| Who is pulling the strings? |
27 Oct 08 |
Print page: |
|
|
How many of us know who actually owns the aged-care homes where our frail, older friends and relatives live? Often there is a web of complex structures behind the day-to-day management of the facility. It is hard to know just who is responsible.
When the Bridgewater facility in Roxburgh Park in Victoria closed, the administrator from PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that, a sale required the agreement of 45 separate parties under a strata title arrangement. Presumably not all of these were parties were significant in regard to how the home functioned or its total economic viability. But it gives some indication of the complexity of the arrangements behind much of our nursing home care. Just last week, it was reported that AMP Capital Investors subsidiary, Principal Healthcare Group (PHG) has decided to acquire 25 per cent of Victorian operator, Blue Cross. Again, this raises many questions. How will this affect the running of Blue Cross facilities? Will PHG be calling any of the shots in terms of funding and expenses? What responsibility does a company which owns 25 per cent of the business have to the vulnerable residents? How suitable is such an owner/investor to be responsible for the care for our frail elders? Perhaps the most significant issue is whether the people in the shadows behind some failed aged-care enterprises end up are pulling the strings in yet another. And how would we know! Earlier this month, Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot, proposed legislative changes aimed at protecting accommodation bonds. She also proposed ….expanding the range of people who are “key personnel” to include those pulling the financial strings so there is greater scrutiny and transparency on who is exercising control over an aged care home. This will prevent a provider with a poor quality record re-appearing behind a front entity or a shelf company from avoiding scrutiny; ‘Expanding the range of key personnel’ is a modest goal and it is hoped that this will be achieved. But more must be done. Surely the complete ownership structure of all entities involved in the provision of aged care should be openly available – not only to government bureaucrats but to all of us. And furthermore, we should consider if this is the way we really want aged care funded in this country. Newer articles:
Older articles:
|
Who is accountable when things go wrong? Who is actually pulling the strings? Who is ordering the damaging cost-cutting?We welcome your comments on this article. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification.
Why is politics doing this to us, Columnist? And it's NOT because they believe aged care can't survive without an injection of corporate funds.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from Ian Verrender. He is the business editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, a good read, and this is from his column on the collapse of ABC Learning. What he is saying about childcare and farming is exactly what most of us would say about aged care:
".........Despite all the high-powered negotiations and due diligence, they [big banks and investment houses] missed the bleeding obvious - that small family-run suburban child-care centres will always be more efficient than small corporate-run ones. It is the same ethos that has ruled the economics of rural production in this country.
Corporate farming has never overtaken family-run operations because a family will run their business on a much tighter budget and will endure leaner returns than any corporation just to ensure their survival.
A corporation will only be more efficient than a family business if it can amalgamate small disparate holdings, achieve economies of scale in purchasing power or marketing power, and lower the cost of production. It works in retailing, and that is the reason large retailers can offer lower prices than corner shops.
That model was never adopted by ABC Learning because it could never be implemented. Child care is labour intensive. It requires skilled labour by individuals devoted to the task, not just paid employees. Groves and ABC could not lower the cost base of a family-run operation. His business merely added to costs because of the enormous amount of administration required to maintain the compliance demands ..............."
I hope he won't sue me for pinching so much of his article. But Columnist, why is politics (both sides) doing this?
Why are they forcing us down a path that is already cruel to many of our elders and threatens to ruin the whole sector? Obviously, the corporates have much to gain, as we're still in the amalgamation/consolidation phase and besides, there are big government subsidies.
But why is POLITICS doing this?