By David Williams
19 November 2009
Social care experts are sceptical about plans in the Queen’s Speech to introduce free home care for those with the highest levels of need.
The government pledged free social care for around 280,000 adults in England, with conditions such as severe dementia and Parkinson’s disease, at an estimated cost of £670m. Another 130,000 people would be offered help to adapt their homes to enable them to stay at home as long as possible.
A green paper on social care was published in July and a white paper is expected early in 2010. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced free care for the most needy in his speech to the Labour Party conference in September. The plan was estimated to be worth £670m. This week’s proposals have been welcomed for providing care based on need rather than financial means.
But Sue Collins, programme director for long-term care at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, told Public Finance: ‘The announcement is only about older people in the highest need, but there are people with low to moderate need who still need care.
‘No-one knows what the funding modelling assumptions are… In terms of sequencing it would have been more helpful if they had waited for the white paper.’
Councils agreed that the pledge had clear cost implications. David Rogers, chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: ‘Councils will be expected to find at least an additional £250m per year to fund this new proposal. It is difficult to see how local government will be able to meet this unless government removes existing red tape and bureaucracy.’
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King’s Fund think-tank, said: ‘These latest proposals seem to have been hastily put together. Trying to fix one bit of the system creates its own difficulties and there has to be a real danger of perverse incentives.’
Andrew Harrop, director of Age Concern and Help the Aged, agreed, voicing concerns that the plans could encourage councils to push elderly residents into nursing homes rather than provide free social care.
19 November 2009
Social care experts are sceptical about plans in the Queen’s Speech to introduce free home care for those with the highest levels of need.
The government pledged free social care for around 280,000 adults in England, with conditions such as severe dementia and Parkinson’s disease, at an estimated cost of £670m. Another 130,000 people would be offered help to adapt their homes to enable them to stay at home as long as possible.
A green paper on social care was published in July and a white paper is expected early in 2010. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced free care for the most needy in his speech to the Labour Party conference in September. The plan was estimated to be worth £670m. This week’s proposals have been welcomed for providing care based on need rather than financial means.
But Sue Collins, programme director for long-term care at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, told Public Finance: ‘The announcement is only about older people in the highest need, but there are people with low to moderate need who still need care.
‘No-one knows what the funding modelling assumptions are… In terms of sequencing it would have been more helpful if they had waited for the white paper.’
Councils agreed that the pledge had clear cost implications. David Rogers, chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: ‘Councils will be expected to find at least an additional £250m per year to fund this new proposal. It is difficult to see how local government will be able to meet this unless government removes existing red tape and bureaucracy.’
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King’s Fund think-tank, said: ‘These latest proposals seem to have been hastily put together. Trying to fix one bit of the system creates its own difficulties and there has to be a real danger of perverse incentives.’
Andrew Harrop, director of Age Concern and Help the Aged, agreed, voicing concerns that the plans could encourage councils to push elderly residents into nursing homes rather than provide free social care.
