Australian policymakers have long known they have a major problem with our aged care workforce, and they’ve known what the solutions are. But they’ve failed to act for over a decade, despite constant reviews and studies detailing the challenge. The result has been an aged care system that is an insult to senior Australians, who have been abused, rorted and neglected in their final years and allowed to die in their hundreds when COVID reached our shores.
Only, the problems won’t go away in the lifetime of the people currently in power. On current policy settings, those problems will still be afflicting our aged care system when they themselves need care at the end of their lives.
Worse, they’ll be afflicting every other developed country, not to mention China, at the same time — an aspect generally missed in domestic analyses.
Our main problems in the aged care workforce are that we already can’t attract enough people to the sector now, we’re going to need to attract a much bigger workforce in years to come, we don’t pay either personal care workers or nurses who choose to work in aged care enough, we impose precarious work on carers, and we rely on migration to provide a large proportion of our aged care workforce.
There are other significant problems that bear on the quality of care — the need to professionalise the workforce, to improve qualifications, to lift standards in important areas of geriatric care — but they pale before the problem of actually finding workers.
But many other countries have exactly the same problems. An OECD report from last year finds that in OECD countries “the LTC [long-term care] sector suffers from shortages of workers, and this is likely to get worse in the future … LTC workers earn much less than those working at hospitals in similar occupations … Non-standard employment, including part-time and temporary work, is common in the sector … Over 20% of LTC workers are foreign-born in OECD countries.”
In fact we’ve relied more on migration to provide our aged care workers than most developed countries: 30% of our current residential aged care workforce are migrants (though the the figure is lower for home care workers). Will we be able to rely on migration in the future to meet our expanding needs?
In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that, keeping 2008 staffing ratios, Australia would need to grow its aged care workforce from around 320,000 in 2020 to around 720,000 in 2040 (about 78% of that number are direct care workers; the remainder support staff). For the aged care royal commission, Deloitte estimated that the direct care workforce would have to increase from 320,000 to 483,000 in 2040 to sustain an average “three star” aged care system; to improve to a “four star” system would require 518,000 direct care workers. The numbers exceed 600,000 direct care workers in 2050.
2040 is now closer to us than 2001. Where will those additional workers come from? OECD data shows the average age of the LTC workforce is 45 — older than the overall workforce. In Australia in 2016 it was 46. Our aged care workforce is getting younger, but isn’t young. The Deloitte modelling assumes that Australia will continue to source 30% of its aged care workforce from migration, and the remainder will be attracted by higher rates of pay. But there are problems with both assumptions.
First, Australia will be competing with every other developed country for aged care workers, because everyone else in the developed world is getting older: in OECD countries, by 2050 on average nearly 10% of the population will be over 80. Those countries will need around 13.5 million workers between now and 2040, just to maintain existing, inadequate standards of care.
That competition will be even more intense if China lifts its standard of care for the elderly. The current Chinese model is to rely heavily on home care for seniors, with only a tiny fraction — 3-4% — in aged care facilities. Between 2030 and 2050, the number of people over 80 in China is projected to increase from 41 million to 115 million. A more affluent China that wants higher standards of care for the elderly or with younger people less willing to care for their parents will require a colossal expansion of its aged care workforce — and they’re unlikely to all come from within China.
The Australian government, until the freeze in relations, was encouraging Australian aged care providers to enter China and expand its aged care industry. The consequences, if successful, will be significant for our capacity to lure the nearly one-third of workers that make up our own workforce.
Second, the overall health and social care sector will also be expanding to meet the needs of an ageing population — aged care will simply be the fastest-growing sub-sector in an expanding sector. Aged care will already need more nursing staff in coming years to meet the standards of care announced in the government’s aged care royal commission response (though most aged care groups wanted the government to go further and mandate 24/7 nursing staff presence in facilities). The sector will thus have to reverse its recent trend of replacing nurses with personal care workers and compete for nurses with the health sector, while handicapped by its traditional reluctance to pay aged care nurses the same as hospital staff.
There’s also the equity issue of luring away the best and most-qualified nursing staff from less developed countries to look after Western seniors, creating a brain drain for those countries that will have their own increasing aged care needs.
Luckily, as the OECD points out, there is clear evidence of what actually works to attract and keep aged care workers. “Evidence from the United States and France shows that wage increases in LTC are associated with greater recruitment of workers, longer tenure and lower turnover … Collective bargaining can be used to improve working conditions and wages in the sector.”
The only problem is, are governments and communities willing to pursue that solution?
Tomorrow: policymakers respond — with reviews instead of action.
Our approach to the elderly is full of contradictions. On the one hand we want to extend life as much as possible but we don’t want or have time to care for the elderly. We get all moralistic about euthanasia but at the same time we consider the elderly as economically ‘non-productive’ and therefore do not want to spend money on them. Seems like the missing ingredient is good old-fashioned love
For me, with a history of dementia in my family (including my mother), if I end up with the same diagnosis, I’d very much welcome euthanasia *in the early stages* as an option. The current euthanasia laws in Australia are woefully inadequate.
Perhaps euthanasia will become an economic necessity.
We should NEVER have let the private vultures into the industry. Every Maserati is another stolen meal from a bed ridden elder. Its an industry of shame. We let these vultures steal the future of the elderly, condemn them to die of malnutrition & neglect. Why is ok for businesses to do this when if an individual did this, they would end up in jail.
I think I have written this before but I will write it again. When my parents went through aged care, sequentially In the noughties, staff were permanent employees working shifts, either full-time or pet-time. There were some casual staff for the overnight shifts when residents were asleep.
This was good for staff and good for residents as there was continuity of care by staff who knew them.
Go back to this plus put the pay up and at least some of the workforce problem will go away.
This should also apply to home care workers. This area is particularly ripped-off with providers creaming off a large proportion of the government payments as admin costs rather than going to the workers.
Won’t happen while the current mob are in power.
Exactly. Most workforce shortages can be solved by better pay and conditions.
The perfect response to those who claim Australians won’t do these jobs.
Exactly. Real wages & good working conditions versus private profiters shaking down the residents & grabbing every last cent they possess while imprisoning them in aged detention homes weak with malnutrition & drugged up to the eyeballs. The cost of a Maserati these days……….
Did I miss the bit of this boiler plate where the main problem was mentioned – PRIVATISATION FOR PROFIT AGED CARE.
The ultimate contradiction in terms.
And who is responsible for that?
Scuttle forward, from his gold plated lair, the Rodent.
There are many matters of human welfare where profit should not made. I include education. I don’t mind that private schools exist, but they don’t serve the common good and I deeply resent their being subsidised by the taxpayer.
I’ve said it many times. There fields of endeavour where the profit motive is anathema to the outcome or creates substantial disadvantage and dislocation. Child care, education, health, aged care at the very minimum.
Good public transport.
There is no sane reason (except to provide superfluous employment in the accounts dept.) that public transport is not free.
Imagine how much more quickly buses/trams could travel were the streets not clogged for a couple hours at each end of the working day by commuter cars.
Red Ken Livingstone in the 80s tried that in scleroticly clogged London and it was such a raging success within a couple of weeks that Thatcher abolished the entire GLC rather than let it continue.
Sounds about right – or do I mean Right and it’s been heading more and more to the Far Right since. I would like to think that a wish for a decent and caring Govt that governs for “all the people”.instead of just a group of their corporate mates and those they consider more worthwhile does not make me a rabid “Leftie”.
Gee, I was so much younger then, we called him the Poison Dwarf…
As a demographic cohort, the boomers – soon to be elderly – control more resources than any other group.
That many of them are holding onto that wealth with cold, clasping claws (for whom, their loving descendants?) rather than spending it is a mystery.
If death taxes were introduced (never happen for fear of the deafening cries) there would be less incentive to hoard and there could be a boom inn rock’n’roll retirement homes, complete with well paid, nubile attendants of (the currently Heinz-like) 57 varieties, a well stocked and inventive pharmacopoeia, loud (necessarily) music and a good, if short time had by all.
Society would benefit because of the increased employment, money (like manure, only good if spread widely) being freed up and the whiney Gens X-Z needing to make their own way in the world instead of waiting for the oldies to drop off their now, very pleasant & comfy, twig.
BanMorag, let me know when you set this place up, I will want a spot. Also, shouldn’t nanny state drug prohibition laws be lifted for the aged so you can go out with a bit of a bang. LSD, psylocibin, magic mushies, peyote, ayahuasca nights etc, why would we bother putting restrictions on psychedelics for people at the end of their lives? Substantial anecdotal evidence is leading to studies in this area, but of course against a tide of moralistic loserism.
As always, “…moralistic loserism” rools.
Which is odd since most surveys show a majority in favour of euthanasia and drug law reform, not to mention tax equity yet somehow neither cheek around the same hole deliver.
Must make a (non cynic) wonder why – whereas realists know, the wowser fear that someone, somehow is not as miserable, psychically cramped and uptight as themselves.
They cannot bear the thought.
Pretty sure the older boomers are now about 74. Questions of definition come to mind, 74 to my mind is well past ‘soon to be elderly’. 🙂
Being 70, I’d say the definition is ok.
Howard changed and mucked up the aged care sector, needs to be restored. Staff quotas, better pay, better standards of care which are enforced. I’m not sure why there is now a large for-profit sector of aged care facilities, but this needs addressing, maybe providing more government run facilities.
If there was a monetary incentive, then perhaps more people would care for their oldies at home themselves like I think Europeans do.
Most people in Aged Care have either dementia, or complex physical needs, or both. Care at home is not practical.
And yet, until recently humanity, without modern aids, managed to keep their elders at home, surrounded by children who would learn so much from them, esp. caring & sharing by the hearth, until carried out in a box.
What is different now – see above re caring & sharing – is an over entitled, self obsessed generation.
A recent survey of song lyrics found that until about 20yrs ago the most common words were “you, we, love” – guess what the most common ‘song’ words (hardly lyrics) now are?
I, me, mine, as well as many terms I eschew.
And before someone asks, yes I’ve dealt with the muck, mess and strain at both ends of life, several times.
“Until recently” people didn’t live such long lives and often their daughters (to whom the care role usually falls) weren’t working (not full-time anyway) so you’re not addressing the current world we now live in. Most elderly people these days spend their last decade in ill-health, kept going by various medications and medical interventions.
Sounds like an excellent reason to alter the ‘current world we (now – tautology) live in‘ rather than accept it.
Like that weird idea of women working to pay other women to take care of their child so that they can work to pay child care to….
This above is so true Marguerite. Do a survey and see how many people wish to work in these type of situations especially with dementia sufferers,constantly changing soiled napkins ,unable to understand and satisfy their needs and unable to communicate.Overseas people work here not because they wish to do so but employment for people with limited speech and qualifications is limited.
Some dementia’s are awful at times, others aren’t so bad, Dementia australia , adaptive interaction, are making inroads.
Hey! I’m older than that but not elderly… at least I don’t think so… can’t quite remember.
I plan to get together with friends & create our own ‘wild womens’ nursing home’ complete with loud music, good food & whatever else we desire. We will be in charge. We will hire & fire. If only this were possible. We will try our best to make it happen.
More power to that plan – I’d donate.
Do it before your memory falters. At 74, female in rental, no family connections, non church, I’d go for euthanasia if possible. Have IBS – can’t imagine anyone wanting to clean me when I will be unable to do so.
Hey please put my name down also, I have a great Music collection and some killer speakers, plus I know a guy who knows a guy, so could help in other ways to see things more vividly…..
You’d think that attracting a workforce works simply be a matter of increasing pay and incentives to work in the field. There’s plenty to be made mining in a FIFO arrangement, yet there’s hardly a complaint about how hard it is to get people who work; rather the complaint is about how expensive workers are (can’t get away with paying them $2/day). Throw money at wages and I’d imagine the complaints would turn to how those poor private operators can’t make enough of a fortune…
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Governments continue to Privatise Services, saying they will be cheaper. They never are, and the only ones that come out on top are the owners.
The whole “it’s not worth doing unless someone can make a profit doing it” approach to Government.
Look at neoliberal economics (originally from the USA) – to see how govts believe privatisation is the answer to economic growth. State involvement minimal – otherwise that dreaded word “socialism” will be front page news. Forget community (ref comment above on lyrics) it’s all supposed to be personal, individual progression.