Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think older people need to sit up and take notice of this

720 replies

OwlOfBrown · 18/05/2017 16:06

So the Tory manifesto includes a plan to make (elderly) people pay for their own social care costs until they are down to the last £100K of their wealth. Andrew Dilnot, who chaired a commission on social care costs during the coalition government which suggested a cap of £35,000 on care costs borne by individuals, has condemned this plan.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-19286845/andrew-dilnot-on-social-care-cap-and-inheritances

I know a lot of MN'ers will say that this is fair, and I do have some sympathy with that opinion. Why should someone be able to sit on hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth when the state pays for their care? But is it really fair? What about when others have the same amount of wealth but enjoy the good fortune of not needing social care so get to keep their wealth? After all, we don't make people with long-term illnesses pay for their medical treatment (yet...) so what is different about social care?

Debate away - I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 21/05/2017 19:47

peaceout That is the problem. Care WORK and family carers..................neither group are treated with any worth or any respect. This has to change.

friendlyflicka · 21/05/2017 21:28

What I don't understand is that the policy does not join up with the increase in the inheritance tax free allowance which is currently taking place. Because of this increase, it really does feel like this is a tax on dementia.

In April 2017, as well as the 325,000, the tax exempt allowance was increased by 100,000 on property and will continue to rise by 100,000 annually until a couple can leave a million pounds in estate to their children before tax is paid on the inheritance.

But if you happen to have dementia....

citroenpresse · 21/05/2017 21:40

friendlyflicks I can't believe that should this policy go through, the IHT implications won't be taken into account. And in any case, if an asset is now only partially owned, maybe it would be considered as an outstanding debt in the same way a mortgage is which would reduce assets and IHT.

friendlyflicka · 21/05/2017 21:51

Citroenpresse because if they do look at this increase in inheritance tax threshold and scrap it, then this policy will seem more egalitarian.But if one section of society is going to be losing all but the last 100,000 and one is going to paying nothing until they reach a million, then this is a very horrible law that has nothing to do with changing inheritance expectations and everything to do with taxing dementia

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 21/05/2017 22:08

Can I ask a stupid question?

Is this fir anyone who needs care at home or a care home or just if you are a pensioner? I'm thinking of some people who say in their 40s have an accident and may need home care for decades? Does it apply to them too?

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 21/05/2017 22:08

Excuse typos! Am on stupid phone. I hope you understand my question.

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 21/05/2017 22:12

I also want to know what will happen to all the spare money which this policy will generate. Councils must spend tens of millions in it, where will it all go or will we have massive drop in council tax? I hope it goes into education or NHS.

AstrantiaMajor · 21/05/2017 22:18

I don't think that is a stupid question. It is a very intelligent one. A younger person with a disability is likely to have a younger partner, who may not be able to work. Are they going to live with the time bomb of a house with a huge debt hanging over it? What will happen if they need to move? Is the debt going to be transferable? What if they did to remortgage to alter the home for the disabled person? This reminds me of Cameron's knee jerk policies, headline grabbing with no thought to costs or logistics.

Fruitboxjury · 21/05/2017 22:23

Is this fir anyone who needs care at home or a care home or just if you are a pensioner?

Not a stupid question at all. I believe the rules are the same for people of any age.

Specifically, healthcare is provided free to all under the NHS.

Social care is also provided free under the NHS under Continuing Healthcare if there is deemed on assessment to be what's known as a primary health need. Meaning... when the need for social care is driven by a medical need. It's a complicated decision which is taken formally after a lengthy assessment and usually rejected the first few times . Basically you need to be very unwell for this to be granted.

All other social care services are means tested, these are the costs to which the changes in the manifesto apply.

Social care very very broadly refers to any kind of support that is needed but doesn't need to be provided by a HCP. In can be given at home or in a care home. So technically depending on whether there is a primary health care need, yes it could apply to anyone of any age. As well as dementia, this applies to other long term conditions such as Parkinson's or the effects of stroke. Other illnesses like heart disease and cancer are classified as healthcare needs so your care is more likely to be covered. That's why it's being coined a "dementia tax".

Original poster
OwlOfBrown · 21/05/2017 22:31

I also want to know what will happen to all the spare money which this policy will generate. Councils must spend tens of millions in it, where will it all go or will we have massive drop in council tax? I hope it goes into education or NHS.

It will go to profit-making equity release companies and profit-making social care providers. It won't go back into the government coffers at all.

OP posts:
caroldecker · 21/05/2017 22:41

Owl This policy does not increase care costs overall, just the split of who pays. No more money going to your fictitious fat cats

Fruitboxjury · 21/05/2017 22:49

OwlOfBrown I think the question is in reference to the money councils will save because their social care costs will go down on account of more people having to pay their own care.

Depending on the Council, some areas are already experiencing a shortfall in funding from the govt for social care costs which they are accounting for with increases in council tax. My guess would be that for a while there just might be less Council tax increases, personally I would like to see any surplus if there was some being put into improving care services and infrastructure which are at present awful. I haven't seen any studies on data which would give immediate change in costs or any indication of when changes might come in assuming TM wins.

citroenpresse · 21/05/2017 22:52

It won't increase social care SPENDING either caroldecker on those who really. need it even though this proposal will be saving the Government millions.

acquilegiannie · 21/05/2017 23:02

Just an aside, does anyone think long term care should be taken out of local council hands and be centralised?

Fruitboxjury · 21/05/2017 23:06

This policy does not increase care costs overall

I'd challenge this and say that indirectly one of the first things it might do would be to push up cost of care.

Private care companies will know at the outset at least that there is much more money to go around as councils see a potential drop in spending as funding formulas are adjusted, and a (unknown) percentage of people in care / coming into care will have to make deeper funds available due to the value of their home being included in their wealth.

I'm sure that many care companies will also blame Brexit and say that the cost of staffing has to increase because it's becoming harder to fill Carer posts given reductions we are seeing in immigration. Care companies are massively squeezed and carers very underpaid so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can see how that scenario is very feasible, so ultimately the possible rise in cost of care could easily account for short term savings where govt gains little. Long term it will even out though.

Original poster
OwlOfBrown · 21/05/2017 23:22

Caroldecker

This policy will do nothing to prevent social care costs rising. Less liability for the government means less incentive to control spiralling costs. Most social care providers and all equity release companies are profit-making and most have shareholders to satisfy. It's simply a fact.

OP posts:
Original poster
OwlOfBrown · 21/05/2017 23:23

Fruitboxjury

Yeah, I realised I'd misread that as soon as I posted!

OP posts:
citroenpresse · 21/05/2017 23:24

fruitboxjury the cost of care going up seems reasonable based on the anticipation of funds/post-brexit staffing but won't the brunt of those additional costs now be faced by individuals rather than councils?

caroldecker · 21/05/2017 23:43

owl
More buyers means much more control on costs. or do you believe consumer choice raises profits for companies?

citroenpresse · 21/05/2017 23:54

Mmm I would have thought that we are in a sellers market care wise.

Fruitboxjury · 22/05/2017 00:04

Agree sellers market and think we will be for many years yet. citroen I haven't seen any numbers at all relating to how much more will be borne by individuals but would be really interested... surely it must be costed somewhere? It's a difficult calculation to make though as depends on wealth and hone values. At a guess maybe half of individuals but not brunt of?

more buyers means much more control on costs

More money means much more opportunity to increase prices. Also, bear in mind that vulnerable people don't always make the best buyers. It's an emotionally charged decision buying care, you want the best for yourself or a loved one so people often choose the highest price on assumption it translates to higher quality.

Original poster
OwlOfBrown · 22/05/2017 00:09

Caroldecker More buyers means much more control on costs. or do you believe consumer choice raises profits for companies?

I think you'll find the economics of supply and demand are a little more nuanced than that!

More buyers and consumer choice are two entirely different concepts so your question makes no sense. At it's most basic level, greater demand tends to create rising consumer costs. Whether consumer choice is relevant or not depends largely on the product or service in question. Works very well where there is real choice but not so well when choice is limited (which, in the case of social care, it is, since there are not enough places in care home and not enough staff willing to work for a pittance as carers, so you have to take what you can get).

OP posts:
caroldecker · 22/05/2017 00:51

Owl that is true when the state funds the care costs. Where individuals fund it, there is a different position. I know several people who fully funded their home car and chose people outside the big agencies to provide the care. They paid above a pittance to the staff, but there were no agencies to take the difference.
Govt/council departments will not use self-employed carers as they like the ease of big companies.
Greater demand tends to drive greater supply, not rising costs.

makeourfuture · 22/05/2017 06:54

Private care companies will know at the outset at least that there is much more money to go around

This is the actual reason for the policy change.

GloriaV · 22/05/2017 07:10

Younger people who need care get disability benefit. This money pays for their care. I imagine they get their state pension when they reach pensionable age instead but I don't know if that matches their benefit payments.

Swipe left for the next trending thread