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

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
82 posts
Frightening that the last 2 lines talk about 'the amount relatives have to pay.

Has the law changed?
One can only assume interpretation of said Rules ... a case of reading between the lines ... exactly how they expect to achive that aim would be very revealing ?

If an applicant does not question fees , I am sure that most LAs would stay silent ... and count their windfalls ?

To mislead any applicants is , of course , wrong ... several cases only recently of regular posters advising newbies NOT to contribute towards costs as there is no legal obligation to do so ... care home fees shortfall being high on the list ?

Therein lies what actually happens across the country.

Many applicants haven't a clue when dealing with LAs.

We , as carers , know but ... how many out there just open their wallets / purses without any questions being asked ?
Some good news ... for some ?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 98326.html


Government scraps £72,500 cap on amount a person can be charged for social care.

Limit had been due to come into force in 2020 but will now be the subject of a new consultation.



The Government has scrapped plans to introduce a £72,500 cap on the amount a person can be charged for social care.

The cap was due to come into effect in 2020 under plans passed by the Coalition Government. It followed the Dilnot Commission, which in 2011 investigated how social care should be funded, recommending limiting the amount that an individual can be forced to pay.

The Commission proposed a cap of £35,000 but Coalition ministers decided the figure should be closer to £75,000.

However, health minister Jackie Doyle-Price told MPs the plan has now been scrapped, and that a new consultation will take place in the new year.

The question of social care funding became a major issue during the general election campaign earlier this year, after the Conservatives unveiled a controversial plan to force elderly people to sell their home to cover costs.

The party’s manifesto included no mention of a maximum cap on an individual’s social care costs, but an angry backlash forced them to backtrack and promise to introduce an upper limit, although they refused to say where it would be set.

Addressing MPs on Thursday, Ms Doyle-Price said: "The prime minister has been clear that the consultation will include proposals to place a limit on the care costs individuals face.

"To allow for fuller engagement and development of the approach with reforms to the care system and the way it is paid for considered in the round, we will not be taking forward the previous government's plans to implement a cap on care costs in 2020."

Labour accused the Government of wasting over £1m of taxpayers money in preparing to introduce the cap.

Barbara Keeley, Shadow Minister for Mental Health and Social Care, told the Commons: "The minister has today finally confirmed what many of us on these benches suspected - that they will not be proceeding with their plans to cap care costs by 2020 as legislated by this House.

"This is a shameful waste of taxpayers' money. Over £1m in today's money was spent in commissioning the Dilnot review and it is a waste of Parliamentary time enacting that cap.

"And it's no good for the minister to say that the government are consulting on this cap: they consulted on this during the general election and their proposals were rejected by the electorate."


Brexit ?

Simples.

Social care ?

Oh dear !
All embracing article from today's Guardian ... only one factor missing ... you've guessed it ... carers :


https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... nt-funding
The state of social care shames us all.

Care homes are unfairly relying on better-off residents to subsidise others’ care. The government urgently needs to increase funding to the sector.
Why are people on the left so exercised about how we pay for social care? After all, better-off care home residents who pay their own way are each quietly subsidising to the tune of £12,000 a year those with fewer assets who are funded by councils that negotiate lower fees. What could be more socialist?

The truth is that this is an unofficial, unregulated and profoundly unfair tax levied not by the state but, with the state’s connivance, by private care businesses that declare it the only way to make a broken system work. It is also a tax – and a system – unknown to alarming numbers: as a survey published today shows, one in four middle-aged people still think that care and support is free, rising to more than one in three when you include those who aren’t sure.

The state of social care shames us all. When the minister responsible, Jackie Doyle-Price, slipped into the Commons one morning last week to administer the last rites to the latest attempt at reform, she was marking 20 years of failure. It was in 1997 that the then Labour health secretary, Frank Dobson, launched a royal commission on the issue with a warning that things “cannot be allowed to continue for much longer”.

Since then we have had a dozen white and green papers and plenty of warm words from all sides, but no action – at least none in England, the rest of the UK having gone separate ways. And we shouldn’t expect action any time soon: another green paper setting out proposals is now promised next summer and, as Doyle-Price said, “it is right that we take the time needed to debate the many complex issues and listen to the perspectives of experts and care users”.

But is it right? Do we not know what must be done? We could, for sure, profitably spend the next six months exploring the future of care and support for all who need it. But this will be a green paper on older people alone – a “parallel programme of work” is planned on younger adults with support needs – and we are knee-deep in consultation findings, analysis and blueprints for a way forward on funding care in old age. It is obvious that any settlement will rest on three pillars.

First, shared responsibility between the individual and the state. Today’s survey findings for the thinktank Demos, based on the views of more than 2,000 people aged 40-69, show that 57% think the individual has the greater responsibility to finance their care and only 36% believe the state should foot the bill. Demos says opinion has been moving steadily away from state responsibility.

Only one in 20 of us is making sufficient savings provision for potential care costs. However, Demos is calling for a public awareness campaign and development of insurance models that the finance sector has so far failed to make available on any scale. The report is independent but sponsored by insurer Legal & General.

Second, a cap on individual responsibility. It was a £72,000 cap on lifetime liability for care costs, first announced in 2013 and due to take effect in 2020, that Doyle-Price formally killed off last week. In reality it had been dead in the water since the June general election, when Theresa May got into such a mess trying to reopen the policy.

Doyle-Price said the green paper proposals would include “a limit on the care costs that indivduals face”. One recent suggestion, which would certainly improve public understanding, would be to set a cap – perhaps at £100,000 – to cover all payments, including board and lodging as well as care costs.

Third, the settlement requires more government funding for social care. While the state will not pick up the entire tab, applying a cap will carry costs – estimated at £1.7bn a year when first proposed in 2011 – and councils have had to cut £6bn from social care budgets over the past seven years. After last month’s budget failed to mention it, local government’s 2018-19 finance settlement is due any day. Why not make a start?


Nero watches Rome burn.

His response ?

Play the violin.

History repeating itself ... once again ?
Of course, no one is thinking of the carers one bit!
Ongoing " problem " I have had with the Guardian Social Care team for ... 11 years.

One day , one just ... just might ... get out into the real world to see CarerLand for themself ?

It's not been through want to trying ...
Finally , some sense at last ?


https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... ent-reform

Social care allowances are confusing – the government must offer clarity.

The current system is convoluted. People need to know if they have to save for later-life care.


A new report details an expert panel’s solution to the care crisis: for national insurance to be replaced with a new, ringfenced tax dedicated to health and social care. It contends that few people would argue with reforming and raising tax, given the severe financial and capacity pressures on services.

The panel’s proposals should be carefully considered – but the stark reality is that previous attempts to reform social care funding have been met with deep hostility, no matter how pragmatic they may have seemed to those proposing the policy.

While the latest report recommends reinstating the Dilnot commission’s proposal of a cap on the costs of adult social care – which is sensible: people need clarity about what they need to save – it is arguably not clear enough about how the new funds will be distributed to the public. If people are expected to put more money into the system, they also need to be told what they are going to get.

One of the effects of having health and care systems that work independently of each other is that those trying to navigate both can be left muddled. People don’t know what the state will contribute towards later life care – and often they don’t know how to get it, either. This means it is almost impossible for the public and the long-term care market to plan ahead efficiently, a situation that actively discourages self-provision for care.

Currently, all people aged 65 and over are eligible for a basic state pension of £122.30 per week and those with care needs will be able to apply for a funded nursing care stipend and the attendance allowance. Combined, this means a person over 65 in need of care can access up to £360.45 per week.

However, this system is not easy to navigate as it requires a person to have extensive knowledge of the allowances available from different government departments. Even with that knowledge, they will have to complete multiple assessments in order to access benefits that are rightfully theirs.

These allowances should be packaged together so someone in need of care can go to one department to apply for a tax-free weekly sum for their care. This sum should include the money they would receive from the state pension and any other allowances.

This could be paid directly to care providers and should be explained to the public as functioning in a similar way to the pension system. Like pensions, people will need to make their own contribution in addition to the state support if they wish to enhance their standard of living.

The latest health and social care funding report sensibly calls for the government to to look to introduce incentives to encourage people to save more towards the costs of their adult social care, comparing it to the system of childcare costs paid via salary sacrifice.

Often people’s largest asset after their home is their pension – money already earmarked for later life. The government could explore the option of incentivising people to use the pension system to allow them to channel their funds tax free into products such as care annuities.

Social care reform has been a hotly debated political topic for years. The government has now positioned itself to deliver meaningful reform to the system, with a new social care green paper – and a newly enhanced remit for the health secretary. As it devises a new system and seeks a pragmatic response from the electorate, opposition parties and the media, it must offer clarity and simplicity. In the end the public simply want to know if they are going to get funding – and, if so, how much.

First step ?

Recombine the NHS and Social Care.

Make both PUBLIC assets , involving PUBLIC responsibility.

Both funded from GENERAL taxation.

Insurance / annuity schemes ?

Fine ... for those with surplus monies to invest over their working lives.

Still will be of no help to most disabled citiens , and their carers , unless their income is boosted to above " Survival " level.

No one is denied a hospital bed through lack of monies , same should apply to social care and places in care homes.
Quite a few articles in the past couple of days suggesting the Labour party are pledging £ 10 BILLION towards social care ... if elected.

Like the pre general election " Pledge " of , from memory , £ 10 to every family carer , one for the headlines.

WHAT'S THE POINT OF JUST THROWING MONEY INTO A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM THAT NEEDS RE-ORGANISING FROM TOP TO BOTTOM , WITH SOCIAL CARE RETURNED TO THE NHS ... THE BOTTOM INVOLVED IN ALL DECISION MAKING ... THE TOP TO PROVIDE THE FRAMEWORK AND RESOURCES ?

FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE !!!

Enough said ?
I agree there is a fundamental lack of application of logic here.

'Social care' doesn't really exist, does it? Anyone who needs help from other human beings does so because they are 'infirm' either physically or mentally. Therefore they are 'ill' in that sense. Therefore they should come under the NHS.
Exactly ... FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE !!!

Image

Image
82 posts