Tony Blair famously declared back in 1997 that he did not want his children growing up in a country where older people had to sell their homes to meet the cost of residential care.
A decade later and 45,000 people are forced to do just that every year. With rising care home fees and a growing elderly population, this figure is bound to increase if we do not rise to meet this challenge.
Last Thursday, I debated the Government’s Green Paper on social care in Parliament. Having dithered for over a decade, all the Government could offer was a series of unfunded options for reform.
The Conservatives are determined not to let the elderly suffer at the hands of this inaction. We have created a Home Protection Scheme that will offer everyone the chance of security and dignity in old age.
Our insurance model gives everyone the guarantee that, if they have to enter long-term residential care during their retirement, their fees will be waived for life.
This means that older people will be able to keep hold of important assets like their home. An increasingly large number of elderly people are above the £23,000 means tested asset threshold to get state-funded assistance.
The Home Protection Scheme will be offered alongside home care options so that, where possible, older people can stay in their own homes and maintain their dignity and independence.
So how does our scheme work? Everyone will have the option of paying a one-off single sum of around £8000 at the age of 65 to insure themselves against the risk of entering residential care.
Care home fees are currently in the region of £26,000 a year. Our scheme offers excellent value for money by creating a shared pool of risk: people who sign up can guarantee their care before they know whether they will need it and this lowers the cost of residential care for those who eventually do enter a home.
For many people, the majority of the £8000 can be paid through their pension lump sum entitlement. It is voluntary so those who choose not to participate run the same risk that they do today.
For those who cannot afford the premium, means-tested care will still be available so that those on the lowest incomes can access state-funded care.
Produced in consultation with a leading actuarial firm and welcomed by the Association of British Insurers and Aviva, the Home Protection Scheme offers a firm guarantee to our elderly.
As a self-funding insurance model, it is excellent value for money – both to the taxpayer and the service user. It is also simple as it avoids a means test and is open to everyone.
But most importantly, after twelve years of Labour’s broken promises from both Blair and Brown, Conservatives will use the scheme to end to the crisis of our elderly being forced to sell their homes to pay for care.
( 14 comments ) Tags: green paper, home protection scheme, social care
Comment by audrey on November 9, 2009 at 11:33 am
I think this idea is very good and it will help look after elderly people.
Comment by Mike C. on November 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’ve never understood why this was an issue. Surely if someone needs to move into residential care they logically no longer need their house. Why shouldn’t they sell their old home to fund the new one. It’s what everyone else has to do. Why should taxpayers foot the bill so their families get a bigger inheritance. Its this sort of thinking that has priced young families out of larger family homes in much of the country. If someone can explain to me why it is so immoral to expect someone to sell a house they no longer live in to pay for their new accommodation I’d be much obliged.
Comment by George Ireland on November 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm
This should hardly be of concern to the conservatives, this SHOULD be a matter of a long-overdue devolved English Parliament to take matters on, but alas all the major political parties are hypocrits, I doubt the conservatives care for real democracy.
If the conservative said that England has been getting a raw deal with devolution, and that they will create an English parliament with the same powers as that of Scotland, then I – along with a lot of other voters would vote conservative without hesitation.
Residential care should be a matter for England – not Westminster to deal with.
Comment by John Poynton on November 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm
If I have understood correctly that this is a self-funding scheme which will not cost the taxpayer a penny, then I am all in favour of it.
However generally speaking I have little sympathy for people who spend all their lives chasing up house prices and becoming house asset rich who then moan about having to spend those savings in retirement. Of course retirement in all its forms costs money, and people should be prepared to downsize to pay for it.
I can understand that old people who have miscalculated their savings or who find themselves unexpectedly impoverished by a socialist government they never voted for will resent having to move late in life. But I believe there are all sorts of equity release schemes that can help with this predicament, and if not then I think you should concentrate on encouraging and improving such schemes.
I hope also you will give care homes the option of escaping from local authority control and affiliating to a national care homes executive. There is clearly an urgent need to improve standards in these homes, and this is not going to happen unless they are properly managed.
This executive would not run the homes directly, but would set fee levels, monitor results and hire and fire care home directors based on performance. Fees would be set on a 95% breakeven basis to provide efficiency incentives and results would be compared each quarter on a comparative basis. Those at the bottom of the list would have their arses kicked accordingly.
Further, if over the years can we expand the number of care homes so that supply exceeds demand, the point at which both competition and opportunity to improve standards kick in by themselves, then an additional option for these homes to become completely independent charitable trusts will become possible; the best arrangement of all.
I would encourage you at either of the above stages to give any subsidy/benefit required to the beneficiary rather than the provider. This is another case for a National Credit Card scheme whereby the beneficiary pays for their care fees with their National Credit Card, which means in effect that the government pays the fees up front without question just like a bank, but the beneficiary later refunds a proportion of those fees such as they can afford (taking savings into account in this case) via the tax system. Such an approach localises the choice decision and ensures that the beneficiary makes this choice on a competitive ‘value for money’ basis so that the government does not have to set or regulate the fee levels, and at the same time brings in the additional funds necessary to improve and expand the sector.
Comment by Wyrdtimes on November 9, 2009 at 5:25 pm
It seems that the Conservative and Unionist Party are going carry on talking about English issues without actually mentioning the word England just like Labour do.
Comment by James Metcalfe on November 9, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I believe this is a great idea if there is a elderly couple and only one has to go into a care home. It enables their children not to worry about where to put the mother/father.
It also mean that the mother/father can stay in their own home and doesn’t have to move out in order to pay fees.
Comment by Lisa O’Neill on November 10, 2009 at 8:55 am
This is not dissimilar to the ‘Fair Deal’ form of care home funding which was introduced in Ireland last month. That will no doubt throw up any issues with such plans in the near future. Whereforcare.co.uk is the carehomes ratings and reviews website where those who have experience of various care and nursing facilities whether as residents, relatives and visiting professionals can help to inform others who are looking for carehomes on how to make the best choice. If you have experience of a care home that might help others make the right decision, why not write a review of it at the WhereforCare website?
Comment by Gordon Conochie on November 10, 2009 at 10:12 am
It is heartening that the Conservatives have unveiled detailed policies on social care.
For too long, politicians have ignored social care, whilst focussing all energies on health care, despite social care affecting the quality of life of millions of individuals.
We hope that this is only the first of more policy announcements that will focus on supporting those people receiving care at home, and the many carers who spend 24/7 providing care.
Our Carers Policy Blog: http://carersblog.wordpress.com/
Comment by Mary Welch on November 10, 2009 at 4:35 pm
While John Poynton has no sympathy for people who because they have bought their own property and become asset rich then have to sell their homes to pay for care, I feel equally angry when people who have not bothered get better treatment than those who have. Please don’t tell me it is not true it has happened within my own family.
Comment by B Smith on November 10, 2009 at 5:13 pm
This subject is more complicated to resolve than the solution suggested. I do not believe any Retiree could have planned retirement through to death with the Government inspired increases in taxation over the past decade or so. Brown’s raid on the pension funds, massive increases in direct taxation, the uncontrolled increases introduced by local authorities/ police funding agencies, the steady increases in business rates, car park charges in towns and hospitals and above all the so called ‘green taxes’ on vehicle duty/ fuel duty and air travel – just to name a few. We are the ‘milche cow’ for politicians of all parties and the financial services industries and we do not have a democracy to challenge any policy decision. Please, please, allow us to retain at least the average minimum wage prior to direct tax to spend on services of our own choice and pay for it by chopping out as many levels of Government as possible. And why is it on the one hand politicians are hell bent on keeping young people in higher education and at the same time, many of them are career politicians with little qualifications or expertise to fit their job specification. Why is it we never see monthly/ annual Business Management accounts for the operation of Government? Until we do, it is impossible to judge if any particular initiative is viable and manageable within the structure.
Comment by Anthony Lamb on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Back in 1945, Labour got into power because they offered everyone free health care with the NHS. They did not tell everyone that it really was not affordable for the country to provide this service.
If you stopped people coming to this country to get care from an over burdened service, left the European market, saving 12mil a day, which can go back into the NHS, get control of the toll’s from the Dartford crossing, Severn bridges and the New M6 relief road, you can use those funds to help this stressed country.
You can also recruit for the Customs and Excise which will help stop unwanted immigrants who put additional strain on the NHS.
Comment by John Maclaren on November 19, 2009 at 8:45 pm
A logstanding pensions scandal that has yet to be addressed is the removal of the indexation of the State Pension benefits from those who retire to commonwealth countries. No doubt in the future we will see a Prime Minister give the Nation’s apologies for this scandal but isn’t it time NOW to end this palpable unfairness?
Comment by Marian breden on March 7, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Where on earth do you think we can find £8,000 pounds from.We can hardly afford the utilitiey bills,and at £8 amonth increase I challang nay M.P to do it.It is a national disgrace how pensioner’s are treated in this country, havinw worked all our live’s paid tax’s you still want more.try asking those on benefit’s.
Comment by A Mitchell on May 12, 2010 at 8:52 pm
If your relative is unfortunate enough to need nursing care in later life then it can be very worrying for the people who are left to deal with the financial implications of funding. The cost of these homes is scandalous- we pay £800 per week and although my mum was initially in cheaper acommodation, the standard of care and facilities for her to essentially end her days is not what I could bring myself to leave her in. Having looked at a number of care homes that cost in the region of £2300 per month in the Stockport area, I could not believe the state of repair, lino on the floors where rips were stuck down with tape, the only form of stimulation was a TV and meals that frankly I would not have fed to my dogs, I feel left with no alternative than to fund this and hope that the money does not run out. When it does, what will we do, put my mum in the type of place previously described- I dread that day and not a day goes by that I do not think about it and recalculate when the money will run out- and that includes all assets. What an awful burden to carry day in day out,. What will the conservatives do for people like us who are living this today- what help can we get with expensive care home fees NOW not in the future?