The Hidden Exploitation in Aged Care: A System Failing Our Most Vulnerable
There’s a story that’s been haunting me lately—one that exposes a deeply troubling underbelly of the aged care system. It’s about Dorothy, a woman with advanced dementia, who was charged $52 a day for services she couldn’t possibly use: Foxtel, wine, and newspapers. What makes this particularly fascinating—and infuriating—is how it’s not an isolated incident. It’s a symptom of a much larger, systemic issue that’s quietly exploiting some of society’s most vulnerable individuals.
The Emotional Trap of Unfair Contracts
When Dorothy’s son, Jeff Gilling, discovered these charges, he was faced with an impossible choice: fight a seemingly insurmountable system or prioritize his mother’s immediate care. This dilemma is where the real exploitation lies. Families in these situations are often emotionally drained, desperate to secure safe care for their loved ones. The contracts are presented as non-negotiable, and the urgency of the moment leaves little room for questioning.
Personally, I think this is where the system is designed to fail families. The emotional leverage is deliberate, preying on the fear and stress of caregivers. What many people don’t realize is that these contracts often include clauses that are not only unethical but potentially illegal. Gilling’s case is a rare success story—he managed to secure a $37,000 refund after a lengthy battle. But how many others are silently bearing the burden, unaware of their rights or too exhausted to fight?
The Profit Motive in Aged Care
Here’s where things get even more disturbing: the national regulator, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, received 199 complaints about unfair fees in just the first half of 2026. Of those, 121 were against for-profit providers. This isn’t just a coincidence. The profit motive in aged care is a double-edged sword. While it can drive innovation and efficiency, it also creates a perverse incentive to maximize revenue at the expense of residents’ well-being.
From my perspective, this raises a deeper question: should aged care be a for-profit industry at all? When companies like Arcare face class actions for allegedly charging residents for services they can’t use—like high teas and exercise classes—it’s clear that the line between care and commerce has been blurred. What this really suggests is that the system is failing to prioritize humanity over profit.
The ‘Two-Tier’ System: A New Form of Inequality
The introduction of the Higher Everyday Living Fee (Helf) was supposed to address these issues by allowing residents to pay for premium services. But, as Dr. Sarah Russell of Aged Care Matters points out, it’s created a ‘two-tier’ system. Those who can afford the extras get a higher standard of living, while those who can’t are left with the bare minimum.
One thing that immediately stands out is how this mirrors broader societal inequalities. Aged care, which should be a universal right, is becoming a luxury. What’s worse, some providers are allegedly reducing the quality of basic services to push residents into paying for premiums. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a form of coercion—and it’s happening to people who are already marginalized by age and health.
The Human Cost of Policy Failures
What makes this issue so heartbreaking is the human cost. Dorothy’s story isn’t just about money; it’s about dignity. Charging someone with dementia for services they can’t use isn’t just unethical—it’s dehumanizing. It reduces care to a transaction, stripping away the compassion that should be at its core.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how families like Gilling’s are often left to navigate this system alone. The regulatory response, while necessary, feels reactive rather than proactive. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission’s investigations are a step in the right direction, but they’re not enough. We need systemic reform that prioritizes residents’ rights over providers’ profits.
Where Do We Go From Here?
In my opinion, the solution lies in a fundamental shift in how we view aged care. It shouldn’t be a profit-driven industry but a public good, funded and regulated to ensure equitable, compassionate care for all. This means stronger oversight, clearer legislation, and a cultural shift that values the elderly not as revenue streams but as individuals deserving of respect and dignity.
What this really suggests is that the problem isn’t just about unfair fees—it’s about our collective values. Are we willing to let profit dictate the care of our most vulnerable? Or will we demand a system that puts humanity first?
Dorothy’s story is a wake-up call. It’s a reminder that behind every policy failure, there’s a human face—and it’s on us to ensure that face is treated with the dignity it deserves.
