How three residential aged care facilities achieved over $1.32M in projected annual funding uplift and built the internal capability to sustain it permanently.
THE CHALLENGE
Funding below what residents’ care needs warranted
Under the AN-ACC model, providers are reimbursed based on assessed resident acuity. Without the clinical expertise, systems, and workflow to accurately identify and substantiate care complexity, facilities routinely receive funding below what their resident cohort genuinely requires, creating a widening structural gap between care cost and revenue.
Across all three sites, residents were classified below their actual care needs at commencement. The most acute gap was at Site A, operating at approximately $100/day against a benchmark of $140/day. Critically, this gap was not visible to the operator. It simply looked like normal trading.
THE COST OF INACTION
What the gap costs if nothing changes
Many operators assume the status quo is neutral. It is not. Every day a resident remains under-classified is funding permanently foregone – it cannot be back-claimed. Projected forward, the cost of not acting is significant.
OUR MODEL
Three stages. One continuous pathway.
FUNDING TRAJECTORY
Average AN-ACC rate per day vs industry benchmark
All three sites began below the industry average. The program delivered a rapid uplift, embedded the methodology inside internal teams, and then sustained performance above benchmark through ongoing executive visibility.
Funding trajectory: key milestonesThe reporting shows a clear three-phase pattern: immediate recovery of missed funding, transfer of capability to internal teams, and sustained outperformance with executive oversight.
Stage 1 – Angels (Jul–Sep 2024): Immediate step-change in AN-ACC rate as under-classified residents were assessed and claims submitted. Site A moved from ~$100/day to ~$128/day in this window alone.
Stage 2 – Mastery (Sep–Oct 2024): Internal capability transferred to clinical teams. The rate of uplift continued independently as staff applied the methodology to ongoing assessments.
Stage 3 – Executive management (Oct 2024 onwards): Sustained trajectory above industry benchmark maintained across all three sites. All sites now operating at $163–$165/day versus an industry average of ~$162/day.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Every dollar invested, many times returned
Across the three-site engagement, the ratio of funding secured to the combined target base demonstrates the financial case clearly. This is recurrent revenue, not a one-off payment.
SITE RESULTS
What the engagement delivered at each site
FROM THE CLIENT
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR OPERATORS
Beyond the numbers
IN SUMMARY
A proven result across three different starting points
Across three different starting points, the outcome was consistent: funding brought closer to true resident acuity, internal capability to protect gains without external dependency, and executive visibility to maintain control.
With over $1.32M in projected annual uplift, a 3-year cumulative return approaching $4M, and first accepted claims typically achieved in under 90 days, this is not simply a funding optimisation initiative; it is a board-level decision about revenue protection, operating control, and the cost of delay.
