The researches find that aged care system is base on the amount of medications or number of showers a resident needs rather than whether they are happy, an inquiry has heard. Aged care; as it is know in Australia, is usually call ‘long-term care’ or ‘social care’ in other countries. Because It is organise, fund and deliver in many different ways. Not all countries provide public support; and levels of social protection (public coverage of care costs) vary widely.
The amount of medications
There is also significant international variation in the terms use for different types of care; and these can even vary within the same country. This quick guide provides: The funding structure itself needs to be more innovative; the head of a not-for-profit aged care organisation in Hobart told a royal commission on Tuesday.
“If they look at the way the industry is structure, if I might put it very simply; we are funded for the amount of medications we’re giving, how many times we shower someone, what meals we provide;” Glenview CEO Lucy O’Flaherty said. “We’re not funded for how happy a resident is and how we’ve reduced their sleep medication because they’re happier and sleeping better.
Incentivise good practice
“That might not seem like innovation but in the funding structure that would be innovative;” she said in response to a question about how the aged care system can incentivise good practice. Jennifer Lawrence, CEO of Perth-based Bright water Care Group; said it is difficult for providers to be able to afford to do anything innovative.
“I really believe that we should be incentivised for the outcomes they achieve for our clients rather than have to demonstrate disability;” Ms Lawrence told the aged care royal commission’s Sydney hearing. “So being able to incentivise providers – and I’m not sure how you would do that – for actually helping people lead a really good life and be as independent and as well for as long as possible; I think would be a great conversation for us to be having.”
Care royal commission’s
Group Homes Australia co-CEO Jonathan Gavshon said the organisation; which offers home care facilities for groups of residents in traditional homes in Sydney suburbs, had encountered challenges when it came to funding. He cited the example of a person who had been advised by a social worker in hospital not to return; saying they could move straight into a residential aged care facility that received a $200 a day fee.
If they wanted to go back into the community or a model like that of Group Homes, they faced a long waiting list with no transparency for a level four home care package at $130-140 a day. “From a funding incentive perspective it’s completely misaligned relative to what might be the best care option for them going forward,” Mr Gavshon said.