OVER 60% of current taxpayers would be willing to pay an additional 1.4% of income tax per year on average in order to achieve a satisfactory level of quality aged care, and an additional 3.1% per year on average to ensure a high level of quality aged care.
Research, published today by the MJA, was commissioned by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to conduct a nationwide survey of Australians’ willingness to pay more for better aged care.
Professor Julie Ratcliffe, Professor of Health Economics at Flinders University’s Caring Futures Institute, and colleagues wrote that:
“At present, 4% of Australia’s income tax contributions are allocated to aged care.
“Modelling by the [Commission] indicates that a doubling of this expenditure base may be required in the short to medium term to meet the needs of Australia’s rising numbers of older people.”
An additional issue is the declining ratio of working age Australians to those aged 85 years and older, which has dropped from 101:1 in 1978, to 33:1 in 2018. By 2058 it is expected to be 15:1.
Ratcliffe and colleagues’ survey sample included 6500 current income taxpayers not currently receiving aged care.
“We found that 61% of current income taxpayers would be willing to pay an additional 1.4% income tax per year to ensure universal access to a satisfactory level of aged care, and 55% of current income taxpayers would be willing to pay an additional 3% income tax per year to achieve high quality aged care,” Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
“Respondents with experience of aged care through a close family member were willing to pay more to guarantee universal access to satisfactory or high quality care compared with those without experience.
“Similarly, younger people were also willing to pay slightly more than older people to ensure universal access to satisfactory or high quality care.”
Ratcliffe and colleagues said increasing the income tax contribution to aged care would not be enough to sufficiently bolster the aged care system.
“There will be an increasing need for additional pillars of financial support beyond the current system, comprising income tax contributions as the major financial pillar supplemented by means-tested personal co-contributions and voluntary self-funded contributions for extra services or supports,” they wrote.
Germany and Japan have compulsory social insurance schemes, and other potential support included taxing superannuation earnings above a certain threshold, and private insurance.
“As a society, we need to take collective responsibility, building upon the foundations laid by our Australia-wide survey to carefully consider all options for ensuring the quality, safety and sustainability of Australia’s aged care system for all Australians in need, now and into the future,” Ratcliffe and colleagues concluded.
Also online first today at mja.com.au
Research: The value of clinical breast examination in a breast cancer surveillance program for women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations
Hettipathirana et al; doi: 10.5694/mja2.51226 … FREE ACCESS permanently.
Research letter: The clinical value of “exception item” colonoscopy (MBS item 32228)
See et al; doi: 10.5694/mja2.51241 … FREE ACCESS permanently.
Accepted article: Policy considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination from the Collaboration on Social Science in Immunisation
Leask et al; doi: 10.5694/mja2.51269 … FREE ACCESS permanently.