Opinion: COTA responds

The following statement was made by CEO of COTA Australia, Ian Yates, in response to the AAA article, Hands off the family home, published online on Thursday 12 April 2012.

“AAA’s story “Hands off the family home” last Thursday contains a number of statements from National Seniors and CPSA NSW that require careful scrutiny rather than uncritical promotion. I seek to set the record straight about COTA’s actions and positions in regard to aged care reform.  

Indeed AAA’s own online introduction to the story contains a significant error. It said “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.’”

COTA has never made any claims about what voters are prepared to do, so we don’t know what AAA is suggesting.

COTA has produced a Fact Sheet on Paying for Age Care which was provided to all participants in Minister Butler’s Conversations on Ageing. This succinctly explains how aged care is funded now including user contributions, and what was proposed by the Productivity Commission, including that its assets test includes the value of your house. 

That Fact Sheet, and COTA’s summary paper ‘Aged Care Reform – what could it mean for me?’ were provided to all participants. Invitations to the Conversations were sent to CPSA, National Seniors and all members of the National Aged Care Alliance to distribute through their memberships. The papers were frequently provided to the media.

COTA has reported that the funding of aged care was raised in the Conversations. The COTA paper raised it. The Minister raised it. And participants raised it.

As COTA has reported, at no Conversation was funding the dominant issue of discussion by participants. COTA has reported extensively on what the dominant issues were, including more care and support in the home, more control and choice over services, better access, better quality, greater equity and better end of life care.

COTA did not expect funding to be the dominant issue over all the Conversations because we talk all the time with older people who use aged care services and we knew what they say about their priorities. COTA was surprised that funding did not become the dominant issue at some of the Conversations especially in NSW. So was the Minister. However it did not.

Detailed notes were taken of the participants’ questions and comments in all Conversations and the COTA report is based on these. COTA strongly rejects CPSA suggestions that its reporting to the Department of Health and Ageing on aged care reform is anything other than objective, professional and of the highest standard.

In the AAA story CPSA questions how the Conversations were run. As CPSA is aware, as many of its members attended them in NSW, these were very open events at which participants asked whatever questions they wanted, to which the Minister responded, and made whatever comments they wished. This was over a two hour period, which enabled a conversation about issues and proposals. They were not just answering cold a survey question with little or no context.

CPSA and the AAA story focus on the fact that two thirds of CPSA’s respondents were opposed to the forced sale or reverse mortgaging of “the family home”. In fact the Productivity Commission does not propose the forced sale or mortgaging of the home. Neither does COTA. In fact COTA opposes it. It is what happens now for many people and the PC proposals seek to provide alternatives. COTA supports older people having options that suit their individual situations and have greater control over their lives. 

Neither CPSA nor AAA advise readers that question 6 in the CPSA survey asked “Would you support or oppose the proposal for the government to provide access to reverse mortgages to pay for aged care?” and that 59 per cent of respondents supported this. This is particularly interesting because the term “reverse mortgage” is not popular in Australia and while the PC’s proposed Aged Care Home Credit Scheme has some features of a reverse mortgage scheme it also has very important differences that make it much more like a HECS loan, something the CPSA survey did not explain. 

The AAA story commences with the claim that “Two groups …have rejected the idea that the Productivity Commission’s aged care reform package has the support of older people.” In fact neither organisation addresses the bulk of the PC package, although the NSA survey actually indicates support for quite a number of the PC’s key recommendations. Apart from National Seniors’ vague reference to “more detail was required” in a couple of areas, neither group has addressed the vast bulk of the PC package in their media releases.

Both organisations have in other places indicated their strong support for much increased care in the home (or community care). COTA has advocated this for 20 years and this would be a key and substantive outcome of the PC recommendations. COTA welcomes NSA and CPSA joining COTA in support for this fundamental reform. 

With regard to the National Seniors survey COTA does not find it surprising that 70 per cent of National Seniors members who responded to the survey oppose this. National Seniors has been prominent in taking that position themselves. They have run an email campaign to Cabinet on this through members. The survey response was only 9 per cent. The comments quoted in the NSA report  indicate that some members did not have full information on the proposal – for example did not know that only the value over the median house price would be included, or that spouses and others would be “protected persons” as applies now. 

The report also indicates that people over 75 years were among “those who were most receptive to this proposal” but did not give any figures. It is interesting that NSA do not mention this matter in their Federal Budget submission, which calls for comprehensive aged care reform.

The story notes that 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.” No mention is made that COTA advocated just such an approach to the PC, but agrees with the PC that it is now too late. 

CPSA also advocates a “progressive approach to levying co-contributions for care costs (which) means that people with more assets should pay more than people with les assets”. How is this consistent with CPSA’s position of protection for a maximum of $60,000 out of  inheritances of multi-million dollar assets?

The AAA article ignores the CPSA media release’s statement that “people should have the option to buy a nursing home place which they or their heirs can later sell, just as a unit in a retirement village can be sold”. This is a remarkable statement as almost all retirement village units are “purchased” by a compulsory loan to the owner, which is about 75 per cent refundable on departure. The aged care bond system is also a loan, but the PC proposes you get 100 per cent of it back and it’s much more strictly regulated.  It appears CPSA actually does support bonds after all!

These are only a very few of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in CPSA’s multiple statements attacking COTA over the last six months or so. A detailed record of these has been prepared and further action is now under consideration.”

Ian Yates AM

CEO, COTA Australia