Aged care providers are building support plans around government funding. Many of those plans are already financially fragile and no one is talking about it.
The ASFA Retirement Standard for March 2026 puts a comfortable retirement at $55,923 a year for a single homeowner aged 65 to 84. For couples, it’s $78,566. Those figures cover housing maintenance, health out-of-pockets, transport and utilities. They don’t, however, account for the care costs that accumulate once Support at Home co-contributions enter the picture.
For homeowners aged 85 and over, the ASFA data shows HACC contributions running at $142 a week for a single person living comfortably – $48 a week at the modest standard. Stack that against chemist costs ($29 a week), out-of-pocket health expenses ($93 a week) and repairs and maintenance ($25 a week), and the math gets tight fast.
The ageing in place cost problem operators need to understand
The policy direction is clear: government wants older Australians to be able to stay home longer. Support at Home is an attempt to reflect that. But what policy doesn’t solve is the cash-flow gap between what government funds and what it actually costs to age safely at home.
Dianne Shepherd, CEO of Homesafe Wealth Release, has watched this gap widen over two decades. “Remaining safely and comfortably at home is not cost free,” she says. “It often requires ongoing spending on home maintenance, repairs, healthcare, transport and everyday living expenses.”
The clients she describes – known widely as the ‘asset rich, cash poor’ group – aren’t a fringe case. They’re a growing cohort showing up in care plans across the sector.
Asset rich, cash poor: what it means for care plan viability
A property worth $1.2 million doesn’t pay for a bathroom modification, an urgent repair or the gap fee on a package. Unless a client has accessible cash flow, their care plan is operating on assumptions that might not hold.
Providers are not lenders and can’t solve individual clients’ financial situations. But the question worth asking is whether your organisation has any process for identifying care plans that are financially unsustainable before they collapse.
Shepherd’s observation is direct: “Many Australians assume the family home protects them from financial pressure in retirement, but the reality is that maintaining a home and funding independence can be expensive.”
The sector hears the “asset rich, cash poor” framing often enough that it risks becoming a cliché. The ASFA data gives it weight. The gap between a comfortable and a modest retirement for a single homeowner is nearly $20,000 a year. That is not a rounding error, it’s the difference between a client who can maintain their home and one who struggles to.
Support at Home reform and the funding gap it doesn’t close
The Support at Home program, which commenced in late 2025, addresses service access. It doesn’t address the underlying financial position of clients who can’t afford the extra costs (cleaning, transport, modifications, maintenance, etc) that make ageing in place a liveable option. Those costs sit outside funded packages.
For clients without cash on hand, they go unmet. When unmet needs accumulate, care arrangements break down: families escalate, staff carry the load, and providers absorb the consequences.
Homesafe reports a 20% increase in enquiries from older homeowners looking to access housing equity to fund living and property costs. It’s a figure directionally consistent with what providers are observing on the ground. A
The governance question
The funding gap isn’t a problem providers can solve on their own. But it is a problem they can stop ignoring in care planning.
A care plan built on the assumption that a client’s finances are stable – without any process to test that assumption – is not a robust plan. As the aged care operating environment tightens, that distinction will matter more, not less.
The conversation Shepherd is pushing for is a practical one: not whether clients should downsize, but what it will actually cost to stay home. And how those costs will be met.
That is a question worth putting on the agenda before a health event, a maintenance crisis or a family complaint forces it to the forefront.
