Hancock, Ruth, Malley, Juliette 
ORCID: 0000-0001-5759-1647, King, Derek ORCID: 0000-0002-2408-4558, Pickard, Linda, Comas-Herrera, Adelina ORCID: 0000-0002-9860-9062 and Morciano, Marcello
(2010)
Paying for long-term care potential reforms to funding long-term care: memorandum by the MAP2030 Research Group (SC 55).
.
Stationery Office, London, UK.
Abstract
This memorandum covers the costs of long-term care and disability benefits for people aged 65 and over under a range of potential reforms to the funding system in England. — Under the current system, public expenditure on long-term care and disability benefits for older people is projected to rise from £15.8 billion in 2007 to £37.6 billion in 2032, an increase of 225%. — The public expenditure costs in 2007 of introducing a policy of free personal care, along the lines proposed by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care (1999), would be approximately £1,980 million more than the current system; of introducing free personal care for people living at home, proposed by the Prime Minister at the Labour Party Conference, would be approximately £660 million more than the current system; and of introducing a Partnership model the along lines suggested by the Green Paper, assuming 33% of personal care costs are guaranteed (HMG 2009), would be approximately £470 million more than the current system. — The Green Paper proposes that the new National Care Service could be funded by transferring some disability benefits into the social care system. If, under the Partnership model considered here, Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance for older people were withdrawn, then public expenditure costs in 2007 would be approximately £4,140 million lower than under the current system. — Average weekly financial gains to care home residents would be largest for free personal care (around £95 a week in 2007), but would be between £30 and £40 a week under partnership options. — Average weekly gains for home care users would be some £20-£30 a week under free personal care. They would be just £1 to £2 a week under the partnership model or, if Attendance Allowance and Disability Allowance were withdrawn, home care users would lose around £40 a week on average. — Gains from all the reform options examined are largest for care recipients in the highest fifth of the (age-specific) income distribution and smallest in the lowest fifth. Under the partnership model with Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance withdrawn, losses are largest in the lowest income group. — Our findings on the partnership model are dependent on the form of the means test which would remain for that part of care costs not met by the state, particularly if Attendance Allowance and Disability Allowance are withdrawn. We have assumed that those means tests would operate as now. If they were more generous, gains (losses) could be larger (smaller) and more targeted on those on lower incomes.
| Item Type: | Monograph (Report) |
|---|---|
| Official URL: | http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/ |
| Additional Information: | © 2010 Parliamentary copyright |
| Divisions: | Social Policy Care Policy and Evaluation Centre |
| Subjects: | H Social Sciences > HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine |
| Date Deposited: | 11 Feb 2015 09:19 |
| Last Modified: | 13 Sep 2024 16:43 |
| Projects: | RES-339-25-0002 |
| Funders: | New Dynamics of Ageing Programme, ESRC, MRC, Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/60906 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
