Editorial: Report sheds light on needs of aged care

Equal Opportunities Commisioner Judy McGregor. Photo / APN

Full marks to Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor for leaving the comfort of her desk to work under cover in an aged-care facility for a week. This has added weight to her Caring Counts report on the sector. If the same cannot be said for some of her more inflammatory language - claims of "modern-day slavery" and suchlike - she has succeeded in shining a light on an obviously unsatisfactory aspect of this burgeoning industry.

That involves carers who work for private providers (at about $14 an hour) being paid about $3 less than those doing much the same work directly for district health boards in hospitals. Mr McGregor says this situation is possible only because of the exploitation of "the emotional goodwill of thousands of workers, predominantly women". She wants pay increases for the 48,000 workers phased in over three years until community-based workers achieve pay parity.

This would cost about $140 million a year, and the Prime Minister has said it would not be considered until the Government achieves a surplus, scheduled for 2014. In the meantime, other priorities in the health sector will take precedence. Although he did not say as much, there are other reasons for John Key to pause before increasing the Government subsidy to private providers. One is that any pay rise would surely trigger calls for similar increases from workers in much the same circumstances.

Some of Ms McGregor's other recommendations may, therefore, prove more fruitful. One of these is the development of a five-star system of ranking residential facilities for quality assurance. Another is for district health boards to set out expectations on how providers spend money and to state fair pay requirements.

The former has considerable appeal because of the way it would improve consumer choice and public accountability. This would be especially useful for people who want to see their aged relatives receive the best of care. Usually, that will be supplied by providers who employ a high-quality and stable workforce. Staff, in turn, will be attracted to facilities that pay well and maintain strong morale.

The industry's 25 per cent staff turnover each year confirms that too often this is not now the case. To some degree, this may be symptomatic of a relatively young industry, one in which some companies are still grappling with a mix that best accommodates aged-care facilities and retirement villages. But it is also a sector that, given the country's demographic profile, notably the ageing baby-boomer generation, will become increasingly important, and more profitable. Among other things, it will require 70 per cent more workers within the next decade. Those working in the sector - currently undervalued as well as underpaid, according to Ms McGregor - can, therefore, expect to become more appreciated in the years ahead.

Private providers, for their part, will prosper unless they deter patronage by employing insufficient or low-quality staff. Those that try to operate on the cheap would be found out quickly by a five-star system. Some providers are already supplementing the Government's subsidy to pay something above the commonplace $14 an hour. They calculate, obviously, that a higher-quality operation will enhance long-term profitability.

Such providers are unlikely to fall victim to the looming shortage of aged-care workers. Equally, they will not feature in stories about mistreated or neglected people. To that end, pressure from those keen to ensure their elderly relations receive the best-possible attention may be a major key to improving the carers' lot.