Questions about Burnham's proposed social care changes

[Wofflewaffle]

I’m surprised that there’s no discussion of Burnham’s proposed changes to social care on here - since you are all the experts at the pointy end - so I’m asking a few questions of my own.

Am I right in thinking that most of his proposals so far apply to at-home carer visits - what he calls social care? All my elderly relatives are in Scotland where up to four visits per day are provided at no direct cost to the user. So what do those of you with parents currently paying for home visits think of this proposal?

Secondly, some news articles specify that any provision of social care won’t include paying for food, bills, etc - surely that’s standard? What an I missing here?

Thirdly, has he made any proposals regarding care / nursing home costs? I know he’s made general statements to the effect that in an ideal world no one should have to sell their home to fund care. Has he said anything about how this would be achieved?

Has he made any actual proposals or just said he's going to sort out social care? Like he says he's going to end homelessness. I support him but worry how he's going to fund it. Start drilling in the North Sea?

The tories proposed the care home thing and then lost their nerve. Too late for us, we are going through 2 generations life savings at £1500 a week to pay for dmums care.
At the moment it all seems a bit arbitrary dependent on whether a parent needs care and in which order dictates whether there is anything left in the pot.
I don't expect any change though. When we got to the point of mum needing 4 visits a day, that plus her rent and bills ( had sold the house and she was living in sheltered accommodation )was about the same.

From what I’ve seen so far, he’s not yet confirmed a plan, just that he wants to reform it.

Politicians tend to half leak plans and proposals to the media first just so they can gauge public reaction. I suspect that’s happening now and researchers will be all over sites like these (and the comments section of the Daily Mail!!) to try and work out what might be ok and what would be wildly unpopular.

He hasn’t proposed anything, and the Louise Casey report has been brought forward but still not reporting until 2027. So I doubt there’ll be anything official proposed until after that.

Well for any lurking researchers I can say I am completely in favour of a social care service that is nationwide and ends the lottery system. It’s so random, and deeply unfair. I’ve never agreed with any justification as to why a person with cancer is fully supported, free of cost, by the NHS while someone with other medical conditions - osteoporosis, Parkinsons, dementia- are left to fund their own care. I’m so glad for our family that we’re in Scotland - one parent fully funded through nursing care for 4.5 years, and another being supported to live at home with three care visits per day, at no cost to them.

i read an article recently which said that financial planners advise people to put aside £100,000 per year, minimum of three years, to prepare for care costs. If that’s what it takes then it’s out of the reach of the vast majority of the public so it’s not a system that can ever work.

I’m hoping that he's phrasing it as ‘care for the elderly’ emphasising elderly and that, once he gets people on board, will get the elderly ie pensioners to pay towards it. Maybe losing the triple lock or something.
i remember Theresa Mays plan and Corbin and papers called it a death tax and kyboshed it - Tories might do that this time, or Reform might - it was so ridiculous because you are dead so what’s so wrong in taxing your assets then.
At the moment elderly people with property are being stripped of their assets whilst alive to pay for it -what’s the difference?

but I know that people round here aren’t allowed home from hospital til a care plan is in place so bed block for weeks whilst they attempt to set it up - I think his plan might need more immigrant care workers but if they are paid properly and not given indefinite leave to remain or allowed to bring whole families that might work .

it would definitely help the nhs

Under the current system people with cancer need to pay for care as well if they need care. It's not about your diagnosis it's about your care needs.

Whether you get help paying towards your care costs from adult social care depends on your income and savings.

If your overall care needs (still not diagnosis based, it's about if they require specialist care over and above what can be considered social care) meet the Fully Funded Continuing Health Care or Fast Track Cobtinuing Health Care thresholds then the NHS will pay the full cost of your care.

There's no cancer = free care, dementia = have to pay for care system. It's all needs based and means tested.

Burnham's rough proposal is basically a rehashing of the Dilnot recommendations - people will still need to pay for their housing and living costs either at home or in a care home but the costs for the care element will be Funded/capped

I suspect it will lead to similar situations as with nursery funding though where it doesn't actually make it any cheaper for anyone - the hourly rate paid by the government wont be enough and homes and care agencies will just charge for extras on top of the 'free care'.