Following Tuesday’s story on the increasing costs of employing nurses compared to ACFI funding, another CEO has reached out to point out a different challenge they face around wage rates across the states.
Their organisation operates facilities in Victoria as well as other states. Modelling the wages for their Victorian facilities against their other locations, they found Victoria was the highest-paid state with other states significantly lower.
On a yearly basis, wages were lower by:
- NSW – Sydney – $500,000
- QLD – $300,000
- WA – $200,000
The CEO is concerned that neither the Royal Commission nor the Government has factored this into any changes to the funding system.
“For aged care facilities across the country receiving the same income/ACFI rates we in Victoria will have our viability more at risk as our results will be lower,” they say. “When we benchmark with StewartBrown we use Victorian wage rates, and this reduces our overall result.”
He adds the State Governments don’t want to draw attention to the issue out of fear there will be a push for higher wages in their states.
At the same time, we have the nurses’ union – with its $100-plus million in annual membership fees – and now the Health Services Union all pushing for higher nursing numbers – and the Government is listening to them instead of operators.
We have ACFI funding falling behind increases in nurses’ wages and providers disadvantaged by state rates – all while 50% of operators are making a loss.
Some providers do manage to employ RNs 24/7 – Estia being one example – but this is a measure most operators can’t take.
The nurses’ campaign may be more of a strategic push to demonstrate to its members that their union is working hard for them – but the result is the same.
Operators are stuck in this situation – being asked to employ more nurses while their capacity to pay goes down.
My point? This all goes back to the dilemma of funding the system – and it is one question that the Royal Commission’s Consultation Paper 1 doesn’t answer.
The Paper is premised around the idea that older Australians will be able to access services when they want or need it in the setting of their choice – at an affordable price that will still mostly be paid out of the taxpayer pocket.
The Commissioners (pictured above) dedicate a couple of pages to financing, but this is only an examination of the current ‘status quo’ – which they have already indicated in the Interim Report is “unacceptable”.
The Royal Commission has flagged that financing – and how any future system is funded – will be on the agenda this year.
But given the figures above, is it time for this conversation now?
