Rishi Sunak grilled by Pat McFadden on social care

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Poorer pensioners are much more likely to die before they reach the cap than someone who is better off with the same care needs. Critics say unless ministers change course, these less well-off care home residents and their families can effectively “say goodbye” to any financial relief the policy is supposed to offer. Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, which has analysed the Government’s assessment, said: “It’s really extraordinary the Government wants to make a change to its social care cap scheme which will take it beyond the reach of older people with low or modest amounts of income and wealth.

“Yet it leaves the situation of the better off more or less intact.”

Age UK wants the House of Lords to vote against a change which excludes local authority payments from calculating the social care cap.

Known as Clause 140, the charity says it disproportionately penalises poorer pensioners as they are more likely to receive local authority help.

And with fewer assets, they face paying fees for a decade longer than wealthier people before reaching the £86,000 cap.

Ms Abrahams added: “I’m struggling to remember the last time a government of any complexion trumpeted a social and economic reform and then ripped the heart out of it less than two months later. To expect those with the fewest assets to pay the price, while favouring the better-off is the wrong choice.”

The cap is designed to prevent pensioners from selling their homes to pay care bills. Fees range from £27,000-£39,000 a year for residential care to £35,000-£55,000 if nursing care is added, say specialists LaingBuisson. One in 10 aged 65 in England will incur social care costs of £100,000 or more.

Morgan Vine, of Independent Age, said:  “A government committed to levelling up should never have signed off a social care cap that disproportionately benefits people who are wealthier.”

————————————————————

Comment by Sally Warren

Back in September, the Prime Minister announced a new way to share the cost of social care between individuals and the Government.

A new “cap” would be introduced, giving everyone peace of mind that all of their savings, income and the value of their house would not need to be spent on their social care.

In addition, those with lower amounts of savings and assets would get local council help towards the costs.

This would have been a really good step forward.

But then the Government quietly announced it was changing how the cap would work.

That change means less well-off people – and those with disabilities – will be exposed to the exact same care costs as the wealthy; even having to sell their home to fund it.

Poorer people may well wonder why the Prime Minister’s promise, that no one need sell their home to pay for care will benefit wealthier people but doesn’t apply to them.

Parliament is currently debating the change to the cap.

Next month all eyes will turn to the peers and MPs who will have a final chance to reverse this backwards step.

• Sally Warren works at The King’s Fund

————————————————————

Sharon Clay has seen her elderly parents spend between £400,000 and £500,000 on care.

Miss Clay, 66, who lives in Hornchurch, east London, had to resort to legal action to get some funding for her father Jim Clay’s two and half years in a care home. He died aged 84 a few years ago.

Her mum June, 92, spent £30,000 adapting her own home, but after the former Sainsbury’s worker fell, she was forced to sell her three bedroom house for £300,000 to pay care costs.

“Mum’s nursing home costs almost £5,000 a month and we ran out of money last year,” said Miss Clay.

“She has been stripped of every penny she’s got.” She added: “Over the last eight years, we’ve probably spent £400,000 to £500,000.”

Source: Read Full Article