Through fatigue, focus and re-framing – Business development expert Ken Ly shares how providers and aged care managers can meet compliance upfront for strategic advantage

Persistence through fatigue, funding as risk and opportunity is reshaping strategy for operational strength

This once-in-a-lifetime change is only as good as how it operates in the reality of the routine. And the reality is that providers and managerial staff are needing to leverage considerable experience to meet the changes in a way that supports highest operational efficiencies and growth targets. Particularly with the Oct-Dec quarter being the first assessment period for the Care Minute Supplement (CMS) compliance update, providers must not only position to meet obligations but to avoid what is a widening financial risk point. With funding penalties linked to care-minute delivery, Ken Ly, a business development and funding manager, shares the persistence and attitude of managerial strategy that can be the difference between competitive edge and possible compliance entropy.

Acknowledging initial cost

Ly’s time at health generation has seen him come to personally know and work alongside many sincerely diligent managers in aged care that are leveraging book-smart and heart-lenses through this once-in-a-lifetime metamorphosis. Oftentimes first in the office, and last out, this time has been far from the glitz painted by outside media. As in bringing any aircraft down to land, it’s the rubber hitting the road that most jars. Words of an act are well-meaning but it is in the implementation of them, in a fashion that’s excellent for residents and sustainable for providers, that is the acute challenge of organisations and staff across the nation.

In light of this context, Ly helpfully shares that from wrestling through change and strategy with managers in aged care, they are both energised and fatigued, “it’s a mix.” It is worthwhile for leadership to understand that in the months-long approach to November 1, and now in the continuing time post, energy has been outlayed. 

“Most managers are committed and genuinely want to get funding and care minutes right, but the first month under the new Act has been heavy.”

Ly shares, “There’s fatigue simply because the volume of change is high and the pressure is constant.”

Allowing space for acknowledging fatigue in the midst of working hard has its place in leadership and strategy.

Meeting challenge upfront

In working alongside providers and managers who have been toiling since November 2024, while the road has been long, those that started early are feeling the benefits.

“What I’ve noticed is this: services that are already in a stable position with the broader reform work tend to feel more energised about tackling funding and care minutes. They have the bandwidth.”

“In contrast, managers in homes still trying to stabilise multiple reform requirements often need to place funding and minutes slightly lower on their priority list — not because they don’t care, but because their operational load is already stretched”, Ly notes.

“Preppers”

Ly has seen that providers who have been open to listen to the strategic vision of managers, who have been advocating for increased funding upfront, are seeing a more secured position in operational stability and sustainability.

“The managers who prepared well did one thing early: they framed funding and care minute management as both a risk and an opportunity, not just another compliance task.”

From listening to managers across the past year, Ly has particular insight into the strategy that managers brought to upper leadership.

The team approached executives with simple and concise points.

• “Here’s the funding we risk losing.”
• “Here’s the labour cost impact if we don’t get ahead of it.”
• “Here’s what we can gain if we set it up properly.”

He says, “they also explained that the setup work was a one-off investment that would reduce ongoing operational load — fewer last‑minute roster fixes, less agency, fewer surprises.”

Ly is transparent, there is a challenge when approaching executive leadership with funding strategy requests, managers benefited from pitches with substance over individualised bandaids.

“Executives usually engaged well when the conversation focused on financial exposure, operational stability and resident outcomes — not on buying another tool or running another training session.”

“The risk is real”

Ly’s advice to providers from what he has seen and analysed is to see the full picture of reform in its fullness. When it comes to CMS, “the risk is real and often underestimated. Missing CMS doesn’t just affect compliance — it directly impacts revenue and overall financial performance.”

In talks with provider leadership he has consistently used an example to highlight his point.

“If we have a metro MM1 home with 115 beds, running at around 98% quarterly occupancy and delivering about 92% of required minutes (total and RN), in this scenario, the provider could be exposed to around $150k per quarter in lost CMS.”

In his time at health generation, what has set most managers on the back foot is not the awareness that there could be financial implications but the delay in understanding how serious it is.

“What catches many managers off guard is the lag between performance and financial impact. Because the dollars land later, the urgency can be easy to miss in the moment. That’s why unprepared homes often don’t see the risk until the quarter closes — when it’s too late to correct.”

“Preparedness turns this from a surprise into something predictable and manageable.”

Don’t overcomplicate

Ly’s experience with providers and managers that have met the compliance change effectively is in efficiency of pivot.

“The services that handled this well kept things simple and practical. Most didn’t start with heavy training — they focused first on making sure the core operating model was solid, which then allows the training to be more structured, targeted and outcome based.”

He saw upskilling take the shape of:

•  “Giving everyone a solid baseline understanding of the funding and care minute rules.”
•  “Tailoring training to each role instead of running one broad session for all staff.”
• “Using real residents and real scenarios rather than hypothetical examples.”
•  “Keeping sessions short, frequent and practical — not long one‑offs that people forget.”
• “Establishing internal or external “go‑to” people who could support the team and reinforce the practices.”

The knee-jerk reaction to cover waves of change, in an upskilling overload, can overwhelm systems and staff. Ly saw benefits to, “keeping the learning grounded and relevant. Staff picked things up quickly because they could immediately see how the information applied to their daily work.”

Targeted upskilling

Working alongside managers, he saw three key areas focused:

• “Funding/AN-ACC teams — responsible for funding management and uplift opportunities”
• “Roster/workforce teams — responsible for roster builds and capacity planning”
• “Care managers — responsible for clinical oversight and how care is delivered day to day”

The question to guide the decision of where to inject funds and resources was a simple one and straightforward, “who has the most influence on care minutes and funding outcomes — directly or indirectly?”

“Once that was clear, those teams were prioritised first.” It can be tempting to reinvent the wheel with strategy assessment, but conserving energy for the long road of change is worthwhile for providers to safeguard.

Decision focus

Ly advocates for honesty in how operations are fairing. Within the three areas he assesses need the strongest systems and processes, transparency of readiness is key when preparing for new compliance, particularly CMS.

Data quality and visibility, if not done right he says, can make, “management become guesswork”. A single operating framework, that “pulls the data together, connects and makes sense of funding goals, roster capacity and care delivery” is not a nice to have, it’s non-negotiable. And finally, “a clear workflow, who does what, when and how” is not pithy, it’s powerful.

Ly shares that once the providers have face where they’re truly at with these areas, two pathways have predominantly been used to build-up the systems and processes:

• “Internal development — more control and customisation, but often slower and more resource‑intensive than expected.”
• “External solutions — quicker to deploy with proven structures, but it’s important to choose partners who are reliable, transparent and well aligned with your operating needs.”

Most providers, Ly notes, end up using a mix of both — internal for the parts of process that need to be bespoke for their unique environment, and external for the parts that leverage established, sector‑tested frameworks. Taking the time and energy to figure out this balance is critical for managers and providers setting up the dynamic of collaborative and sustainable strength. Any old partner will not do.

Confusion is not weakness

Ly kindly shares that for many managers he has worked with, clarity was neither instant nor easy, it was hard fought for. When it came to understanding the implications of CMS penalties in the real-world, the consequences were opaque for many.

“Many managers said the consequences felt unclear in the early stages — not because the rules themselves were hard to read, but because it wasn’t obvious how they played out in real operational situations.”

The structure of process is complicated, “a big part of the confusion comes from timing. Care minute performance is assessed at the end of the current quarter, while the financial impact lands in the future quarter. That delay makes it harder to link cause and effect.”

And while no manager should feel alone in their confusion there is a gauntlet of understanding that must be won, “it took time for people to connect the chain: classifications → care minute targets → care minute delivery → reporting obligations → CMS and labour cost impact.”

Ly shares, “once that clicked, the system made far more sense”, but as is the case for many who sincerely wish to uphold their fellow personnel in aged care, he shares what veterans in aged care have long known, aged care systems can do your head in, “but it definitely wasn’t intuitive at first…”

It is worth it, he says, for providers and staff to work together to tackle systems management and the entrenching of sustainable real-time monitoring, “managers who have real‑time visibility don’t get caught off guard at the end of the quarter.”

“Misalignments usually start small in the early weeks and can snowball into a large gap toward the end if not managed. Without real‑time or near real‑time monitoring, those early signals are easy to miss.”

He good-naturedly doesn’t mince words, “real‑time control is the difference between running the quarter and the quarter running them.”

Positive outcomes

Ly shares that managers have reported back to him a trending set of benefits for doing the work he’s described and supported.

• “More stable and predictable staffing patterns”
• “Stronger net funding results across quarters”
• “Less reactive labour spend and fewer last‑minute corrections”
• “Better alignment and communication between clinical, roster and funding teams”
• “Executives feeling far more confident in the numbers and the underlying processes”

He is surprised that most said the largest shift wasn’t in financial terms but in the improvement of “sense of clarity and control across the team”.

“Day‑to‑day operations felt more deliberate, more structured and noticeably less chaotic”, maintaining the potential of translating to significantly improving bottom line outcomes.

Adaptability is possible

Regardless of whether a provider had started the process of responding to compliance changes early, or is just understanding the need to augment processes, Ly highlights that during these past months of regular grueling learning and updating there have been surprises along the way.

“Two things have stood out to me, managers were able to adapt faster than I expected once the right structures were in place”, he shares. “And there’s a growing appetite for data literacy. People who once avoided funding analytics are now deeply engaged — because they see how much it helps their residents, staff and overall performance.”

Ly is transparent with the journey so far, “it’s been a challenging transition”. But for the managers and providers he’s worked alongside, for the residents at the heart of the aged care sector, the goal is worth it. While it’s been a difficult time, “it’s also built a stronger, more capable sector.”

As high-performing providers pivot to meet compliance challenges upfront for strategic advantage and care excellence, strong and capable partners well with dignified and person-centred.