be treated with caution as this is based on a voluntary survey
and there may be underlying bias in responses and other data quality issues.




Lump sums held and receivable
2.
Access to Care
This report includes high level data on admissions and occupancy levels in residential care
sourced from preliminary departmental data.
As noted in previous reports, there was a spike in overall admissions to residential care pre
1 July 2014 – in May and June – followed by lower than usual admissions in July and
August 2014. Fewer permanent admissions were also evident in July, August and
September 2014 (about 200 more respite care admissions than permanent care admissions
for every 1,000 permanent care admissions).
The ratio of respite care admissions to permanent care admissions showed significant
fluctuations over the past 17 months (see table below). Results from October, November
and December 2014 indicate these ratios may be trending back to normal.
1
Including the RAD component of combination payments
2
Ratio of Respite Care Admissions to permanent Care Admissions
July 2013 to
May 2014 to
July 2014 to
October 2014
April 2014
June 2014
September 2014
to
(Normal Trend)
December 2014
892:1000
695:1000
1,200:1000
1003:1000
December 2014
1034:1000
Between October and December 2014, the number of permanent admissions showed signs
of returning to levels at par with the pre May 2014 levels. The spike in permanent
admissions in May and June (305 less respite admissions than permanent care admissions
per 1,000 permanent admissions) and the trough in permanent admissions in July, August
and September 2014 (200 more respite admissions than permanent care admissions per
1,000 permanent admissions) has seen the total number of residents return to the same
levels as seen in the first few months of 2014 with around 172,000 permanent residents.
The number of respite admissions was unusually high between July and September 2014.
There is usually a mid–year increase in the number of respite residents which tapers off
towards the end of the calendar year. Due to the 1 July 2014 changes this peak was
significantly amplified. The drop between September and December 2014 (especially that in
November 2014) respite care admissions is an indication that the number of respite
admissions may eventually taper down to its pre–May 2014 trends. The number of respite
residents still remains higher than the long-term trend.
Trends in admission to residential care
3
ACFA will continue to monitor these impacts in coming months to determine the extent to
which issues are transitional or permanent in nature. ACFA notes that the Department of
Human Services (DHS) has advised the sector that additional resources have been directed
towards reducing administrative delays in means testing assessments. This may already be
having an impact on the number of respite care admissions which is displaying a fluctuating
but long-run declining trend. It is however still too early to draw any conclusions, with both
the permanent care admissions and the respite care admissions indicating a short-run rise in
December.
Occupancy in residential care had a slight decline in the first quarter of 2014–15. This has
since remained nearly steady, with December showing signs of growth (see table below). In
2014-15, home care occupancy was fairly stable up to November 2014 (fluctuating between
a maximum of 88.92% in July and August 2014 and a minimum of 87.83% in
November 2014). December 2014 however recorded a drop from 87.83% in
November 2014 to 83.43%. This drop is attributable to the Aged Care Approvals Round
(ACAR) release of places and hence an increase in the denominator (or available places),
with no corresponding increase in the numerator (occupied places) and hence a decline in
the occupancy.
Average Occupancy Trend
July 2013 to May 2014 to
April 2014
June 2014
(Normal
Trend)
Residential
93.18%
93.17%
Care
Home
88.52%
88.05%
Care
3.
July 2014 to
September
2014
October 2014
to December
2014
December
2014
92.79%
92.78%
92.83%
88.76%
86.65%
83.43%
Support for the sector
The Transitional Business Advisory Service continues to provide support for providers with
the transition to the new accommodation payments arrangements. Relevant departments
have also been updating and distributing additional information materials to clarify reform
implementation issues. DHS has made available a dedicated phone line for persons
concerned over delays in means testing assessments and allocated additional resources to
reduce delays in issuing assessments.
ACFA notes that delivery of transitional business advisory services (TBAS) to residential
aged care providers will end on 30 June 2015. TBAS was put in place to assist providers to
prepare for and manage the transition to the new accommodation payments arrangements.
Uptake of TBAS has been lower than expected. The Department has communicated the
end of TBAS to providers through the regular reform newsletter and through content on the
Department’s website.
4
Part 1.
Accommodation Payments
Introduction
The following section monitors the impact of the new accommodation payment
arrangements.
Figure 1 describes the changes to the accommodation payment arrangements.
ACFA has identified two primary areas of focus for monitoring the impacts of the
accommodation payment arrangements.
The first is the overall change in lump sum payments held or receivable by providers. As
can be seen from Figure 1, people that would have previously entered care with an
agreement to pay a lump sum accommodation bond now have the flexibility to choose how
they pay for their accommodation (RAD, DAP or combination) after moving into care when
they have security of tenure. If incoming residents have a preference for DAPs, this could
potentially leave providers who have thin equity, where the capital infrastructure is largely
funded by bonds, potentially exposed to liquidity problems if there is an outflow of lump sum
accommodation payments. On the other hand, around a quarter of residents who would
have formerly been limited to paying by periodic payment, now have the option to pay by
lump sum. This is likely to see an increase2 in the overall amount of lump sum payments
held by the sector.
The second is the overall change in the price that providers can now receive for providing
accommodation. The pricing regime has been significantly deregulated. For many providers
there is potential uplift in accommodation prices, particularly for those previously providing
non–extra service high care. The new arrangements give people entering care more
transparency in what is on offer and they can use this information to better choose
accommodation that suits their needs. Further, the higher accommodation supplement for
new and significantly refurbished homes will provide a better return for eligible providers
choosing to take supported residents.
ACFA will monitor both of these impacts. The currently available data is collected through a
survey of providers and focuses on lump sum payments (the first area of focus outlined
above). The results of this survey are considered in the following section. As more data
becomes available ACFA will expand its monitoring to both areas of interest.
Observations
Prior to 1 July 2014 there were concerns expressed by the sector that there would be a
‘flight from bonds’. ACFA has monitored this situation through the accommodation payment
survey and by seeking feedback from the sector. Both aspects of this monitoring indicate
that, at this stage, this concern has not been realised and in fact there has been a continued
growth in lump sum payments.
2
See KPMG Report Modelling of Financial Impacts of the Aged Care Reforms
<http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/ageing-and-aged-care/aged-carereform/reforms-by-topic/aged-care-financing-authority/aged-care-financing-authority-pastadvice>. This report projected a net increase of $3.0 billion in lump sum holding in 2014–15
due to the new accommodation payment arrangements.
5
The growth in lump sums held and receivable is consistent with earlier modelling undertaken
by KPMG on behalf of ACFA. This modelling projected that the lump sum pool held by
providers would increase by around $3.0 billion in 2014–15. Between June and
December 2014, the survey results indicate that the lump sums held and receivable has
increased by $1.235 billion.
Progressive average monthly growth rate between July and December 2014 (about 1.45 per
cent) was higher than the progressive average monthly growth rate between June and
December 2014 (about 1.14 per cent) because there was a dip in the lump sum pool in July
compared to June 2014. If the monthly growth rates of 1.45 per cent were to be maintained,
the lump sum pool is projected to increase by $3.0 billion, respectively, in 2014–15 over
2013–14.
The change in lump sums is not uniform across the sector. Services predominantly
providing extra–service care recorded a decrease of 7.9% between June 2014 and
December 2014. Also services predominantly providing mixed–service care recorded no
growth between June 2014 and December 2014. All other sectors of interest recorded a
positive growth in the same period.
6
Figure 1: Change in accommodation payment arrangements
Pre–1 July 2014
At 30 June 2014
Non–supported residents
174,000 permanent
residents3:

Paid by Accommodation Bonds
o
Residents enter either Low care and extra–
 104,000 (approx 60%)
services care
non–supported
o
Price capped at total assets of resident less
 73,000 (approx 42%)
minimum asset amount.
Bond payers
o
Can be paid by lump sum, periodic payment, or  $15.4 billion (approx)
combination – method agreed before entry.
bond pool
o
A retention amount of up to $331 per month for
 The average
up to five years
accommodation bond

Paid by Accommodation Charge
agreed with a new
o
Residents enter non–extra service high care
resident in 2013–14 was
o
Periodic payment only
$296,404
o
Price set by regulation capped at $34.79 per
 47,000 (approx 27%)
day
non–supported
residents paying by
accommodation charge
Total
(supported & non–
Supported residents
supported)
turn–over of
 The asset test restricted the amount that a supported
around 5,000 residents per
resident could be asked to pay with the Government
month with around 3,000
topping this up with an accommodation supplement.
per month being non–
 The accommodation payment methods were
supported residents.
accommodation bonds for partially–supported people
entering low care and an accommodation charge for
those partially–supported people entering high care.
 Government contribution capped at $34.79 per day.
3
From 1 July 2014
Non–supported residents

All incoming residents pay under the same
accommodation payment arrangements.

Providers set maximum accommodation price

Prices over $550,000 ($95.84 per day) to be
agreed by Aged Care Pricing Commissioner.

Provider and resident agree accommodation price
at entry (not related to resident’s assets).

Resident has 28 days to decide method of
payment. Options are:
o
Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD);
o
Daily Accommodation Payment (DAP); or
o
A combination of DAP/RAD (with resident
determining the proportional split).

No regulated retention however residents paying by
combination can agree to a non–refundable DAP
component being drawn from RAD.
Supported residents

All incoming supported residents pay under the
same accommodation contribution arrangements.

The provider receives the same amount for all
residents when accommodation contribution and
accommodation supplement are added together.
Providers of new or significantly refurbished facilities are
eligible for total payment for accommodation at the same
level as the higher accommodation supplement ($53.39
per day).
Noting there was an influx of approximately 3,000 permanent residents in the months immediately prior to July 2014.
7
Survey of residential care providers
This report presents data collected from residential aged care providers through a monthly
voluntary survey. Residential aged care providers were invited to participate in a voluntary
survey that collected information on the choice of accommodation payment method and the
changes in the lump sum accommodation payments held and receivable. Survey forms
were sent to all providers, with responses submitted to a third party who de–identified the
results before providing them to ACFA.
The survey to date has collected data on:
1.
2.
3.
the numbers of accommodation bonds held and their value as at 30 June 2014;
the numbers of bonds/RADs held and their value at the end of July, August,
September, October, November and December 2014;
the numbers of RAD, DAP and combination payment options chosen by residents in
July, August, September, October, November and December 2014.
Survey forms covering December 2014 were received from 1,544 services (104,464 places).
The results for December 2014 cover more than half of the sector (56% of services; 55% of
places). Consistent and comparable results for all the months (i.e. data from those who
provided information for each month from June to December 2014) from June 2014 to
December 2014 also cover over half of the sector (55% of services; 54% of places). This is
a marked increase over November 2014 where survey forms were received from 1,176
services. At an aggregate level the data is relatively consistent.
Choice of accommodation payment and changes to the lump sum
pool
Key findings are summarised below at aggregate level and by various sector segments. The
charts depict distribution of all residents who are required to make a choice between: RAD
and RAC; DAP and DAC; or a combination payment. These charts include non-supported
residents and supported residents that have some accommodation contribution to pay.
Aggregate results for total sector





In December, the proportion of residents choosing to pay by RADs was 41%.
In comparison, about 35% of residents chose to pay by DAPs.
About 23% of residents chose to pay a combination payment with a RAD and DAP
component.
There was an increase in the total lump sums (bonds and RADs) held or receivable of
about 1.9% or approximately $356 million in December over November 2014.
There was an increase in the total lump sums (bonds and RADs) held or receivable of
about 7.0% or approximately $1,235 million from 30 June to 30 December 2014.
8
Geographical analysis
Generally, RADs are more favoured in major cities than other geographic areas although
there has been an increase in preference in Inner Regional areas.
Service
location
Choice of payment
There was a greater preference
toward RADs in major cities and inner
regional areas in December 2014.
Inner regional areas had in the past
shown a preference for DAPs and
thus recorded a shift in preference.
Outer regional/remote/very remote
areas have consistently displayed a
preference for DAPs.
Change to the lump sum pool
All three geographic segments
(major city, inner regional and
outer regional/remote) recorded a
positive monthly growth in
December over November and an
accumulated positive growth in
December over June.
Table 1: Survey coverage – December 2014
Services (n,%)
Places (n,%)
National
Major City
Inner Regional
Outer regional / Remote
/ Very remote
1,509 (55%)
882 (52%)
386 (59%)
241 (61%)
102,011 (54%)
68,749 (52%)
23,177 (56%)
10,085 (61%)
Figure 2: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by location
Table 2: Lump sums value growth by service location – December 2014
Major City
Inner Regional
November to December 2014
2.2%
1.1%
Outer regional /
Remote / Very
remote
0.8%
June to December 2014
6.6%
10.7%
2.2%
9
Service ownership analysis
The proportion of RADs in Government owned services increased significantly in
December 2014 (34%) over November 2014 (23%). The share of RADs in all other
ownership types was nearly constant.
Service
ownership
Choice of payment
RADs continue to be preferred in
the For–Profit sector, with over half
of all post 1 July 2014 residents
choosing this method. The
proportion of residents in NFP
facilities choosing to pay by DAP
remained the same as last month.
Change to the lump sum pool
For–profit and Government sector
providers recorded over 10% growth
in lump sum payments held or
receivable between June and
December 2014, while the NFP
sector services recorded a 3.5%
increase over the same period. This
relatively lower accumulated growth
in the NFP sector is partially due to
the negative monthly growth of 2.5%
recorded between November and
December 2014.
Table 3: Survey coverage by ownership type – December 2014
Not–For–
For–Profit
Total
Profit (NFP)
(FP)
1,509
(55%)
Services (n,%)
988 (61%)
329 (38%)
102,011 (54%) 68,254 (63%)
Places (n,%)
26,935 (38%)
Government
192 (71%)
6,822 (70%)
Figure 3: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by ownership type
Table 4: Lump sums value growth by ownership type – December 2014
Not–For–Profit
For–Profit (FP)
(NFP)
November to December 2014
-2.5%
5.9%
June to December 2014
3.5%
10.4%
10
Government
13.2%
10.3%
Care type4 analysis
The impact of accommodation payment choices is likely to vary between providers by the
type of care traditionally offered, noting that former low care places would have been
characterised by payment of lump sum bonds prior to 1 July 2014 and (non–extra service)
high care facilities by daily accommodation charges. In December 2014, RAD was the
preferred method of making accommodation payments across all former care types (see
Figure 4).
Care type
Choice of payment
RADs was the preferred
method of making
accommodation payments
in all care types. In
December, compared to
November, RADs gained
significant share (13%
share gain) in the low care
services.
Change to the lump sum pool
Between June and December, all the care types
recorded an increase in their respective lump sum
pool. A growth of 57.3% was recorded by low care
service. These services have in the past (previous
reports) consistently recorded negative growth.
Care should however be taken in drawing
conclusions since the low care services category
forms a very small portion (about 2%) of the sector
and small absolute changes can result in large
relative changes.
Table 5: Survey coverage – December 2014
Total
High Care
Services (n,%)
Places (n,%)
Mixed Care
Low Care
1,509 (55%)
1,087 (54%)
366 (61%)
56 (52%)
102,011 (54%)
79,480 (53%)
20,491 (58%)
2,040 (52%)
Figure 4: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by previous care type
classification
Table 6: Lump sums value growth – December 2014
High Care
Mixed Care
1.0%
0.0%
November to December 2014
5.4%
7.1%
June to December 2014
4
Low Care
50.7%
57.3%
High and low care classifications are based on over 70% of care days being delivered with
an ACFI classification of high or low care respectively.
11
Facility size analysis
The proportion of residents choosing to pay by RADs increased between November and
December in small sized (1-49 places) services which have consistently shown a preference
for DAPs.
Number of
places
Choice of payment
Even though, RAD was the preferred
payment method for large and
medium sized services, it lost a small
share among these service types in
December 2014, relative to
November 2014. It however gained
4% share (a growth of 12%) in small
services where it remains less
preferred.
Change to the lump sum pool
Between November and
December, all size groups of
services recorded growth in their
lump sum pool and this was more
pronounced in small services,
which recorded 13.5% growth
(consistent with their share growth
of 12%) in their lump sum pool.
Table 7: Survey Coverage – December 2014
Total
1–49 places
50–99 places
100+ places
Services (n,%)
Places (n,%)
650 (54%)
45,208 (54%)
295 (48%)
38,048 (50%)
1,509 (55%)
102,011 (54%)
564 (61%)
18,755 (61%)
Figure 5: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by facility size
Table 8: Lump sums value growth by facility size – December 2014
1–49 places
50–99 places
100+ places
November to December 2014
13.5%
0.5%
0.1%
June to December 2014
23.3%
8.5%
1.8%
12
Provider size analysis
Seven or more homes providers recorded a slight decline in lump sums held and receivable
between November and December 2014. They however recorded 6 per cent accumulated
growth in December 2014 compared with June 2014.
Provider size
Choice of payment
In December, RADs continued to be
the preferred method of payment
among all three sizes of providers,
gaining 1% share among providers
with seven or more homes.
Change to the lump sum pool
Providers with seven or more
homes recorded a decline in their
lump sum pool in December 2014
from November 2014.
Table 9: Survey Coverage – December 2014
Providers (n,%)
Places (n,%)
314 (48%)
Two – Six
homes
153 (51%)
Seven or more
homes
48 (62%)
21,504 (47%)
26,136 (48%)
54,371 (61%)
Total
Single home
515 (50%)
102,011 (54%)
Figure 6: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by provider size
Table 10: Lump sums value growth by provider size – December 2014
Single home
Two – Six homes
November to December 2014
June to December 2014
4.0%
5.8%
13
4.8%
9.5%
Seven or more
homes
-1.0%
6.0%
Extra service versus non extra service5
Under the previous arrangements, a resident entering a high care extra service place could
be asked to pay a lump sum bond. Extra–service facilities recorded a decline in the amount
of lump sums held and receivable in December 2014 over November 2014 and in
December 2014 over June.
Extra service
Choice of payment
RADs is the preferred
accommodation payment type in
all service types. It dominates
the extra-service segment with
over 80% share.
Change to the lump sum pool
Between June and December 2014,
services predominantly providing extra
service were the only sector segment
throughout the December 2014 survey
to have recorded a decline in their lumpsum pool since June 2014.
Table 11: Survey Coverage – December 2014
Total
Extra Service
Services (n,%)
Places (n,%)
Mixed
Non Extra Service
1,509 (55%)
39 (37%)
30 (40%)
1,440 (56%)
102,011 (54%)
3,120 (38%)
3,704 (45%)
95,187 (55%)
Figure 7: Consumer choice of accommodation payment by extra service status
Table 12: Lump sums value growth by extra service status – December 2014
Extra Service
Mixed
Non Extra Service
November to December 2014
-5.1%
-3.0%
4.1%
June to December 2014
–7.9%
0.0%
11.5%
5
Extra service and non-extra service classifications are based on over 70% of care days
being delivered to residents occupying an extra service place or a non-extra service place
respectively.
14
Part 2.
Access to Care
Introduction
The following section reports on the impact of the 1 July 2014 changes on access to care.
The 1 July 2014 changes introduced new means testing arrangements for home care and
residential care, and new accommodation payment arrangements in residential care. These
both have the potential to impact on access to care.
Advice on the impacts of the means testing changes on access to care will be reliant on two
factors:


Detailed analysis undertaken using administrative Departmental data on persons
entering care; and
Information obtained through the Authority’s engagement with the sector.
It will take some time to build a suitably robust data set in this area, which will rely on
collation of data concerning trends on entering care analysed against income and wealth
information. This report includes some initial high level data on admissions and occupancy
levels in residential care sourced from preliminary departmental data. ACFA will continue to
build on this analysis in future reports as more detailed data and analysis become available.
ACFA has also continued to engage with the sector and the Department to obtain early
feedback on implications in this area.
Observations
Between July and October 2014, there was a clear shift towards an increasing use of respite
care. While it is usual to see an increase in use of respite care in July through to
September 2014, the increased use for this financial year is markedly higher than usual.
Respite care admissions even unusually exceeded permanent care admissions between
July and September 2014. Feedback from the sector indicated that this was as a result of
new residents being accommodated in respite care until their means testing results were
received. The delays in processing the means tests are likely to have exacerbated this.
Respite admissions declined in October but still remained relatively high. In November 2014
respite admissions were lower than the previous months and tending towards expectations
based on trends from previous years. In December 2014, respite care once again exceeded
permanent care admissions but the excess was not as pronounced as that recorded
between July and September. Patterns in admissions will continue to be monitored and
discussed in subsequent quarterly reports.
While there was a noticeable drop in permanent admissions in July and August 2014, there
had been a significant influx of permanent residents in May and June 2014. The November
and December 2014 admissions appear to be closer to usual levels and are directly
comparable to November and December 2014 admissions in the previous year (see figure
8).
Post 30 June 2014 admissions to residential care
As noted in previous reports, there was a spike in overall admissions to residential care pre
30 June 2014 – in May and June 2014 – followed by lower than usual admissions in July and
August 2014. An increase in respite admissions and fewer permanent admissions was also
evident in July and August 2014.
15
Figure 8: Comparative admissions trend – July 2013 to December 2014
In October, November and December 2014, the number of permanent admissions returned
to levels consistent with levels observed prior to May 2014. The spike in admissions in May
and June 2014 and the trough in July and August has seen the total number of residents
return to levels that are in line with the expected average trend (see figure 9), with around
171,400 permanent residents.
Figure 9: Comparative monthly trend of Full–time equivalent residents in care (based
on claim days) – 2009 to 2014
16
The number of respite care residents remains relatively high but is on the decline. Even
though respite care admissions, increased in December, the number of respite care
residents declined, implying that discharge increased at a faster rate than admissions.
The number of claim days for respite care peaks in August each year (except 2014 where it
peaked in September) and tapers down towards the end of the calendar year. Following 1
July 2014, this peak was significantly amplified and shifted to September (see figure 10).
The number of claim days for respite in December was lower than November and has
declined in each consecutive month following September. If the post–May 2014 rise is
transitional, then, it is expected that the number of respite residents will continue to taper
down.
Figure 10: Full–time equivalent respite residents (based on claim days) by month –
2009 to 2014
Note: The graph has been presented as full–time equivalent respite residents (claim days/number of
days in month)
Occupancy rates in residential care
In 2014, occupancy peaked in June, reflecting the pattern of admissions discussed earlier.
Occupancy steadily declined marginally following this peak until October 2014. In
November 2014, occupancy rose slightly from October 2014, indicating that the rise in
admissions in earlier months was having an impact on occupancy rates. In December 2014,
occupancy remained approximately the same as November.
17
Figure 11: Residential care occupancy trend – July 2013 to December 2014
Figure 12: Residential care occupancy trend by state
18
Occupancy Rates in Home Care
The home care occupancy data relies on the claims data submitted by services. As at the
end of February 2015, claims processed for October, November and December 2014 as a
proportion of all claims expected were 91%, 86% and 76% respectively. The home care
occupancy results should therefore be treated with caution.
National occupancy rates in home care have been nearly stable, post 30 June 2014. Only
Victoria recorded a slight increase in occupancy between June 2014 and December 2014
(see Figure 13). However comparing December 2014 with previous months may not yield
any conclusive results due to the issue mentioned earlier with regards to the fact that the
ACAR round held in December caused a disproportionate increase in the denominator.
Figure 13: Home care occupancy trend by state
Excluding the December 2014 occupancy rate, when analysed by level, only level 3 Home
Care seems to have experienced a steady growth post 30 June 2014. Occupancy at all
other levels has remained fairly flat (see Figure 14). The decline in the December 2014 rate
at all levels is attributed to the ACAR release in December 2014.
19
Figure 14: Home care occupancy trend by level
20
Part 3.
Support for the sector and consumers in
transition
Transitional Business Advisory Service (TBAS)
The Government subsidises a free advisory service for aged care providers, with a particular
focus on the impact of the new accommodation payment arrangements applying from
1 July 2014. A summary of the current usage of the service is below:


From commencement of operations on 3 April 2014 until 31 January 2015, there were
840 Tier 1 queries (basic advice provided over the telephone).
As at 31 January 2015, there were 43 applications for the more detailed Tier 2
services involving a desk audit of the provider’s position and readiness for the reforms
and 27 applications for Tier 3 services providing a more highly detailed examination of
their position and readiness, along with the provision of accompanying support and
advice.
The most frequently asked questions (received as Tier 1 queries) are being collated with
more general observations about transitional issues being faced by the sector and
progressively published on the DSS website, and referenced in the reform implementation
updates distributed to providers. This makes the information provided through TBAS
available to the sector more broadly.
Reform Information
Information on the reforms has been updated and made available on both the DSS website
and the MyAgedCare website, including a fee estimator on www.myagedcare.gov.au.
Consumers and providers can also contact the MyAgedCare call centre for information and
assistance.
There have been some concerns expressed by the sector that some providers were
unaware of certain new requirements around income testing and means testing
arrangements. The relevant Departments have been updating information materials and
sending additional communication materials to providers to address these concerns.
DHS has made available a dedicated phone line for providers and consumers concerned
over delays in means testing assessments who can seek updates and expedition of urgent
cases.
21
Attachment – additional charts on admissions to residential care
1
Figure A1: Residential care admissions trends (permanent and respite care) by state
2
Figure A2: Residential care admissions (permanent care) trends by state
3
Figure A3: Residential care admissions (respite care) trends by state
4