Australia’s home care system has long operated in a way that many found difficult to understand, and even harder to navigate. Government subsidies were substantial, but the way they were allocated and spent often seemed detached from reality. Care recipients rarely saw the funds directly, pricing lacked transparency, and the value of services delivered didn’t always match the size of the budget.

Take, for example, a $70,000 home care package — which, after administration and management deductions, might leave a person with only eight hours of basic weekly support. It’s little wonder that some viewed the system as a kind of “Monopoly money” economy: visible on paper, technically valuable, but oddly intangible in practice.

And while this model worked for some, particularly full pensioners, it often left others, especially self-funded retirees, on the margins.

Rethinking the Role of Contributions and Value

The new Support at Home program represents an attempt to address some of the long standing structural problems in the system. Among the most notable changes are:

  • The introduction of mandatory personal contributions for non-clinical support
  • Universal access to government funded clinical services, regardless of income
  • Upcoming price caps on service fees, designed to curb excessive pricing

Each of these changes shifts the dynamics of aged care funding in important ways – especially in terms of accountability, equity, and sustainability.

The Role of Personal Contributions

For years, care recipients have often had little reason to question how funds were used. But when people are asked to pay part of the cost, even modest amounts, the dynamic changes. Individuals begin to engage more actively in decisions about what services they need, who delivers them, and whether they represent good value.

Under the new framework, minimum contribution rates will apply to services such as transport, meal delivery, home cleaning, and personal care. While this may create cost sensitivity, it also introduces the concept of co-responsibility: the idea that shared investment leads to more conscious decision-making and better use of limited resources.

Removing Financial Disincentives to Clinical Support

Another key shift is the removal of means testing for clinical care. In the past, self funded retirees could be asked to pay thousands of dollars annually before receiving support, discouraging many from participating in the system altogether. This has led to underutilisation of available services — and sometimes to greater strain on other parts of the health system, such as hospitals and GPs.

Equal access to clinical services like nursing and allied health, regardless of means, marks a philosophical shift. It aligns aged care more closely with the principles of universal health care and recognises that access to health related support should not depend on how one is funded.

Price Capping: A Necessary Step?

In theory, a competitive market should keep prices in check. In practice, the aged care sector hasn’t functioned this way. Providers often operate in semi-monopolistic environments, and without strong market signals, prices have steadily risen — often out of step with the actual cost of service delivery.

Price capping, scheduled for introduction in 2026, is a response to this. While not without its challenges, the policy reflects a broader concern: that aged care funding should deliver care, not disappear into overhead. The move also echoes trends seen in the NDIS, where clearer pricing frameworks have helped improve accountability (even if other issues remain).

What This Means for the Future

These reforms don’t just fix structural problems, they shift the entire philosophy of aged care funding:

  • Funding is now more equitable and scalable.
  • Care recipients are more empowered to question costs.
  • Self-funded retirees are no longer excluded from meaningful support.
  • The sector is being nudged toward efficiency, transparency, and fairness.

Aged care funding isn’t pretend money. It’s real public money, with real consequences — and now there is a change that will make support at home more accessible, and quicker for more Australians.