Aged care bed shortage is burdening hospitals

The Age last week reported on another story yet again about how hundreds of thousands of people are waiting too long for care in state hospitals, which have become increasingly swamped by elderly people waiting for aged care beds.

While media reports of aged care bed shortages is nothing new, the number of patients staying in emergency departments longer than 24 hours nearly doubled from 531 in the first six months of 2010 to 958 in the second half of the year. There was also a growing number of patients with mental health problems staying for longer than eight hours because of hospital bed shortages.

The Victorian government’s first hospital report card revealed that in the second half of last year, nearly a third of patients, or 226,000, waited longer than clinically appropriate times for treatment in emergency departments. This was up from 191,000, or 28 per cent of patients, in the first half of 2010.

The drop in performance came as the number of patients going to emergency departments jumped 5 per cent from the first half of the year to the second half and as hospitals became increasingly clogged with elderly patients who could not get into aged care facilities.

For the first time, the state government released figures on the number of ”hospital bed days” taken up by elderly people waiting to be admitted to aged care facilities. The number of bed days increased from nearly 34,000 to 39,000.

The chairman of the Victorian faculty of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, Dr Simon Judkins said governments needed to work on other ways of freeing up beds with more aged care facilities and more staff on weekends to discharge patients.

President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association Dr Harry Hemley said the report showed how much pressure the hospital system was under and highlighted the need for ongoing investment, particularly in aged care services.

Health Minister David Davis said 800 hospital beds would be added over the next four years, but he said it was the federal government’s responsibility to increase aged care beds.

RVA CEO Andrew Giles agrees that there is a need to increase the number of aged care beds but hopes that governments can now see a role for retirement villages to become part

RVA pleased with number of nominations for Manager of the Year

This year has seen an increase in the number of Manager of the Year nominations with 12 received from residents, family members of residents, staff and owners and operators across all regions.

The RVA could not be more pleased with the amount of nominations that have been received so far since online nominations opened two weeks ago, indicating that the Manager of the Year will be bigger and better than ever before.  

The strong interest in Manager of the Year reinforces that the wider community values the people working in the industry and none more so than the village managers who work tirelessly are passionate about what they do day in and day out.

There is less than a week to go before nominations and applications close so keep them coming. If you haven’t yet nominated a great village manager, please do so now.  It’s free and takes only a few minutes.

Village managers don’t miss out on submitting your application. It’s quick and easy to apply online.

Nominations and applications close 20 June.

State Budget – changes to land rich provisions impact retirement villages

When the new Victorian government handed down its first State budget on 3 May, the Government also announced its intention to amend the ‘land rich’ provisions of the Duties Act 2000 as from 1 July 2012.

Under the current model, a ‘land rich’ landholder is a private company, a private unit trust scheme or a wholesale unit trust scheme that has:

1. land holdings in Victoria with an unencumbered value of $1,000,000 or more; and

2. its land holdings in all places (whether within or outside Australia) comprise 60% or more of the unencumbered value of all of its property.

Currently, duty is imposed where over a three year period a person acquires an interest of 50% or more in a ‘land rich’ private company or 20% or more in a ‘land rich’ private unit trust.

Although the specific details have not yet been released, it’s proposed that the new ‘land rich’ landholder duty model will remove the requirement of test number two above. Accordingly, an entity will be considered to be ‘land rich’ if it holds land in Victoria that exceeds a certain value irrespective of how significant its land holdings are as a percentage of its total assets. The relevant value is yet to be announced.

With this change, more entities will fall within the definition of a ‘land rich’ land holder which will in turn result in more acquisitions of private companies and private unit trusts becoming subject to duty.

Retirement villages that have been acquired through a share acquisition or acquisition of a unit trust could be impacted.

The proposed change will result in greater uniformity of the ‘land rich’ provisions amongst all the states and territories.

For example, private company X has land holdings in Victoria worth $3 million. Its total assets are worth $6 million. As the law currently stands, Company X is not a ‘land rich’ landholder. Person A acquires a 50% interest in Company X. No duty is payable on the acquisition.

Assuming the $1M threshold remains, Company X is considered to be a ‘land rich’ landholder. Where person A acquires a 50% interest in Company X, duty will be payable.

The RVA is working with Russell Kennedy to keep members informed as soon as the Government releases the specific details of this important change to the law.

Message from the Chief Executive Officer

IRCAS National Accreditation Scheme Proposal

The RVA has been working with Aged Care Queensland, ACAA and ACSA to assess being part of a national accreditation scheme for the whole industry (titled IRCAS – International Retirement Communities Accreditation Scheme).

Over the past eighteen months, the RVA executive and a sub committee of the RVA Board has reviewed IRCAS with input from the proposed Shareholders.  The goal has been development of a business plan that would deliver an improved scheme for members, consumers and could bring independent international certification.  The business case was critical for the RVA Board to assess the validity of the opportunity.

The review of IRCAS was undertaken in consideration of the ultimate objective of the RVA, that is is to make accreditation more accessible, aligned with the commercial needs of villages and to significantly increase the number of RVA members undertaking and renewing accreditation.  Be assured, accreditation is a key pillar of the RVA’s Strategic Plan and the future growth of the industry in demonstrating that we are committed to delivering quality accommodation and support for older Australians.

Considerable information was shared between the proposed shareholders in IRCAS.  However, the final business case could not satisfy the RVA in some key areas that would have been critical to its commercial and practical success.

The final decision of the RVA National Board, on the basis of the information presented, was that the imminent risks of the proposed scheme outweighed the benefits of a joint national approach for the industry.  The RVA is now committed to significantly improving its scheme, with a business plan being developed that will bring a series of new value added benefits to members and make accreditation more accessible and of increased value to members. 

The RVA has had a national accreditation scheme (designed by the industry for the industry) in operation for some fifteen years.  The scheme has excellent foundational elements that can be improved upon to deliver greater quality outcomes for the industry and build our message to government and the broader community that retirement villages are critical social infrastructure in our communities.

I look forward to, in the coming months, announcing a range of improvement initiatives in respect to the RVA National accreditation scheme.

Andrew Giles
Chief Executive Officer

 

Online nominations and applications now open for Manager of the Year

Online nominations and applications are now open for the RVA’s 2011 premier industry award, Manager of the Year, seeking the industry’s’ best village managers and leaders.

The search for the industry’s best village management talent is built upon nominations – a ‘tap on the shoulder’ from a staff member, peer, resident, family members of a resident, a village owner or operator or anyone who has a business relationship with a great village manager.

Nominating is the perfect opportunity to honour an inspirational, passionate and talented village manager.

For many people, the thrill of receiving a nomination in such a prestigious Award program is, in and of itself, a memorable career milestone.

Exceptional village managers from an RVA accredited village are represented in the Manager of the Year. We find that once nominated, many managers want to participate because the process provides in-depth self appraisal and affirmation of their successes.

After an individual has been nominated, they are required to submit an application. The application encourages participants to take stock of their village based on important key areas including resident satisfaction, business management, innovation and communication to name a few.

From the applicants who have put themselves ‘out there’ a short listing process is undertaken. Category finalists are interviewed by a panel of industry leaders and senior executives who lend credibility and strength to the process.

RVA CEO Andrew Giles said he hoped this year would see an increase in the number of applications for the award.

“This award has been very successful in past years and I think that’s because we have so many high quality managers that do a fantastic job.”

“I would like to see an increase in applications to make the competition even greater and thus elevate the prestige of the award even higher than it already is,” said Mr Giles.

This year’s awards are only open to RVA accredited villages or those in the process of being accredited and the village manager must have been in the role for at least 12 months.

Nominate now – it’s free and takes only a few minutes. Nominations and applications are accepted until 20 June.

What a career – the retirement village industry farewells Loretta Byers

The retirement village industry farewelled Loretta Byers at a recent dinner held in her honour in Adelaide.

Loretta Byers

More than 80 guests attended the dinner to celebrate the RVA life member and industry pioneer.  

Loretta is known as one of the industry’s leaders having over 30 years experience in the nursing, gerontology and the retirement housing and service industry and more specifically over 23 years in the retirement village industry.  She has been awarded Life Membership of the RVA for her services to the industry particularly related to her six years in Presidential roles of both state and National Retirement Village Association and assistance to government bodies with policy development for the industry.

RVA President Simon Owen delivered a fitting tribute to Loretta. In his tribute he explained that she has had an extensive career in the Retirement and Aged Care Industry and assisted many people. She has mentored and trained many of our professionals in the industry today and has aided each and every one of the guests that attended the dinner.  

A selection of Loretta’s career highlights include:

• 1985 Loretta was first involved as member of the Board for the Council of the Ageing
• 1990 for 7 years she was a member of the Consultative Group called together by the Commissioner of the Ageing to review Retirement Village Legislation.  
• 1992 she was President of the Retirement Villages Association of South Australia (RVASA) for 5 years and presiding Member of the Accreditation Development Committee for the RVA
• 1995 she was Vice President of the Retirement Villages Association of Australia until 1997
• 1997-1999 she was National President of the Retirement Villages Association.  At that time the RVA had a membership of 205 villages representing around 30,000 residents.  Today the RVA represents 565 villages and approximately 60,000 residents
• 1999-2001 she was an immediate Past President of the RVA and Executive Committee Member
• 2004 Loretta was awarded Life Membership of the RVA

To add to her many achievements, working with the ageing population includes research with the University of South Australia, management studies at the USA Stanford University and the National University of Singapore. She obtained the role of Managing Director, Cooperative Retirement Services, at the time a subsidiary of the Adelaide Bank, where she was responsible for over 50 villages across Australia.

For the past decade Loretta has been at the helm of Village Care, a company dedicated to the Australian retirement industry and is recognised for its unique combination of experienced and talented professionals providing consulting, sales and management services to the industry.

Loretta’s passion for the Retirement Industry has transferred down through her family and the many connections and respect she still has throughout the industry.  The RVA wish her will in her future endeavours.

What the residents said: financial planning for retirement village living

Eighty one retirees residing in eight retirement villages – four in New South Wales and four in South Australia – were interviewed as part of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Seniors’ Living Project, a study investigating seniors’ accommodation choice. A summary of findings has been prepared in a working paper entitled Financial planning for retirement village living: A qualitative exploration.

The results were based on a content analysis of the responses to the question “were there important financial considerations in choosing your current living situation?”  Of the 81 respondents, 29 either had no financial problems or did not mention such issues.

The remaining 52 respondents mentioned one or more financial issues and consequently formed the sample for the following analysis.

The respondents were grouped according to income and the results were analysed across the three groups: self-funded retirees, part-pension retirees and full-pension retirees. The 52 respondents included 28 females and 24 males. Thirty-three were married, 14 were widowed, 1 had a partner and the remaining 4 were single or divorced. Their ages ranged from 55 to 89 years with an overall average age of 76.3 years.

Financial considerations of retirees before moving to a retirement village

The sale of the family home provided the most agreement among the groups. More than one third of each group (5 of 13 self-funded retirees, 6 of 18 part-pension retirees and 7 of 21 full-pension retirees) agreed that selling the family residence was necessary to fund the purchase of the retirement village unit.

Maintenance fees was another area of agreement between the three groups, although both pension groups were more anxious about the rising costs of recurrent charges than self-funded retirees, whereas self-funded retirees were more concerned about how the recurrent charges were being spent.

The issue of affordability was directly related to income (30.7% of self-funded retirees discussed this compared with 33% of part-pensioners and 40% of full-pension retirees). Having a financially comfortable retirement was also important and four of the respondents revealed that they had chosen to purchase a retirement village within their budget rather than at their preferred location.

Superannuation was more widely discussed amongst the part-pensioners (8 of 18), in contrast to 2 of 13 self-funded retirees and 6 of 21 full-pensioners. It’s apparent that because part-pensioners supplement their superannuation with part-pension payments, they are the most volatile group in terms of income. Interestingly, the issue of deferred management fees (DMF) was mentioned only by the self-funded retirees (7 of 13).

Discussion and conclusions

The need to sell the family home and have enough money left over to enjoy a ‘financially comfortable retirement’ were important considerations for all three groups of residents (self-funded retirees, part-pensioners and full-pensioners) and remains a key ‘sticking point’ before seniors make the decision to relocate to a retirement village unit.

Unsurprisingly, self-funded retirees failed to identify affordability as frequently as both pension groups; however, they were the only group to mention DMFs, which could indicate the different priorities between self-funded retirees (SFRs) and both pension groups as the SFRs most likely have more disposable income and hence more freedom in their choice of retirement village. Related, SFRs were also less concerned about the rate of increase in their recurrent charges but more concerned about how their recurrent charges were spent.

What makes this qualitative study unique is the fact that the findings attempt to understand seniors’ financial considerations before making the decision to move into a retirement village, as opposed to the other studies in this area (albeit still too few) which have focused on pre-retirement decisions.

A full report will be available on the members section of the web site over the coming months.