Tweaked government plans for the £86,000 cap on social care costs have been criticised, with analysts saying it will leave poorer people exposed to “catastrophically high care costs”.
The government published its plan for social care in September, which stated that nobody would be forced to pay more than £86,000 in their lifetime for care from 2023.
Part of the plan included the new 1.25 per cent rise in National Insurance, known as the health and social care levy, which will help fund the reforms.
However, under the updated plans, the financial help that people with assets under £100,000 can receive to cover their care will not be counted towards the cap. Only the amount someone pays themselves will be considered. As per the original plans, care home living costs including food, energy bills and accommodation will also not count.
Analysts suggest the government’s changes could save hundreds of millions from the estimated £3 billion cost of the social care cap, but its critics have warned that it will lead to the disadvantaged spending more to pay for care, with those possessing under £100,000 worth of assets having to pay more than someone with more substantial savings that would hit the cap more quickly.
Labour’s Liz Kendall lampooned the move, labelling it a “con” and “total disgrace” that those with lower to moderate wealth will not benefit from the cap.
Kendall spoke about the issue in the House of Commons and later released a statement of her own, which said: “This small print, sneaked out today under a cloud of Tory sleaze, shows Boris Johnson's so-called cap on care costs is an even bigger con than we initially thought. We already knew most people won’t hit the cap because it doesn’t cover board and lodging in care homes, and that at £86,000 the cap would still mean many people will have to sell their homes to pay for their care – against everything Boris Johnson promised.
“It has now been revealed that the poorest pensioners will have to pay even more.
“The fact this Tory government has failed to be straight with those who've given so much to our country is a total disgrace, but utterly unsurprising. Our elderly people deserve better.”
The Department of Health and Social Care has insisted that everyone will “be better off” with the changes, compared to the current system in the sector.
A spokesperson for the department said: “Compared to the current system more people will be supported with their social care costs, have greater certainty over what they need to pay and receive higher quality care.”
Meanwhile, the prime minister has been warned that Conservative MPs in traditionally Labour constituencies in the north of England may rebel when it comes to voting the changes through in Parliament.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, commented: “I’m really not sure the government’s thought this through. They might not actually win the vote – Conservative MPs in the north and Midlands have just been told the cap on care costs will do far less for their constituents who could still lose almost everything.”
Sally Warren, policy director at the King’s Fund, said that those that need the most protection from high social care costs will now be left more exposed to hardship than wealthier people.
She explained: “These changes will mean that the people who need the most protection from catastrophically high care costs – those with low to moderate levels of wealth – will get less protection than wealthier people.
“They may well wonder why the prime minister’s promise that no one need sell their house to pay for care will benefit wealthier people but doesn’t seem to apply to them. The government was brave in raising taxes to fund the long-overdue reform of social care but, having taken two steps forward, has now taken one step back.”
Photo by Dominik Lange on Unsplash
