Search results for ‘Subject term:"older people"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Gone for good?: prefunded insurance for long-term care
- Author:
- LLOYD James
- Publisher:
- Strategic Society Centre
- Publication year:
- 2011
- Pagination:
- 65p.
- Place of publication:
- London
In the debate on how to fund long-term care in England and Wales, some stakeholders have advocated a central role for financial services, and pre-funded consumer insurance in particular. This report examines this approach by considering: the potential role that pre-funded insurance could take in funding long-term care; and the extent to which the pre-funded long-term care insurance market can help policymakers achieve key strategic policy objectives for social care. It examines the demand and supply-side barriers to the use of pre-funded long-term care insurance, noting the last UK provider exited the market in 2010 citing a lack of demand. No country has achieved an effective market in pre-funded long-term care insurance, with France having the highest rate at 15%. The report argues that even if the UK were in the future to achieve a take-up of 15% this would still result in outcomes that failed to meet many policy objectives for long-term care funding, particularly associated with ‘catastrophic costs’, fiscal pressures and the incidence of means-testing. It concludes by outlining some of the multiple other roles that the financial services industry could take in funding social care, particularly around delivering and servicing a state-sponsored insurance scheme for long-term care, akin to the schemes found in countries such as Singapore and the Netherlands.
Politics and the care conundrum: why does England have a problem funding social care?
- Author:
- LLOYD James
- Publisher:
- Strategic Society Centre
- Publication year:
- 2011
- Pagination:
- 29p.
- Place of publication:
- London
This discussion paper explores the underlying causes of England's long-term care funding problem. It argues that the state, the older population and wider society have sufficient wealth to finance a properly funded social care system. The persistent problem of funding care in England therefore poses what can be termed the ‘care conundrum’. This paper seeks to explain this 'care conundrum', and its root causes in issues of politics and governance. Using ideas and theories drawn from political science, the paper identifies multiple factors that may explain the 'care conundrum'. These factors include: the varied, ‘indefinable’ nature of social care; the illogical, complex ‘mess’ of institutions overseeing social care policy; public ignorance of what social care is and what outcomes represent quality; and the interests of politicians in avoiding unpopular measures. The paper calls for the creation of an Office for Care and Living which would undertake a number of strategic functions, such as public education and data provision, in order to address the failure of democratic accountability alone to ensure a properly funded social care system. It argues that, even in the face of voter disinterest toward social care, the government does have an opportunity to reposition public and political discourse on care funding to create the conditions for sustainable long-term reform.
The first step?: a response to the Commission on Funding of Care and Support
- Author:
- LLOYD James
- Publisher:
- Strategic Society Centre
- Publication year:
- 2011
- Pagination:
- 83p.
- Place of publication:
- London
This report from the Commission on Funding of Care and Support asks: why is it necessary for the state to provide protection against the catastrophic costs of long-term care?; what will the 'capped cost' model mean for how local authorities assess need and allocate resources?; and how will the design of the 'capped cost' model determine the use of financial products in the social care system? The Commission’s proposals are built around the ‘limited liability principle’: individuals should not be exposed to the risk of ‘catastrophic’ accumulated care costs; given the insurance industry cannot offer protection; the state must step in and provide it instead. In the Commission’s ‘capped cost’ model, all individuals with eligible needs – proportional to receipt of informal care – would be allocated notional cash support, even if they are too wealthy to qualify for actual support. Once the accumulated notional support reaches £35,000, they would be reassessed on a ‘means-blind’ basis. Given most of the extra spending would go to wealthier households, stakeholders may insist it is wealthier older households who shoulder the extra costs. Older people’s property wealth remains the best potential source of untapped new finance to bring into the social care system.
Inheritance tax: could it be used to fund long-term care?
- Author:
- LLOYD James
- Publisher:
- Strategic Society Centre
- Publication year:
- 2011
- Pagination:
- 23p.
- Place of publication:
- London
In recent years a number of stakeholders have advocated a new inheritance tax to pay for an increase in social care spending and the abolition of means-testing. However, there has been less detailed analysis of the benefits and challenges to this approach. This report addresses this gap by examining in detail key policy design choices for this model, and some of the arguments for and against using a new inheritance tax to fund universal free care and support in England and Wales. As noted by supporters, a new inheritance tax for care and support would be relatively simple, as well as administratively feasible given the scope to scale up the existing probate system. However, problems with this approach include: significant uncertainty as to what extent households would respond to the new tax by shifting wealth and reducing their liabilities; issues around closely tying social care revenue streams to fluctuations in house prices; and, the so-called ‘carer penalty’ – the imposition of the tax on the estates of those who have only relied on informal care, frequently provided by carers who have foregone earnings to do so. The paper also examines variations on the inheritance model, including: providing exemptions for recipients of informal care; directing inheritance tax revenue to a social insurance fund; and, the use of an estate-charge, rather than a tax, to fund care and support.