The aged sector and disabilities services are primarily funded by the Commonwealth, while the healthcare sector is funded by the States. The funding ‘pie’ typically doesn’t get much larger, but the slices are reapportioned to try and accommodate population growth and new services. It’s competitive to get your share.
What we fund is just as important as how much funding is available – with an emphasis on ‘beds filled’ or treatment types delivered rather than on the quality of the care or rewarding programs designed to reduce the prevalence of preventable disease. It is admirable that the Liberal and Labor parties want to invest in cancer research, however investments in prevention will eliminate the need for some of this research and allow vulnerable people to avoid disease in the first place. With the cost of running a community program to improve overall health outcomes much cheaper than the cost of treating disease, surely a re-think on what we fund in the system could achieve a better return on investment? The upshot: more essential funding is available for those who truly need it.
A potential barrier to this is patchy business maturity in the sector. Knowing what to invest in – the kinds of skills and roles that will boost outcomes as opposed to creating more bureaucracy – is a skill that many companies in the sector require but may not have.
In addition to access of funding being difficult, the availability of quality and qualified people to work in the industry continues to be a barrier – particularly in demanding roles (such as nurses in the aged care sector) and in regional areas.
Governments need to understand that certainty of funding allocations and models is required to stimulate long term investments in health service facilities, from built environment to specialist diagnostic equipment. Our industry requires long term commitments.
Download our mid-sized business report to read the full Health & Aged Care insight.
