‘Asset-rich’ Aussies could struggle to afford aged care

• Nine in 10 older Australians, or 90 per cent, who apply for government-supported aged care are relying on social welfare payments.
• That’s despite these Australians being considered asset-rich, possibly because they own the family home.
• Only a small cohort of those seeking home-based aged care had substantial income.

A growing number of older Australians need government-subsidised aged care and social welfare despite being deemed asset-rich.

A study has revealed nine in 10 older Australians applying for government-supported aged care rely on social welfare payments.

The study looked at the financial circumstances of more than 920,000 older Australians, with an average age of 82, who applied for government-subsidised aged care between 2010 and 2019.

The findings should inform government thinking on policies such as co-payments, according to researchers from Flinders University and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute.

Making at-home care more accessible could save the nation money in the long run by keeping people out of more expensive residential care for longer, the study’s lead author Stephanie Harrison said.

The mandatory superannuation system was introduced in 1992, meaning many of those surveyed were near the end of their working life and missed out on years of contributions.

The study found social welfare payments accounted for 84 per cent to 91 per cent of income for most older Australians.

The proportion of aged care applicants reporting non-government income rose from 12 per cent in 2010 to 30 per cent in 2019, but for most people, the amounts remained relatively small.

Only a small cohort of those seeking home-based aged care had substantial income, despite about 60 per cent owning their own home, the study found.

Subscribe here for our FREE Tuesday and Thursday newsletter

Email address

Subscribe

“They’re what we call the asset-rich, income-poor and we really don’t know how this is impacting how they access aged care,” Associate Professor Harrison told AAP.

“If it means they end up moving to residential aged care earlier, that will be more costly for the government in the long run.”

A year since the federal government introduced a co-payment system for in-home care, the impact of the changes is unclear.

Means-testing could misinterpret people’s ability to pay for at-home care if their greatest asset was the roof over their head, Assoc Prof Harrison said.

“Although they’re home owners, they’re largely relying on social welfare payments and this isn’t necessarily translating into them being ready for these changes in terms of paying more for aged care,” she said.

“What we need to monitor really is how this impacts people’s use of these services and whether they end up delaying their use of aged care.”

-AAP