Hands off the family home
Are voters really prepared to sell or mortgage the family home to pay for aged care? Despite what COTA Australia says, two other consumer groups have surveys that say, ‘No.’
Above: National Seniors chief executive, Michael O’Neill.
By Stephen Easton
Two groups representing older consumers have rejected the idea that the Productivity Commission’s aged care reform package has the support of older people.
As members of the National Aged Care Alliance (NACA) prepared to address the National Press Club yesterday, lobby group National Seniors warned the government not to “blindly follow industry in rubber stamping the Productivity Commission’s aged care reform blueprint”.
National Seniors CEO, Michael O’Neill, said that more detail was required about staffing, ageing at home and funding options, and that a recent survey of 1,800 National Seniors members found 70 per cent opposed the idea of including the family home in the aged care assets test.
“This doesn’t mean they’re unwilling to contribute,” Mr O’Neill said.
“In fact, three quarters had no problem with paying something towards their aged care. But when it comes to the family home, the message to government is, ‘Hands off’.”
Another lobby group for older consumers, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA), published results from their own survey yesterday, which found similar results among a sample of 1,492 people representative of all Australian adults.
The CPSA survey, conducted by the Australia Institute, found that over two-thirds of Australians rejected the idea of “being forced to sell or reverse mortgage the family home to access aged care, as proposed by the Productivity Commission”.
In an article published yesterday, CPSA policy and research officer, Antoine Mangion, called on the federal government to abandon the recommendations contained in the PC report, which another CPSA policy officer previously called “an undisguised grab for older Australians’ home equity”.
Above: CPSA senior policy and research officer, Antoine Mangion.
“Only five per cent of respondents strongly supported the Productivity Commission’s proposal to force people to sell or reverse mortgage the family home to pay for aged care,” Mr Mangion said.
“Clearly, the federal government must steer clear of compulsory sale or reverse mortgage of the family home to fund aged care.”
Mr Mangion said the survey findings would provide some context to the aged care forum at the National Press Club arranged by the NACA, which he called “an aged care provider lobby group whose main function in life is to cry poor on behalf of the nursing home industry”.
NACA also counts professional bodies, unions and consumer groups among its diverse membership, including the Association of Independent Retirees and COTA Australia, whose CEO, Ian Yates, spoke at the National Press Club forum and has previously rejected the CPSA ‘s objections to the PC report.
The CPSA also attacked COTA Australia’s appointment as the facilitator for a series of public ‘Conversations on Ageing’ with Minister for Ageing Mark Butler. The Conversations themselves have been criticised recently for being run mostly in electorates held by Labor or independent members.
“Throwing out Research Methods 101, the Minister for Ageing, Mark Butler awarded COTA a $410,000, non-contested contract to gather and convey consumer views on the Productivity Commission’s reform proposals to guide the government’s response,” Mr Mangion said.
“Too bad that COTA, as an advocacy organisation and member of NACA, had already formulated a view on the Commission’s proposals that they’re a good idea. Somehow [Mr Butler expected] COTA would objectively report back people’s concerns about the reform proposals, including those it does not agree with.”
Above: Ian Yates, CEO, COTA Australia.
Contrary to both the survey commissioned by the CPSA and the survey run by National Seniors, COTA Australia’s report on the Conversations claims that “there were usually one or two people at each Conversation who expressed concern about having to sell their principal residence but this concern was not generally picked up and supported by the majority of the audience”.
“There was recognition by many [Conversation participants] that this is the norm now,” Mr Yates continues in the report.
“This begs the question,” Mr Mangion said, referring to the marked difference between the survey results and the COTA report, “how were these conversations run?
“…how could [Minister Butler] engage a NACA-member organisation with a predilection for the Productivity Commission’s reforms, to conduct these consultations?”
The CPSA said, as an alternative, it supports Medicare-style social insurance for aged, disability, general health and dental care, an approach it believes should have been taken decades ago, but with the added condition of progressive pricing, meaning people with more assets should pay more than people with fewer assets.
Mr Mangion also argued that “the future for residential aged care lies in clustered residential development, using universal design principles that enable independent living and the effective and efficient delivery of community aged care”, and described nursing homes as “islands of misery” providing “a certain recipe for depression and premature death”.
An unusual pairing CPSA and National Seniors . What they have in common is that both have not engaged with the other organizations in the sector but have chosen to run their own course. They risk defining themselves as marginal by doing this – one on the left and one on the right. Debate is healthy but inaction on aged care is something we can I’ll afford,
interesting… when you compare the quoted figures of the CPSA survey betwen the loaded question 7 (forced to sell) and the more factual Q6.
Sounds to me like the message for the Government isnt “keep your hands off our houses”, rather its make sure you have a fair and equitable means test and include a heavy chunk of education about what these changes mean…
People have to sell their homes now to secure accomodation bonds in moments of crisis. Perhaps someone should see if these “fire sale” prices are losing people more than the $60,000 lifetime co-contributions a person would make under the proposals. In many cases I’d say it migh come close
Q6 Would you support or oppose the proposal for the government to provide access to reverse mortgages to pay for aged care?
59% – Stronglysomewhat support
41% – Stronglysomewhat oppose
Source: http://www.cpsa.org.au/files/2012-03%20omnibus%20-%20survey%20results%20-%20combined%20pensioners%20superannuants%20association.xlsx
Firstly it is abundantly clear Government can now longer provide the necessary funding to meet a responsible program of care for our elderly. The CPSA position clearly wants Government to fund aged care (Government pays all). Very similar to a Communist country you might say.
But let us be better informed and learn that China(yes that Communist Country quickly taking over the rest of the world) has recently asked its financial institutions for funding so that their elderly can use their family home to pay their aged care costs.
National Seniors has long being a rejector of equity release and using the home to pay for aged care. Yet they fail to acknowledge over 90% of
Accommodation Bonds payments are currently achieved by selling the family home. It is about our elderly paying their own way (as they have done all their lives) and is not about reducing the inheritence of the beneficiaries.
It is about our parents and our grand parents being able to meet their needs and services and support themselves (when possible), meeting their needs in a way we would wish for ourselves in our later years
I am not in favour of selling the family home as a requirement for entry into aged care. However am in favour of ALL except the wealthy paying the same amount of entry bond set at $60,000 plus 84% of the pension. And those who don’t have any property or savings over $40,500 paying ONLY 84% of their full pension.
That wouldn’t be the same Paul Dwyer (12/4, 9.51)who sells reverse mortages?
Even blind Freddy can see that the Government cannot adequately fund aged care without some form of ‘user pays’ based on an Asset assessment for the individual frail aged needing the care and giving due consideration for that person’s spouse or partner’s needs.The fact that WA is now some 2900 beds short of what is needed because current levels of funding remain totally inadequate to meeting costs of land and building has stalled the construction of needed new residential care places says the system is broken and needs urgent attention. This is not so much a matter of aged care providers crying ‘poor’, but the realty of an industry that cannot continue without the necessary reform to bring in the required level of funds to move forward in order to provide for a rapidly growing ageing population.
Some people will possibly have to sell the family home, however if the last remaining owner now needs full time residential care, their home may no longer be the place they need to be and if the family really wish to retain the property, perhaps they could buy it or alternatively fund the Accommodation Bond and care fees.
This is the reality if we are to provide the number of places and/or services required
The Productivity Commission recomended: “Australian Age Pensioners Savings Account
This is an account administered by the Government. It only takes one kind of deposit: the proceeds from the sale of the principal residence. That can be all the proceeds or left-over proceeds following downsizing. Whatever the balance in the account, it will be exempt from the age pension test.”
I have no problem with that. Government guaranted assett and income test free with a term-deposit like interest rate.