Aged care market analysis: when the demand map and the supply map disagree

Demand analysis tells you where the people are. It doesn't tell you whether anyone is already serving them, or whether you could find the staff to serve them yourself. When this client added supply, competitor presence and the resident care workforce to a demand model they already trusted, the shortlist didn't just shrink. It moved. The areas that looked strongest on demand turned out to be the hardest to staff, and the areas with the clearest gaps sat in a different part of the city and a different part of the income distribution. For any organisation weighing a site or acquisition on demand evidence alone, that reversal is the point.

Earlier demand analysis had scored all 112 Greater Adelaide areas on 17 indicators across residential aged care, retirement living and at-home services. The board accepted it. Then it asked the harder question: does modelled demand align with manageable competition, achievable service coverage, and strategic fit?

The demand work had flagged four areas with strong demand and limited client presence. Before committing capital, the board needed to know whether those areas were genuinely open or simply already crowded.

They wanted to understand:

• Where is demand strongest relative to the supply that already exists?
• Which high-demand markets are already well served, and which only look attractive until competitor presence, workforce or site feasibility is considered?
• Where does the organisation have a real opportunity to grow, defend, partner or investigate further?

We built a new supply and competitor dataset and combined it with the existing demand scores.

The supply side was assembled as a census of registered supply: 169 residential homes and 14,735 places from the national provider register and aged care service list, 377 villages and 14,594 independent living units from the state retirement villages register, and 304 registered at-home providers operating under 301 brands. Workforce came from Census data on where care workers live, not only where they work. Accessibility came from 20-minute and 15-minute drive-time catchments generated from each area's age-weighted centroid.

Two method choices did most of the work. First, we distinguished local presence, what sits inside an area, from accessibility, what residents can actually reach. Across the 105 ranked areas, the two are almost unrelated, and local presence varies about four times as widely. Second, we fixed the classification rules, the demand and headroom weights, the three demand levels, two supply bands and the eight-rule cascade, before any supply figure was calculated. Every area can be traced back to the rule that classified it.

This enabled assessment of:

• Supply and accessibility by stream, against a Greater Adelaide benchmark and the Commonwealth provision ratio
• Competitor structure, concentration, ownership type and five-year operator change
• Market saturation, headroom and the areas where high supply becomes a warning rather than a comfort
• The resident care labour pool as a gate on whether an opportunity is deliverable

• The original shortlist didn't survive the supply test. None of the four areas identified on demand alone was established as under-served once supply and workforce were counted. One is a supply hub. One sits above the benchmark on both measurable capacity streams and is constrained on both workforce measures. A third has the only active retirement living case but is marginal. Only one remains an open question. This matters because it reframes the board's choice from 'which of these four' to 'whether any of these four', and it does so before capital is committed rather than after.
• The city isn't short of beds. It's short of the right service model in the right places. Greater Adelaide has 79.5 residential places per 1,000 residents aged 70 and over, slightly above the Commonwealth provision ratio of 78.0 that governed allocation for most of the past decade. Sixty-seven of 105 areas sit at or above the accessibility benchmark, and only one area in the whole metropolitan area cannot reach a residential place within a 20-minute drive. Residential capacity is a distribution question, not a volume question.
• Workforce, not competition, is the binding constraint, and it bites hardest exactly where the money is. Of the 35 areas with the greatest household capacity to contribute to care costs, 28 have a constrained local care labour pool. Of the 35 areas with the lowest capacity, one does. That single pattern splits at-home services into two genuinely different commercial propositions, a margin and workforce question and a scale and efficiency question, and neither of them is answered by buying a building.
• No one has won this market, which cuts both ways. The largest residential operator holds 9.2% of places and the largest retirement living operator 13.5% of units, with not-for-profits holding 71.6% of residential capacity. No incumbent blocks entry. But the absence of a commanding position after a decade of consolidation is also evidence that scale here is difficult to assemble.
• Where the evidence is weakest, we said so rather than filling the gap. At-home competitive headroom was withheld entirely: the register shows between 48 and 158 providers in every council area but says nothing about how many customers each serves. Retirement living has the widest measured gaps, 44 areas below benchmark against 38 for residential, but the least complete supply evidence, with at least 759 units identified outside the register.

The report sets out three options that compete for the same capital and name the evidence each one needs.

Deepening the existing nine-area footprint requires no new market entry and is supported by the finding that eight of those nine areas sit below benchmark in at least one stream. Extending physically into western Adelaide addresses the largest single concentration of opportunity areas, 14 of 34 across three councils, though the evidence there points to a needs-based service model rather than a conventional growth corridor. Re-entering registered retirement living is the least supported, running against the direction of the client's own recent portfolio changes.

All three wait on evidence the market analysis cannot reach: site feasibility and capital, the client's own operating data on vacancy rates, time to fill, agency share of rostered hours and turnover, and a customer count for the at-home stream on its own.

• Growth has become a service-model question before a site question. The organisation now knows that the areas demand alone pointed to are not confirmed as under-served, and that the first decision in front of it is which service model it can deliver and staff, not which address to buy. That moves the capital conversation from where to build to what to deliver, before any money is committed.
• The organisation has a shortlist it can defend. The opportunity set is smaller than demand alone suggested and sits in a different part of the city. Every area carries the rule that put it in or left it out, and where the evidence is thin the report says so instead of estimating, so the board can tell which findings will carry an investment case and which still need the organisation’s own data.
• Competing uses of capital can now be weighed on one evidence base. The options in front of the organisation are set side by side with the test each must pass and the internal evidence that would settle it. Behind them sits a register of every residential home and retirement village in the metropolitan market, with ownership, scale and five years of operator change, which can be refreshed as the market moves and reused for later decisions. The evidence held under the board’s questioning: the follow-up answers were drawn from the report and the register without any conclusion changing.

If you're weighing where to grow, defend or invest and your evidence stops at demand, we can help you see the other half of the market. We build the supply, competitor and workforce picture at the small-area level, set the rules before we look at the answers, and tell you plainly which findings are solid enough to act on.

Get in touch