HELF, One Year On: The Verdict

A year since Higher Everyday Living Fees (HELF) were introduced, they continue to attract considerable attention, much of it focused on regulatory compliance, reputational risk and the challenges of implementation.

Recent attention has centred on the 1 November 2026 deadline as thousands of residents transitioned from Extra and Additional Services to HELF, so the continued debate is hardly surprising.

But amid the criticism and uncertainty, we have to focus on why it was introduced.

HELF was not simply introduced to replace Extra and Additional Services. It was intended to give older Australians greater choice and control over their everyday lives, while encouraging providers to innovate and develop services that residents genuinely value.

We are still in the early stages of embedding this new approach, and we should expect teething problems.

The outlook is positive

The Weekly SOURCE recently reported that eight of Australia's top 10 aged care providers have successfully introduced HELF, with others in the planning phase. 

Some providers are taking a wait-and-see approach, questioning whether the commercial benefits justify the operational and regulatory obligations, others are beginning to recognise the opportunities.

We have worked with many providers to introduce HELF across a range of residential aged care settings. Our experience suggests that HELF can deliver significant financial benefits for providers while giving residents greater choice over the services they receive. The feedback we are receiving indicates residents and families are happy to purchase services as long as the price represents value. 

But there is considerable work involved in getting it right.

Developing appropriate service offerings, establishing defensible pricing, training staff and communicating effectively with residents all require time and planning.

HELF is driving innovation

One of the less discussed objectives of HELF was to encourage innovation in residential aged care.

Under the previous Additional Services model, providers often developed standardised packages of services, with limited flexibility for residents to choose what suited their individual preferences.

We are now seeing providers begin to ask a much more interesting question:

One provider has introduced pet care as a HELF service, recognising the importance of companionship and the emotional connection many older Australians have with their pets. The provider reports that one in three enquiries now relates to pet care.

Another provider is exploring technology that would enable families to make video calls directly to a resident's television, making it easier for residents to stay connected with children, grandchildren and friends.

These may seem like relatively simple innovations, but they reflect an important shift in thinking. Rather than developing services around what a provider has traditionally offered, providers are beginning to respond to what residents and their families actually value.

For some residents, that might mean better dining experiences or access to additional recreational activities. For others, it might be maintaining a relationship with a much-loved pet or having an easier way to connect with family.

HELF is not about creating a divide between those who have and those who have not. 

Person-centred care is based on the fact that not everyone wants the same services, and each person should have the opportunity to choose what matters to them. 

The implementation challenges are real

Ageing Australia and individual providers have raised some significant issues in the transition from Extra and Additional Services.

HELF requires new administrative requirements, including individual agreements, service access arrangements, ongoing reviews and compliance obligations.

Providers also have to navigate the distinction between standard everyday living services and optional enhanced services, which is not always straightforward.

Recent media attention surrounding pricing has understandably increased scrutiny of HELF. While some providers have made mistakes in their pricing and attracted public criticism, these issues should be viewed in the context of implementing a new system and the need for community consultation to ensure our programs pass the ‘pub test’.

A new model that encourages greater choice and innovation will inevitably require adjustments as providers, residents and regulators develop a better understanding of how it should operate.

Government says HELF is vital for viability 

The latest Financial Report on the Australian Aged Care Sector reinforces the need for HELF:

Further, IHACPA analysis indicates expenditure on everyday living services is similar across the sector and those who do not charge for unfunded services run at a deficit. Those who do charge have a surplus of $5.81 per resident per day. This represents approximately $200,000 annually for a home with 95 residents.

Under HELF, the same home can expect $10-20 per resident per day or around $500,000 per annum, with no additional expenditure. 

For many providers, that difference can be critical to financial viability.

Those who approach HELF as little more than a replacement for their previous Additional Services arrangements may struggle to realise its potential.

Those who embrace it as an opportunity to improve resident choice, introduce innovative services and develop commercially sustainable offerings may achieve considerably better outcomes.

The way forward

The sector has spent much of the past year responding to substantial changes under the new Aged Care Act. HELF is only one component of that reform agenda.

It is understandable that some providers have prioritised other operational requirements or adopted a cautious approach.

If we want providers to innovate, we need a regulatory framework that gives them confidence to develop and introduce new services without unnecessary complexity or uncertainty.

Now that we have passed the 1 November transition deadline, the sector has an opportunity to move beyond compliance and begin concentrating on what HELF was actually intended to achieve.

So, the verdict?

HELF promised greater choice and control for older Australians, while encouraging innovation and supporting the financial sustainability of providers. One year on, despite implementation challenges and public scrutiny, the early signs are positive. We know HELF has increased resident choice, and it is now up to providers to build and refine how we deliver on that promise.