Senior New Zealanders Let Down By Government… Again
The Minister for Seniors has announced that a fund to support older New Zealanders transfer from hospitals, to be cared for in aged residential care and the community will continue.
Aged Care Association chief executive Tracey Martin says, "There's no money in the Budget for older New Zealanders, so the Government has resorted to announcing the continuation of existing funds as a win.
The continuation of the current $6 million funding for another four years is an insult to the tens of thousands of older New Zealanders who need, and will need in future, aged care in this country.
It is likely that more money has been spent on expensive reports over the last decade; reports that highlight again and again how underfunded the aged care sector is, and how unprepared our society is to provide the care at least a quarter of all New Zealanders over the age of 85 will need.
And let's be clear, government doesn't fund residential aged care providers, the key relationship is between the government and the individual New Zealander. It is the senior who is assessed as needing care, it is the senior who is asset and income tested, it is the senior who is recommended by a government agency to enter residential care for safety and clinical care needs.
This is who the Government is thumbing their nose at - the person who needs care, not our members, who provide the care. Our members are working as hard and as efficiently as they can to keep their doors open, to care for our elders.
If Government can't acknowledge that positive and sustainable change can only happen if we are included, then we are all in trouble. The $6 million fund might still be there to help seniors transfer from hospital, but it is increasingly likely that there will be nowhere for them to transfer to."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Accident numbers putting pressure on ACC
Nearly half the population of Otago had active Accident Compensation Corporation injury claims last year, prompting the government agency to raise concerns about the financial pressure it was putting on the sustainability of the scheme. In 2024, there were 100,336 new injury claims and 124,269 active injury claims made to ACC from people in the Otago region, costing the taxpayer more than $312 million to help them recover. Otago's total population in 2024 was 251,300. ACC injury prevention leader James Whitaker said the number of injury claims and associated costs were the highest in the Otago region for the past five years, and the numbers reflected a nationwide trend. "In 2020, ACC accepted 90,375 injury claims from the Otago region at a cost of $189m. "To put it simply, more people are getting injured, and it is taking longer and costing more for them to recover." He said the data had showed ACC needed to look more seriously at raising collective awareness of the need to prevent injuries. In 2024, ACC accepted two million injury claims from 1.6 million New Zealanders, and it cost nearly $7b to help people recover from these injuries and to maintain some form of income (weekly compensation). A total of $4.4b of these costs went towards rehabilitation expenses. He said over the past 20 years, the costs of supporting New Zealanders with injuries had climbed from just under $1b in 2004, to nearly $4.4b in 2024. Mr Whitaker said the high number of injury claims and costs was putting pressure on the sustainability of the ACC scheme. "We want all New Zealanders to get the help and support they need when they're injured now and for many generations to come. "What we all need to do is be more mindful and present when there is injury risk present. If I get hurt, what is the impact on those people who I care about?" The most common injuries occurred at home or in the community (61,920 costing $167m); sport/recreation (26,660 costing $58m); and work (10,346 costing $66m). ACC Minister Scott Simpson said a report titled "Injuries in New Zealand" would be released annually to help raise the collective awareness and promote injury prevention. "ACC is a unique and world-leading scheme and one that we cannot afford to take for granted. "Injuries cause harm to the person injured, but they also put pressure on business productivity and on the financial position of the ACC scheme. "We need to safeguard ACC, so it is there to help and support our future generations. "One of the key areas [in which] we need to improve is reducing injuries." Whether it was at home and in our communities, at work, in sport and recreation or on our roads, the number of people getting injured was too high — especially considering most injuries were preventable, he said. Mr Whitaker said independent research indicated more New Zealanders were now taking actions to prevent injuries to themselves and other people. "By being present in the moments when there is injury risk, we can get the job done and continue to do the things we love. "This is far better than experiencing pain, creating flow-on effects for friends and family, and facing a long rehabilitation."
Otago Daily Times
12 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Diagnosis is that team work is needed
Gil Barbezat asks what is needed for vital healthcare reform. For many years, New Zealanders have enjoyed state-provided medical services. An ageing and growing population, technological development and practice refinements mean our medical workforce and infrastructure no longer meet evolving needs. Daily media critiques of shortcomings in our healthcare expose serious problems. Decline in access and equity of services Healthcare problems have increased steadily since the 1990s introduction of neoliberal health policies. Recent surveys of OECD countries suggested New Zealand generally provided good care, but problems were identified relating to access and equity. Differences between patients of high- and low-income, urban or rural residence and ethnic and gender issues feature prominently among our troublesome statistics. Politicians of various persuasions have failed to maintain their obligations towards modern patient-based services. Neglecting maintenance of hospital buildings and development for decades is now predictably taking its toll. What is required? • Staffing needs Medical professional education at our two existing medical schools needs greater support. Access to foreign graduates becomes difficult in a competitive healthcare labour market. Patient-related clinical experience in public (not private) hospitals is essential for professional training. Clinic- and hospital-based specialist services should be staffed and equipped to modern standards. Hard decisions are required to determine where these services are made available. Some (e.g., organ transplantation) will remain in major centres. • Working environment Collaborative teamwork at all levels is required for successful staff recruitment and retention. Existing staff are frustrated by insufficient operating and procedure time allocation to meet patient demand. Morbidity and mortality increase, particularly for cancer and heart conditions. Negotiating salary scales with staff who are overworked and have insufficient support while struggling in crumbling facilities is unnecessarily antagonistic. Outsourcing patients to private facilities relies predominantly on the same staff, merely shifting the venue and diluting public hospital staff at increased cost. GPs provide the backbone of our system; more are urgently needed, especially in rural areas. Services should be integrated collaboratively with accessible specialist services (investigations and treatments). The current situation where GP practices become a cul de sac for patients normally requiring specialist care elsewhere is frustrating, dangerous and costs lives. • Operational management Medical professionals provide medical advice at the interface between clinical demands and the community. In the current environment, that treatment or advice is too often futile as it has become unavailable. Crucial decisions are determined by budgets allocated by politicians and implemented by appointed managers, neither of whom have direct contact with patients. Clinicians exceeding budgets are regarded as inefficient. More clinical input is essential in determining budgets. Administrators and politicians laud evidence-based management outputs, but resist attempts to measure the gap between patient demand and service delivery. They evade accountability for service deficiencies by actively avoiding the collection of data on that topic. Budget adjustments — who pays? State-run public healthcare systems are most economical. Private practice remains a choice. Two-tiered healthcare, where timely diagnosis and treatment are available only to those who can afford to pay, is unacceptable. Some claim they would give anything to regain their health and be happy to pay for it. But what happens to those who cannot afford anything beyond their daily living costs? Early care saves future expense. Dollars spent on healthcare return a handsome dividend. Preventive medicine is cost-effective, but requires time and appropriate investment in staff and infrastructure. ACC delivering prompt access to fully funded treatment has improved outcomes. Despite its expense, care is more accessible and equitable compared to that for other medical conditions. Some similar funding stream could be found for other services. Any public-private partnership (PPP) includes investors' profit. PPPs provided rapid improvement to an ailing United Kingdom National Health Service system in the 1990s, only to lead to eventual added expense when inevitable interest payments became increasingly burdensome. Procedures are more expensive in the private sector. Just as wine is far more expensive in a restaurant, healthcare is far more expensive in the private sector. Public service costs could be regarded as wholesale rates, avoiding the markup inevitable in profit-driven systems. Profiteering is not confined to supermarkets. Despite the highest per capita spending on health, the United States has the worst health statistics among most OECD countries. Meeting the health requirements of New Zealanders requires further investment of government funds, but money is not of sole importance. Happy and productive staff deliver the best collaborative and economical care. Better staffed public hospitals serve more contented communities. Our government recently found a large financial cache to increase military spending. Is universal healthcare less important? Revenue generation through some form of equitable, innovative taxation must provide much needed additional funding. Urgent collaborative action required Collaboration beyond party politics is required for equitable access to good clinical care for all Kiwis. Health outcome measurements can monitor the success or failure of their actions. • Gil Barbezat is an emeritus professor of medicine.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Cancer charity Look Good Feel Better gets a wellbeing-focused makeover
For more than 30 years, Look Good Feel Better has been supporting New Zealanders who have cancer. With backing from the cosmetics industry, the charity is best known for its makeover skincare and make-up classes, and has mostly focused on helping women navigate the changes in their appearance caused by
