[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread - Page 5 - Carers UK Forum

Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
179 posts
By the way, I wonder how the incidence of dementia maps across the world, 'age for age' (ie, obviously some countries, the poor ones, don't have good life expectancy anyway, so folk don't live long enough to get dementia).

Is the UK particularly hi, I wonder? And if so, (or not) why?
Best I can offer in reply is a 2015 report from Alzeimher's Disease International ... 87 pages worth ... in .pdf format ... fully answering your questions :

https://www.alz.co.uk/research/WorldAlz ... rt2015.pdf

To say it's comprehensive would do it an injustice !

Might even come across a kitchen sink in there as well !
A very interesting article from the Welsh perspective :

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... y-15070188

The difficult choices at the heart of how we pay for old age care in Wales.

As councils slide ever closer to a 'cliff edge' in how they pay for local services, there are calls for a national debate on funding care for an ageing population.

People in Wales need to seriously consider how adult social care is paid for in future, a local Government leader has said.

The proportion of elderly people is rising, and people tend to live for longer.

Wales's 22 councils spend around £550 million on looking after elderly people in need, whether at their house or flat, or a residential home.

Care costs for people with a certain amount of assets who are unlucky enough to be struck down with dementia or a stroke, for example, can reach £1,000 a week.

Relatives keen to help out can find themselves struggling to maintain a full-time job and juggle their own family responsibilities.

Is it right that some people burn through their savings and sell their house to pay for residential care costs?

Or should the state introduce a new tax or levy to make the system fairer — after all, the NHS is free at the point of delivery?

Or could we all take out a new form of insurance to pay for our care in later life, should the need arise?

These simple questions have complex implications, and politicians have found it difficult to grasp the nettle.

Councillor Huw David, health and social care spokesman for the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), which represents Wales’ councils, said: “I think there needs to be a real national debate about what we expect to pay, and what we expect to receive free of charge.

“It is not sustainable or realistic to carry on with the same system.

“We know that the number of people aged over 85 in Wales will double by 2035. Around a third of people of that age need some level of support, ranging from a carer visit once a day right up to a nursing bed in a residential home costing £1,000 a week.”

Councillor David said care workers tended to be low paid, meaning that welcome rises in the minimum wage had a big effect on council budgets.

Local authorities have focused efforts on supporting people at home rather than at more costly residential settings, and can raise some fees and charges.

Some people claim that eligibility to receive care has been tightened.

While these measures may save some money, it is outstripped by demographic and wage pressures.

Too much cutting back also impacts on hospitals, as elderly people find themselves holed up in wards because they have no package of care waiting for them outside.

Mr David said three Conservative councils in England had reached a tipping point — one of which, Northamptonshire, voted through emergency measures this month including significant cuts to children’s services and road maintenance — and although other factors apart from social care may be involved, he reckoned that Welsh councils could be two or three years away from such a scenario.

“We have had a degree of protection from the Welsh Government, but that simply means that the cuts have not been so deep,” he said.

“We are hopeful that the pressures we are facing are fully recognised in the Welsh Government budget next year, so authorities don’t find themselves in the position that Northamptonshire did.”

He added: “We need to talk about some sort of social care levy. People want to leave their nest eggs to their children, but it could all be gone (to pay for care). It is a lottery. Is that fair?

“Or do we want to pool the risk as a society?”

Asked if the public might oppose paying a social care tax or levy, Mr David added: “I don’t know. I think if it was ring-fenced and invested — like a pension fund — then I think there will be support.

“There might be opposition from people for political reasons but I would say, ‘Well, come up with a proposal — we do need to find a way forward’. One million people a year in England go to their councils saying a family member needs help, but they cannot provide it.

“That’s what I’m fearful will occur in Wales.”

The Welsh Government is considering a social care levy. An independent report it commissioned was published in June.

Author Gerald Holtham said that spending on social care per person had been falling in Wales, and that action was necessary.

“Either care standards will fall, conditions for access to assisted care will be tightened considerably or a new revenue source must be found,” he said.

The report addressed four questions, including whether a tax or levy should be ring-fenced or fed into the country’s overall revenues, and how you ensure fairness across the generations.

Professor Holtham said contributions should be based on your income - but should they be higher or lower depending on your age?

“It seems unfair that someone who will contribute for 40 years should pay at the same rate as someone who will pay for only ten,” he said.

Prof Holtham’s report raised further questions which underline the complexity of the issue: what about retirees who came to live in Wales from elsewhere? How would you track’s people’s contributions, and how much would it cost to administer the system?

How would you alter the current arrangements for homeowners with savings to avoid them paying into a new system and then still losing their homes to pay for long-term residential care?

What happens if social care spending was to rise considerably in England, thereby increasing the allocation in Wales under the Barnett formula?

And will Brexit reduce the pool of overseas carers currently working in Wales?

Professor Holtham estimated that the number of people in need of adult social care would rise from 111,577 in 2016/17 to 175,000 in 2035 — a jump of 56%.

A separate study has found that the UK public felt old age care should be funded by a combination of individuals and the state, with personal responsibility more strongly backed in Wales.

This seemed to indicate that only a moderate levy contribution would be acceptable, but the study also pointed out that people weren’t saving enough and would be reluctant to sell their homes if they needed long-term care.

In other words, what people said and did was different.

Professor Holtham said there was little sign of a private market for care insurance on a big scale, mainly because of the vast costs that potentially would need to be paid out.

He concluded that a contributory fund was a “viable solution” to financing social care now and into the future in Wales.

It could work, he said, by applying a tax on incomes of between one and three per cent — declining over time to one per cent — but this would vary depending on your age.

In practice this could mean someone in their 50s initially paying a higher level than those in their 20s.

“It is particularly important at present not to increase the burden on younger tax payers in order to subsidise the elderly,” he said.

The social care conundrum has left Mr David pondering what will happen in his old age.

“As a 41-year-old, I have just passed my halfway mark,” he said. “It does make you reflect on the future.

"We don’t have certainty about social care. It should be a concern for everyone.”
How is social care funded in Wales ?

Councils can charge for the social care and support a person receives.

To decide how much to charge, councils carry out a financial assessment.

For non-residential care, you may have to pay up to a maximum of £80 a week — rising to £100 by 2021 — if you have savings and investments over £24,000, not including the value of your home.

In deciding charges for non-residential care, councils must allow you to keep a set amount to help you meet your daily living costs.

For residential homes, if you have capital over £40,000 you may have to pay the full cost of your care.

If your capital is at or below this limit, the council will help pay for your residential care.

How much you pay towards this care will be calculated from your eligible income, such as pensions or welfare benefits.

Councils must ensure you are left with at least £28.50 a week to spend on personal items.

If you have a significant, ongoing health need you could qualify for free NHS continuing healthcare.

Enough in the above to keep readers thinking for a few ... weeks ???
One article from this morning's Guardian which is directly related to this thread ... future need :

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... t-20-years

Social care needs for over-85s predicted to double in next 20 years.

Research suggests explosion in social care assistance for Britain’s ageing population.

The number of people in the UK aged 85 or older who require round-the-clock help to eat, dress, wash and go to the toilet will almost double over the next 20 years, research has suggested, highlighting the explosion in social care needs.

An estimated 446,000 of over-85s will have “high dependency” care needs by 2035, up from 233,000 in 2015, and equivalent to 10% of all men and 20% of all women aged 85 and over, according to a new study.

Overall, more than 1 million people aged 65 or over will require intensive social care assistance by 2035, up from 783,000 in 2015, it predicted, with increasing numbers of people living into old age with multiple long-term conditions.

Those who have dementia and at least two other major health conditions, such as obesity or diabetes, will double over the next two decades, it estimated, suggesting an extra 500,000 people will need complex forms of care.

The study said health and social care services must adapt to the unprecedented needs of an older population with complex care needs, and warned the state should not rely on family carers as a sustainable solution to the problem.

Unpaid care delivered by adult children of older people was unlikely to keep up with demand, it said. Although more spouses care for partners in old age, many were likely to be living with disabilities themselves. The extension of the retirement age would reduce the pool of informal and unpaid carers.

“These forces will unite to add further stress to social care budgets that help people to maintain independence within the community or fund long-term care needs,” the study concluded.

There has been growing concern over the cost of providing care for older and disabled adults. Spending on social care in English councils has shrunk by £7bn since 2010, and provision was “on the verge of collapse” in some areas, according to local authorities. Councils have said they face a £3.5bn adult social care funding gap by 2025.

Although the government has promised a green paper on social care funding would be published in the autumn, there have been fears that this may come too late as councils prepared to make cuts to social care services to help stave off financial collapse.

The modelling by researchers at the University of Newcastle and the London School of Economics, and published in the Lancet journal, comes against a backdrop of a rapid ageing UK population. About 14.5 million people would be aged 65 or over by 2035, up 50% from 9.7 million in 2015.

By 2035, of the 65-and-over cohort, an estimated 1,065,000 people would be classed as high dependency, 562,000 as medium dependency, and 3,904,000 as low dependency. The remaining 8,918,000 would have no care needs.

High dependency has been defined as needing 24-hour care, medium dependency as needing help every day at regular times and low dependency as requiring care less than daily and being looked after by family and friends.

The study highlighted different trends for men and women, with the latter likely to experience higher levels of care dependency than their male counterparts by 2035, and fewer years of later life spent free of care needs.

Prof Carol Jagger of Newcastle university’s Institute for Ageing, and a co-author of the Lancet paper, said the gender differences highlighted the importance of focusing on disabling long-term conditions such as arthritis that were more common in women than men.

Simon Bottery, a senior fellow in social care at the King’s Fund thinktank, said: “This study is further evidence of the scale of pressure building up on social care services from an ageing population, which is compounded by growing demand from working age adults with disabilities.”

He added: “Above all, it highlights the urgency of the challenge to reform social care and provide support to growing numbers of people in a way that is fairer and provides better quality but is also affordable in future.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “In the autumn we will set out our plans to reform adult social care alongside our long-term plan for the NHS, so we can address the challenge of our growing ageing population head on and ensure services are sustainable for the future.”

The Labour councillor Nick Forbes, who is the senior vice chair of the Local Government Association, said: “This report is a further warning of the crisis in adult social care and the urgent need to plug the immediate funding gap and find a long-term solution on how we pay for it and improve people’s independence and wellbeing.”

With information like this , WHY did the Government back plans to encourage more family carers to juggle work with caring ... a proposal " Welcomed " by both the supporting organisations ?

Surely it's all hands to the pumps in social care ?

As such , OUR role becomes more significant.

More bargaining power ?

NO ... all concerned , including our two ugly sisters will assume that our contribution continues no matter what is thrown our way.

Green Paper ?

Be prepared to assume the worst.
Another article , this time from the Independent , same theme but a slightly different age ... which in it's own way is interesting :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 14881.html

Social care crisis : Over-85s needing 24 hour care set to double by 2035, major study shows.

Extending the retirement age will reduce the 'informal and unpaid carer pool' who have traditionally provided for older family members and heap pressure on social care, experts warn.

Pushing back the retirement age could heap fuel on the social care crisis as a new study reveals the number of over-65s in England in need of round-the-clock care will grow by a third by 2035.

Health improvements mean many more people will live to develop complex conditions like dementia and over the next two decades the number of over-85s in need of 24/7 support is expected to double to 446,000.

This will take the population of over-65s needing day and night support above one million for the first time, according to researchers from Newcastle University and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

While the number of older people living independently by 2035 is expected to rise 60 per cent – from 5.5 million in 2015 to 8.9 million by 2035 – the state pension age is due to rise to 67 by 2028 to compensate.

The authors of a study, published in The Lancet Public Health on Friday, stress this change will shrink the “informal care workforce” of family and friend carers which already contributes £57bn worth of care in the UK.

As many spouse carers are living with disabilities themselves ministers must find a long-term solution to meet the increasingly wide-ranging care needs of this population, the authors add.

“The challenge is considerable,” said Professor Carol Jagger, from the Newcastle University Institute for Ageing.

“Our study suggests that older spouse carers are increasingly likely to be living with disabilities themselves, resulting in mutual care relationships that are not yet well recognised by existing care policy and practices.

“On top of that, extending the retirement age of the UK population is likely to further reduce the informal and unpaid carer pool, who have traditionally provided for older family members.

“These constraints will exacerbate pressures on already stretched social care budgets.”

Increases in independence will be seen mainly in men, the authors predict after making predictions on expected patterns via a Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) model.

PACSim brings together health behaviours, like smoking, as well as major disease trends and socioeconomic information on education and earning, to predict levels of independence.

The population over 65 will increase by just under 50 per cent from 9.7 million in 2015 to 14.5 million in 2035.

While there will be more people living independently to the age of 74, Professor Jagger added: “Trends for men and women are likely to be very different, with women experiencing more low-level dependency than men, highlighting the importance of focusing on disabling long-term conditions such as arthritis that are more common in women than men.”

The researchers also analysed how the burden of dementia and other disease. While numbers of over-65s with dementia will fall by around a third (equivalent to 16,000 fewer people) by 2035, those with dementia and two or more conditions will more than double (equivalent to an additional 493,000 people).

Prof Jagger added: “This expanding group will have more complex care needs that are unlikely to be met adequately without improved co-ordination between different specialities and better understanding of the way in which dementia affects the management of other conditions.”

Nick Forbes, senior vice chairman of the Local Government Association which represents councils, said that they face a £3.5bn shortfall in funding for social care by 2025.

“This report is a further warning of the crisis in adult social care and the urgent need to plug the immediate funding gap and find a long-term solution on how we pay for it and improve people’s independence and wellbeing,” he added.

Just one comment ... a VERY apt one :

Some of us have been pointing out for years that increasing the SRP age for both women and men would have a huge, detrimental impact on the available pool of unpaid carers (and volunteers in general).

But successive governments in their wisdom have convinced themselves that they can have it both ways.

It seems like the chickens are now coming home to roost and the realisation is dawning that people in their mid-late sixties can't generally work full-time in paid employment AND be full-time, or near full-time unpaid carers for elderly partners, parents or other loved ones.
The Government are really missing a trick here.

Many readers won't like this but ... it fits reality.

Why not encourage more family carers to care ?

After all , restrict social care funding amd more will be FORCED into caring.

Perhaps , as a sweetener , increase CA a little .... 10 / 20% ... and introduce something for senior citizens carers ... a premium paid on top of the state pension ?

Not only will said manoeuvres reduce the pressure on social care , the COST for doing so will fall ... two birds for the price of less than one ?

Leaves us in an even worse situation BUT , from the Government's view point , saving the rest of the population a higher rise in taxation.

The present Party in power encourages us to take more control of our lives ... stop relying on the Government ... this notion fits in perfectly with this philosophy ... " Take care of our own. "

After all , we ARE slaves to the System ... with no voice of our own.

Green Paper ?

Further schemes that will do nothing to address the REAL issues.

Us ?

Virtually nothing ... after all , aren't we just slaves to the System.

Caring is a choice !

Factually correct but ... totally false in this Sad New World ... which is becoming angrier by the day.

Never forget our Lord Kitch :
We have run out of money.

The country is in crisis , social care is in meltdown , and my gold plated pension scheme is in deficit.

We need volunteers for the carers army.

Unsung heroes that have bailed us out for years.

Despite terrible conditions , hardly any pay , no prospects , nearly no support and no exercisable rights enjoyed by others , hundreds if not low thousands " Volunteer " for duty every month.

We need more ... otherwise the 40% tax rate may have to rise ...



Place your bets ... now.
The Yorkshire Post has it's say ... and in true Yorkie fashion , blunt and to the point :

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/ma ... -1-9350996

" Match NHS pledge with funds for social care. "

THE GOVERNMENT must match its £20bn a year investment in the NHS with similar funding for social care and public health if Yorkshire’s health services are to meet their ambitions, a regional leader has warned.

Speaking to The Yorkshire Post, Rob Webster, lead chief executive of the West Yorkshire and Harrogate Health and Care Partnership, one of three sustainability and transformation partnerships in the region, said the “quite contentious” partnerships were the best way to tackle the region’s health inequalities - but for them to rise to their challenges, greater investment was needed.

The partnerships, which bring together hospital and health trusts with councils to pool resources and change the way care is delivered to help plug funding black holes, have previously been criticised as a route to back-door privatisation of the NHS.

But Mr Webster said they are “more likely to retain public ownership of the NHS and social care system”, and that they are the tool to implement the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan for the NHS.

“The investment in the NHS is welcome, but what we need now from the chancellor and the Government is similar investment in social care and public health so that we can meet our ambitions,” he said.

He warned that despite the “significant financial pressures” faced by the NHS, sight should not be lost of the importance of local government and public health in impacting Yorkshire’s health, and that a “shift” is need to deal with the people living longer with multiple health issues.

“In West Yorkshire and Harrogate, 70 per cent of the bed days in our hospitals are for people who are older. Half of GP attendances are for people with a long term condition that will never be cured, and increasingly, people have more than one thing wrong with them,” he said.

“What we need to do is shift from an NHS which is about fixing people, to an NHS which is about working with people, because you will never be cured of being older, or having a special educational need, or a long-term condition or an enduring mental health problem. We have got to change the way we deliver care because of that demographic.”

The chief secretary to the Treasury, Elisabeth Truss, said the Government recognised social care reform was needed, and any discussion would follow the publication of the Social Care Green Paper this autumn.

One of the best quotes I've seen on this issue.

Fitting the NHS and social care into the needs of the people.

Ponder on that ... it really is revolutionary.
Just a headline ... The Times ... a subscription service ... but enough to suggest that the pantomine season has begun early :

Matt Hancock wants pay docked to cover cost of social care.


I assume akin to the old NI stamp ... since computerised ?

Full sp on the DISADVANTAGES of such a scheme posted earlier in this thread.

Like NI contributions , what is the position of many millions whose income is NOT high enough to pay this new SC " Stamp ? "

More will follow ...best to surf back into this thread for more observations on this flawed scheme.

Asking our hypothetical " Joe / Jo Public " for his / her response :

If you pay nothing in , why do you get something out ?

I paid NI contributions all my life.

Why should someone , who hasn't pay a penny ( Say one of us ... NI paid when CA is paid ) , get the same pension as me ?

Yep ... that time of the year for the real clowns to take over ??


What next from " Our boy ? "

If ever introduced , and given the cost , perhaps our Joe / Jo Public will paraphrase " Our boy ? " :
" I don't mind giving a reasonable amount , but a score ! That's very nearly an armful! "
Problem lies in that all govt parties have continuously swept these problems under the carpet for yrs. Same as with CA. They have known the issues that need addressed for as long as I can remember. Now that so called carpet cannot be used to hide any further 'dirt'.

Yet again, more discussions, Green Papers etc but its the same words rehashed over and over again. Its time for Action but I cant see any political party that has solid ideas on how to move forward.

Same as we all said a decade ago ?

Action ?


And ... as pointed out to a less than receptive audience on CarerWatch ... a caree and a carer , a partnership ... what of our carees in all this ?

Fix our problems and leave our carees swinging in the wind ?

The BIG picture again ... not just a couple of pieces that make up that picture.

NO political party would dare upset the windfall of £ 132 BILLION and rising provided by the slave army of family / kinship carers.

( Recalll Tom on Carers Radio being taken back by my comment during the lead up to the Carers Radio coverage from North Norfolk at the last General Election ? What WAS the point of Carers Radio going through the motions in the certain knowledge that NO political party existed that would even consider easing our plight ... or was it for a few jars of Adnams Broadside the real reason ? )

Taking that sheer fact as one's starting point , that blue whale of a conundrum ... yet again ?
NEVER lose sight of the real culprit out there ... the Government , and THEIR God ... Austerity.

In that respect , we know only too well the downsides of Austerity ... as do Carers UK.

What to do about that ?

The ballot box !

Sorry , that has never worked ... successive Governments have simply not delivered.

£ 132+ BILLION ... why tinker with that windfall ?

Therein lies a very large blue whale of a conundrum for carers ... ever since they were first really recognised in 1976.

Our Lord Kitch puts it better than I can ( Somewhat tongue in cheek ) :

We have run out of money.

The country is in crisis , social care is in meltdown , and my gold plated pension scheme is in deficit.

We need volunteers for the carers army.

Unsung heroes that have bailed us out for years.

Despite terrible conditions , hardly any pay , no prospects , nearly no support and no exercisable rights enjoyed by others , hundreds if not low thousands " Volunteer " for duty every month.

We need more ... otherwise the 40% tax rate may have to rise ...

It beats being unemployed even if we pay them more than you !

Any Party with tax increases in their stated policy ( For whatever worthwhile purpose ) will surely gain a majority at the next election ... won't they ???

And that folks really is " Goodnight Vienna " ... the priority of preserving the Status Quo MUST be observed by all and sundry , including power , priviledge and wealth ... and has been so for more than 200 years since the House became the leading arm of Government.

The minority ruling the majority.

NO Labour Government has sort to change that ... tinker with occasionly ( Atlee and Co. ... Healy " Squeezing the pips " ) but never change it.

The Red Left / Trade Unions ?

Only concern shown for paid up care workers ... and their terms and conditions of employment.

More family / kinship carers = less jobs for their care workers.

The traditional Right ?

" One's duty to God , Queen and Country to care for a family member. "


Poor Law ... 1601 ... yes , we have come a long way since then ... haven't we ?

Where does that leave the Carer army ?

With that blue whale of a conundrum.

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/social-a ... 0?start=40

Last posting on that thread ... as I type.

Perhaps one of my most poignant ones ... the ultimate sense of despair ???

As if at sunrise tomorrow , a date with one's executioner ?
179 posts