What the cap on care costs doesn't do

 
Elderly hand holding coins Ministers want to cap the costs of social care, but there are some caveats

Ministers are hailing their changes to social care as the solution to the long-standing problem of how to care for the elderly.

The introduction of a £75,000 cap - if introduced - will arguably be the first time the system has been overhauled since it was created along with the NHS after the Second World War.

Understandably, the plans have been widely welcomed with campaigners willing to give the government credit for doing this at a time when the financial situation makes it harder to do than it has been for a long-time.

But despite the breakthrough it is not quite the panacea it may seem on first glance.

Many people will still not get any help from the state

The government is effectively saying it wants to see a partnership between the state and individual.

It is promising to pick up the really high costs, while leaving the individual to cover the cost of the average care package.

But less than a fifth of people face costs in excess of £75,000, meaning the majority of people will still have to pay all of their bill.

About a quarter of people do not develop any care needs - or very little, while for another quarter the costs of care are below £20,000.

However, for a third of people the bill is between £20,000 and £75,000 - they will not get any help unless they fall below the means-testing threshold as the least well-off do not have to pay the full costs of care.

But of course many will say that is better than the current situation where people can face unlimited costs - and the hope is that the insurance industry will develop products that will cover the costs people face.

You won't be able to shop around for the best services

The cap only includes services that are available at the normal council cost.

If you want to move into a luxury care home or pay to get the best help you will have to cover that extra cost yourself.

Any spending above what the local council would have paid for would not count towards the cap, leaving the individual to top up their package.

It means relying on the current quality of services available if you want to stay within that £75,000 sum.

Unfortunately the system, according to the Local Government Association, is drastically under-funded, which is hampering the ability to meet the needs of the elderly.

The government spends less than £10bn a year on social care for the elderly - a tenth of what is spent on the NHS and a quarter of the defence budget.

The criteria for being entitled to social care help will be extremely high

Just because you develop a care need, it does not mean you will fall within the system.

Only those with needs classed as severe or substantial will be entitled to help - that basically means you need round-the-clock help.

Any spending before you reach that level of need will not count towards the £75,000 cap.

It will mean many will still have to struggle to get by on their own until their situation worsens.

That is no different to how it is now, although a decade ago many councils were able to offer help to those with low or moderate needs.

The social care system, in a nutshell, will only be there for the most frail.

Care homes will still be expensive places

A cap of £75,000 is a substantial sum of money, but on top of that people face paying so-called accommodation costs.

This is to cover the cost of things such as food, bills and renting the room.

Of course, these are the kind of costs elderly people face if they are in their own home - and that is one of the reasons why there is a state pension.

But with annual "accommodation" bills often hitting the £10,000 mark, a care home place will be a more expensive arrangement than the status quo for most.

 
Nick Triggle Article written by Nick Triggle Nick Triggle Health correspondent

Why are hospitals under so much pressure?

The NHS across the UK is already struggling to meet its A&E targets, and winter - the busiest time of year - has only just begun. Nick Triggle looks at why hospitals are under the cosh.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Nick

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +18

    Comment number 9.

    There will be no retirement for those of us still working. It will be a case of work till you die.

  • rate this
    +16

    Comment number 8.

    If only our government would give up its vanity project of foreign aid,most elderly care could be paid for. With our economic strife, we should suspend the programme until we can afford it. Add to that ending our phoney wars and there'd be plenty of money. The only winners are those who have never worked, paid no tax and haven't striven to own their home.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 7.

    I have to pay for those who are too lazy to get a job, those who produce more kids than they can afford, those who inflict damage on their own bodies through over eating or smoking.

    Now I have to pay for those who refuse to look after their own aged parents.

    Social welfare used to be a safety net for those in need. Now it's a gravy train exploiting the hard working for the benefit of the idle.

  • rate this
    +36

    Comment number 6.

    It's also time to reconsider voluntary euthanasia. I've expressed to my family that I have no wish to lie there suffering dementia for heaven-knows how many years in a care home. It borders on the criminal that I'll have two choices: an overseas die-in-dignity centre or a possibly nasty and risky self-inflicted demise. I have no intention of letting my family sell our home to pay for my care.

  • rate this
    +32

    Comment number 5.

    Yet another lie masquerading as a improvement.
    Accommodation costs will rise by more than enough to cover the reduced 'care' allowance figure.
    Another government backed business ripoff same as all of the others.
    Can't have the rich care home directors not getting richer can we?

  • rate this
    +34

    Comment number 4.

    I assume that these so called 'accommodation costs' will rise to cover any shortfall; just resulting in higher chages for all; losses all round (other than for Care Home owners of course)

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 3.

    Helping out the rich.Again.

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 2.

    The £75,000 cap is discriminatory against people who live in areas of lower cost housing and doesn't cover accommodation costs. Care should be free.

    The answer is to stop wasting money on India, fighting unwinnable wars, economic migrants who have made no contribution to this country, maintaining too many politicians (a senate is enough) and subsidising the EU - all very simple and easy to do.

  • rate this
    +28

    Comment number 1.

    It is cheaper and more pleasant to live in a hostel in Spain or France than a sh*ty grotty care home in the UK. You would be looked after better too.

 

Page 12 of 12

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.