Social Care Costs : Government & LA News / Plans / Actions

[Chris From The Gulag]

Political ?

Yes BUT ... this is probably what many will be facing unless there is major upset on the 6 June.

Andrew Dilnot , a major player in social care policy ... today's Guardian :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rew-dilnot

Tory social care plans will leave people helpless, says former adviser

A snippet :

Dilnot, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that by refusing to implement a cap, the Conservatives would be leaving people without any protection against care costs.

“So people will be left helpless, knowing that what will happen is that if they are unlucky enough to suffer the need for care costs they will be entirely on their own until they are down to the last £100,000 of all of their wealth including their house,” he said.

“I do feel very disappointed for all of us, the millions of people who are very, very anxious about this, and I’m a bit surprised, because what social care is is a classic example of a market failure where the private sector cannot do what’s needed.”

Dilnot said the idea ran counter to Theresa May’s promise that the state would step in when markets were broken. “This was an absolute open goal for that kind of approach and it seems to have been missed,” he said, adding that the plans would help some people but leave the majority of those being cared for in their own homes worse off.

He said: “The changes just fail to tackle the central problem that scares most people. You are not tackling the big issue that people can’t pool their risks. There is nothing that anybody can do to pool their risk with the rest of the population, you just have to hope that you are not unlucky.

Worth reading in full ..... another example of the free market economy.

[Henrietta]

I haven't quite got my head around the deal yet- does this mean if you own a home say worth 150 K but have savings of 5K that you would get no help from SS with care at home and it would need to be self funded?

If that is the case, then how do you pay for that care at home before probate when you are alive and kicking but money is wrapped up in property?

I am not clear on the whole proposal yet.

[Chris From The Gulag]

I haven't quite got my head around the deal yet- does this mean if you own a home say worth 150 K but have savings of 5K that you would get no help with care at home unless self funded?

My own view is to assume nothing at this moment.

If we are in for another 5 years of this party in power , the answer will lie , initially , in the Queen's speech on opening day for the new House of Commons , followed by proposals being submitted for the traditional green paper.

To early to call one way or the other before we are faced with that green paper.

[Chris From The Gulag]

A little more ... precis from the Daily Telegraph , a traditional right wing newspaper :

Social Care

Winter fuel payments for pensioners will be means-tested and people will pay more towards home care visits to plug the £2.8 billion social care funding gap.

Pensioners will stop paying for their own care once their savings and assets are down to £100,000. At present only £23,250 is protected.

But a person's home will be counted among their assets when they are means-tested for domiciliary care (currently this only applies to people needing residential care) meaning more people will pay.

No-one will have to sell their home during their lifetime, as they will be able to borrow money which will be paid back from their estate after their death.

Amelia Murray . Daily Telegraph , article will also shed more light on this :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consum ... manifesto/

What is changing?

The Prime Minister is proposing that the £23,250 asset limit for state help for care home residents be raised to £100,000.

However, people who receive care in their own home will see the value of their property included in the means test. This means that more people will need to foot the bill for domiciliary care. Tens of thousands of homeowners will be worse off as a result.

Will I have to sell my home?

Mrs May has promised that no one will be forced to sell their home while they are alive to pay for their care. Instead, the costs will be recouped from the estate if assets amount to more than £100,000.

However, people can already avoid selling their home during their lifetime under a scheme that allows local authorities to, in effect, lend them the care home fees in a mortgage-style arrangement.

Will I be better or worse off?

The increased asset threshold is good news for those who need to move into residential care as their property is already taken into account. They will start to receive state help when the value of their assets falls to £100,000, rather than £23,250.

However, many who require home help will be worse off when the value of their property is taken into account in the means test, making them liable for the costs of care.

Make of this , allied with Andrew Dilnot's article , what you will.

The future Green Paper will be the starting gun.

[Henrietta]

Thanks- I've read most of those before but still feel my query is a grey area?

I am watching with interest to see if I will be enlightened.

As you say - manifesto often doesn't manifest!

[Chris From The Gulag]

Needless to say , there's a feeding frenzy going on across almost every news outlet in their comments sections.

Even the great white sharks of this world are being eaten !

Right v. left ... old v. young ... Scots v. English .... they are all for in the kill.

Nick Triggle , BBC Health Correspondent

The announcement on social care has taken people by surprise. There was lots of talk the Conservatives would re-commit themselves to capping the cost of care. In the lead up to the 2015 election they had said they wanted to see costs limited to £72,000 over the course of a lifetime.

But this has been ripped up. Instead, the policy put forward essentially means people will face unlimited costs – with the buffer of knowing £100,000 of their estate will be left untouched.

Is it more generous than the status quo? Not for many people because of the way they have tweaked the fine print. Will it solve the care crisis, which is seeing growing numbers going without care and care firms going out of business?

The jury is still out on that.

Much will depend if the money they are raising from means-testing the winter fuel payment and extra funds announced in the Spring Budget get through to the frontline.

Councils are in charge of how much they spend on social care and could just use this extra money to offset cuts to their budgets elsewhere. The end result could be no or little increase in spending - unless the government steps in and dictates how much should be set aside. Interestingly, this is not being ruled out.

Suffice to say , sentiment has probably turned away from the Conservative Party ... but will anyone gain from it ?

Stay tuned ... this one will roll on ....

[Linda_1705123456]

How will this work with surviving partner/carer if other partner goes into care and then dies will the house be sold to pay costs or is there a safeguard?

[Chris From The Gulag]

Too early to tell , Linda.

I suspect that any care charges will be registered against that person's interest in the property , akin to a mortgage if tenants in common , possibly the same for joint tenants.

Don't quote me on that , merely my deduction on how it would work.

[Henrietta]

Just heard a bit on the BBC and it does seem to confirm my own interpretation of the proposed changes.
It seems if you own a house -most of which now cost in excess of £100,000 in most parts of the country and are currently being assisted by Social Services for either part of care home which you top up, all of care home or home assistance by Social Services , you would loose that financial assistance, until all your assets including house are below £100,000.
If I have got the right end of the stick, I go back to my original question- how would you pay for care services? Supposing you have a care agency helping at home now funded by SS, would you have to sign an order on the house to effectively pay the bill once you have passed on and probate is being sorted? It seems so - or perhaps those coming up with the plan haven't thought about every eventuality?
I am not entirely complaining because it is better to have at least £100,000 to pass on than zilch which is not at all uncommon with current practice but it seems a very giant leap and how are those people in the current bracket of home owners with less than £23(?) K going to manage with th enew fees.
If I have got this wrong please let me know- I am not wanting to alarm people who are stressed enough already? Just trying to understand it.

[b.r.wade]

Ok so the way I understand the Conservative Manifesto everyone will now be charged for care received through Social Services, until their savings including their home falls below £100,000.

So I care for my husband almost 24/7, almost because I get 4 hrs respite a week when Social Services provide a sitting service as we own our home (and yes we went without new cars and holidays to buy it) if we have to pay for care what do we use? My carers allowance doesn't cover it even if I could afford to live without it.
So the obvious will have to happen, I will do without my respite so when I need the doctors or dentist or to do a big shop I will panic and dash everywhere and become even more stressed out.
Thanks Conservative Party for makeing the Carers life even harder as we will no longer be able to do the normal things in life occasionally now

Sent from my iPad