According to the lifetime cap announced earlier this year as part of the key reforms, only amounts that individuals directly contribute to the cost of their social care will be counted government plan.
For those who receive part of the financial support for nursing care from local authorities, only their own contribution can reach the upper limit of £86,000.
The Ministry of Health and Social Care (DHSC) stated that this is to ensure that people “do not reach the upper limit faster than the human contribution they contribute.”
In a policy document uploaded on Wednesday, the government stated that it plans to amend the Nursing Law to ensure that the new reforms are clear, subject to parliamentary approval.
I think it is unfair to say that one person can keep 80% of his life savings and pass it on to his family, but other people may lose 90-95% of their assets
It added that “more generous” means that tests that accompany the cap will become the main way to help people with fewer assets.
But the group said that this change will mean that these families receive “far less than expected” protection, and they may still face catastrophic costs compared to wealthier recipients, which will consume more assets.
In September, the government announced that it would set a ceiling of 86,000 pounds for nursing care from October 2023.
It also stated that people with assets of up to £20,000 do not need to make any contribution to their care (previously £14,250), while those with assets of £100,000 will be eligible for support from some local authorities (previously £23,250).
The document released on Wednesday stated that local authorities will open a care account for every individual who is eligible or receiving care and will monitor their progress towards reaching the upper limit.
It said: “For individuals who receive financial support for care costs from local authorities, the individual’s contribution to these costs will be included in the cap, subject to parliamentary approval.”
Sounds like a technological change, but it will actually have a huge impact on the cost of care that families must pay
Sally Warren, director of policy at The King’s Fund, said that just a few days before the proposal was voted on, the changes to the proposed cap were “completely unexpected.”
people She said that under the proposed system, low and medium levels of wealth would still be “slightly better,” but this change means that the proposal will no longer protect those with lower assets from catastrophic costs.
She told the PA News Agency: “I think today’s results are a bit fairer to those with low wealth, but in general, I think it’s unfair for a person to keep 80% of their lifetime savings. And be able to pass these on to them. Family members, but others may lose 90-95% of their assets.
“So I think that for me, fairness doesn’t always mean that everyone is exactly the same.
“To me, fairness, especially for social care costs, is to say,’You also have to recognize where people start.'”
Torsten Bell Chief Executive Officer Resolution Foundation Said that this change will “reduce the protection provided by the ceiling for people with fewer assets so that they are less likely to benefit from the ceiling.”
He said: “The government is carrying out long-overdue reforms to better protect the assets of those unfortunately in need of social care support, and reforms through more generous surveys of economic conditions and total cost caps are correct.
“But the government is now seeking to change the way in which economic surveys and caps interact, so that people with fewer assets can receive much less than expected protection.
“It sounds like a technological change, but it will actually have a huge impact on the family’s payment for care.
“The danger is that the care cost ceiling now has little protection for the assets of poor families, and provides more protection for those with large amounts of assets-especially in the southern region. U.K We need to conduct a more rigorous review of this major change. “
Liz Kendall The Labour Party’s Shadow Social Care Minister stated that poorer recipients will have to pay a larger share of assets than rich people, and because local authorities’ donations are not counted, they must also pay more for the ceiling.
She said of the “sneak details”: “It has now been revealed that the poorest pensioners will have to pay more. Andrew Dilnot, who proposed the upper limit, explicitly ruled out this because This is too unfair.
“This Conservative government’s failure to be candid with those who have contributed so much to our country is a complete shame, but it’s not surprising. Our elderly deserve better treatment.”
The government stated that the cap does not include daily living expenses, and the country sets it at 200 pounds a week to cover non-care expenses such as rent, food, and utilities.
It added that this approach “is designed to ensure a level playing field between residents of nursing homes and those receiving care in their own homes”.
Sir Andrew and Ms. Warren will attend the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Thursday morning to discuss government proposals.
