Just been listening to Andy Burnham on care ......

Doodledog

I thought the 'cap' was not on how much you could keep, but how much you might have to spend, which means that someone with say, a house and savings worth £500k who had to spend £100k on care would be charged 20% of their wealth, whereas someone whose estate was worth £100k would be wiped out.

That is not the same thing as allowing people to maintain a set amount of savings.

No, the idea behind increasing the savings you can retain is to ensure that those with modest savings do not have them wiped out Doodledog. I think it’s about £23k in England currently.

Adult Social Care: Means-test parameters since 1997.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8005/CBP-8005.pdf

The upper (£23,250) and lower (£14,250) capital limits were frozen by George Osborne in 2010.

There’s a lot of admin when someone leaves their home to go into care and the inefficiency of local government over the simplest of tasks is alarming. One council takes 7 weeks to answer an email. Beware….

Casdon

Doodledog

I thought the 'cap' was not on how much you could keep, but how much you might have to spend, which means that someone with say, a house and savings worth £500k who had to spend £100k on care would be charged 20% of their wealth, whereas someone whose estate was worth £100k would be wiped out.

That is not the same thing as allowing people to maintain a set amount of savings.

No, the idea behind increasing the savings you can retain is to ensure that those with modest savings do not have them wiped out Doodledog. I think it’s about £23k in England currently.

Yes, but that's not the 'cap' that was talked about (by Theresa May?). I may be misremembering but I'm sure that was her idea - nobody would spend more than £85k or something. I'm not in favour of means-testing, but allowing people to keep more is, to me, fairer than imposing a 'cap' on what they have to spend.

Yes I rember Teresa May’s idea of a cap. Around that amount to pay for care and everyone could keep the rest.

Doodledog

Casdon

Doodledog

I thought the 'cap' was not on how much you could keep, but how much you might have to spend, which means that someone with say, a house and savings worth £500k who had to spend £100k on care would be charged 20% of their wealth, whereas someone whose estate was worth £100k would be wiped out.

That is not the same thing as allowing people to maintain a set amount of savings.

No, the idea behind increasing the savings you can retain is to ensure that those with modest savings do not have them wiped out Doodledog. I think it’s about £23k in England currently.

Yes, but that's not the 'cap' that was talked about (by Theresa May?). I may be misremembering but I'm sure that was her idea - nobody would spend more than £85k or something. I'm not in favour of means-testing, but allowing people to keep more is, to me, fairer than imposing a 'cap' on what they have to spend.

I know it’s not the same Doodledog, I thought I’d said that? However, raising the amount you can retain before you pay for care does advantage those with only a small amount in savings, and is more affordable for taxpayers than a lifetime care cap, so it’s not without merit.

Have those worrying about the cost of this read the Hostage Nation report I linked to a few days ago?

I don't think that a radical change to Social Care is going to be implemented in a short period of time. A longish lead in, with a carefully thought out plan and implementation schedule would allow time for the simple, but potentially very effective changes suggested in the report to be implemented.

The fact that we 'have no money' has very little to do with any 'natural' causes. The perceived shortfall is there because that is the way a system works. The system can be changed...

I haven’t ploughed through the 33 chapters, but I’ve seen the summary of the main tenets and read the critiques. It’s not going to happen is my honest opinion MaizieD.

The 2011 Dilcot Commission suggested a lifetime contribution of £35,000 and raising the the upper capital limit for council-funded financial support from £23,250 to £100,000.

The coalition government accepted the framework for a maximum lifetime contribution in principle but legislated a higher cap of £72,000 in the Care Act 2014. Implementation was repeatedly delayed.

Johnson's administration revived the policy, setting the lifetime cap on personal care costs at £86,000 with an intended rollout date of October 2023. Jeremy Hunt pushed it back two years to October 2025 to reduce government spending and address severe funding pressures faced by local councils.

Casdon

Doodledog

Casdon

Doodledog

I thought the 'cap' was not on how much you could keep, but how much you might have to spend, which means that someone with say, a house and savings worth £500k who had to spend £100k on care would be charged 20% of their wealth, whereas someone whose estate was worth £100k would be wiped out.

That is not the same thing as allowing people to maintain a set amount of savings.

No, the idea behind increasing the savings you can retain is to ensure that those with modest savings do not have them wiped out Doodledog. I think it’s about £23k in England currently.

Yes, but that's not the 'cap' that was talked about (by Theresa May?). I may be misremembering but I'm sure that was her idea - nobody would spend more than £85k or something. I'm not in favour of means-testing, but allowing people to keep more is, to me, fairer than imposing a 'cap' on what they have to spend.

I know it’s not the same Doodledog, I thought I’d said that? However, raising the amount you can retain before you pay for care does advantage those with only a small amount in savings, and is more affordable for taxpayers than a lifetime care cap, so it’s not without merit.

I don't agree. I think that a two-tier system where some pay for what others get free is wrong in the first place, and in the second place I don't think that a cap on spending is at all fair to those with less.

I'm not sure what the savings limit is called, but it is not a cap at all. It will advantage those with less, which is why I think it is fairer.

Maybe we are saying the same thing? I am objecting to the use of the term 'cap' being applied to the wrong system.

I think AB does understand how unfair the current system is, and if he is able to ensure that we all get social care paid out of taxation, it will be a good thing. I would rather it came out of tax that doesn't (yet again) penalise those in work, though. I suspect he'll go for inheritance tax, but who knows.

I believe Andy Burnham when he says he really does want to change social care for the better, it means a lot to him personally and professionally, indeed it could be called his political flagship.
How he does it will be hard but I don’t think impossible, and the cross party talks he mentioned on the LK show will help Burnham find a way. Taxes could be possible but I doubt very much Burnham will go for taxation on those who will be hit hard or lose their small businesses etc., if taxation is used it will be taken from those who can easily afford to pay more and am very doubtful of him cutting back on welfare, his political beliefs imho seem at odds with doing this.

I wish him well, I'm impressed with him thus far, it’ll be a huge monster to tackle and the final outcome may well bypass my generation, so be it.

This is how I understood the never-implemented care cap was going to work.

Say your care costs were *£50,000 a year. £30,000 is deemed to be for care and £20,000 for accommodation, food and other services.

(My council say the average cost per person in funded care is £55,000 per year. )

No account would be taken of care costs already paid. The clock would start ticking from when the system began.

In year one you pay £50,000. You have paid £30,000 towards the care cap.

In year two you pay £50,000. You have paid £60,000 towards the care cap.

In year three you pay £46,000, £20,000 for your accommodation, food and other services plus £26,000 for care at which point you reached the £86,000 care cap. The council pay the other £4,000 that year.

In year four and thereafter you pay £20,000 for your accommodation, food and other services. The council pays £30,000 for your care.

It was never a cap on total costs.

If at some point you had depleted your remaining capital to below the £23,250 upper limit but above the £14,250 lower limit you would only be required to pay a contribution towards other costs. Below £14,250 you would pay nothing.

Anyway, that was scrapped as local councils would not have been able to afford it. They are already stretched to the limit for those already receiving funded care.

Nothing is going to happen until Baroness Casey makes her report next year but as least the will is there for a radical change to a system which currently prioritises profit over care.

Googled this.

Approximately 2.5% of people aged 65 and over in the UK live in a care home.

Less than I thought to be honest.

And Not as many as a few years ago.

People are choosing in care at home if possible, so it’s down from 3.2% a few years ago.

Carers at home has increased by 81% since 2017, for council care the funding model is the same as care/nursing home,

All care costs a lot. An elderly lady I know is paying £42 an hour via an agency for 1hr morning and 1hr evening. Her money was disappearing fast. She is very independent and as sharp as a needle and tries to do as much as she can herself. Last time I visited her she had given the agency a month’s notice and was arranging for somebody local to help her for £20-£25 an hour.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Googled this.

Approximately 2.5% of people aged 65 and over in the UK live in a care home.

Less than I thought to be honest.

And Not as many as a few years ago.

People are choosing in care at home if possible, so it’s down from 3.2% a few years ago.

You can pay as much per week for carers that aren’t there 24hrs a day as you would pay per week in a care home that do have 24hr care.
I hope to goodness I never need either

MaizieD

Have those worrying about the cost of this read the Hostage Nation report I linked to a few days ago?

I don't think that a radical change to Social Care is going to be implemented in a short period of time. A longish lead in, with a carefully thought out plan and implementation schedule would allow time for the simple, but potentially very effective changes suggested in the report to be implemented.

The fact that we 'have no money' has very little to do with any 'natural' causes. The perceived shortfall is there because that is the way a system works. The system can be changed...

There is no doubt that any fundamental changes will be achieved slowly ... it can't happen overnight ... but I am glad that someone has the courage to set the ball rolling.
Mind you, Thatcher's privatisation and fragmentation seemed to land on us at some speed!

The system can, and must, be changed. Burnham has the right approach in that he is defining it as a moral issue that cannot be ignored and is planning cross party involvement. For too long it has been a party political football with one side reflexly objecting to the other's ideas ... that has got us nowhere.

Burnham has the right ideas and we can only hope that other parties will be heaving a sigh of relief that they are not carrying the ball and that this will encourage their cooperation.

Well I suppose hearteningly only a tiny percentage of us will be going into a care home anyway. 3% of us? Not worth worrying about imo.

Care at home is also a big expense.

The problem we’ve found with care at home for my parents is the gaps, the small but important things the agencies don’t do, so we have a private carer at lunchtime, who cooks them a proper lunch, pops to the shop, cleans the kitchen and toilet, etc. and chats to them, which they value so much compared with a rotation of agency carers.

Quite understandable Casdon. All this must be so hard in so many ways.

My stepfather is 94.
I worry.

There’s only ‘me’.
His extended family live in Wester Ross. His siblings have died. He has no chikdren(grandchildren of his own, no nieces or nephews. His friends have died (all but one). His mobility is severely compromised. He has extremely good neighbours and I have their phone numbers. One has a spare key. But I’m waiting for the second shoe to drop…. one day.

I might have to think outside the box. His house has two bedrooms. I only have one. I could (technically) move in. Not that I want to. I try not to think about it. It’s only 7 months since my husband died and the last 6 months of caring for him broke my heart.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Well I suppose hearteningly only a tiny percentage of us will be going into a care home anyway. 3% of us? Not worth worrying about imo.

My father-in-law and mother-in-law both lived in a care home until they died in their 90s.

My Mum was only able to stay in her own home because my Dad looked after her. She had home care towards the end.
Dad currently lives in a care home, he's 95.

All four of them had/have dementia of one form or another.

I think my husband and I are screwed 🙄

My MIL is in a care home. She has no dementia, but is very frail.

It's hard. She is in the right place, as she couldn't manage at home, and is adamant she doesn't want us doing personal care, so I don't know what else would work, but it's so difficult. The staff are lovely, on the whole, and do as much as they can, but it's hard to think she is getting anything like the care she's paying for. I don't know where the money goes, as the staff won't be earning much.

I ca't be objective about it just now, but I do think the system has to change, and I would like to see social care go back into state hands.