This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

ABI, unions and charities increase pressure over LTC funding

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

The leaders of 47 organisations including the Association of British Insurers and various charities and unions are calling on the Government and other party leaders to find a consensus on the funding of long-term care.

The letter is signed by ABI chief executive Otto Thoresen (pictured) as well as Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber and Macmillan Cancer Support chief executive Ciarán Devane. It says politicians should work together to find a solution to the “growing” and “unavoidable” challenge of LTC funding before Government publishes its white paper in April.

It says: “We urge the Government and the other party leaders to seize the opportunity for urgent, fundamental, and lasting reform, delivering a social care system which can provide the well funded high-quality care and support we would all expect for ourselves and our families.”  

Speaking on the BBC Today programme this morning, Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham said he “is ready to play a constructive part” in talks over the proposals. However, Conservative MP John Redwood said the Dilnot Commission’s report was too focused on protecting inheritances and is “not necessarily” the basis of political agreement

He said: “”This idea that there is a maximum of £35,000 and then everything else is free for everybody may not be affordable. If somebody is very rich why should their estate not make a contribution to that?”

“Looking at the Dilnot report, which is a very good, detailed report, it had a bit too much on trying to protect the inheritance of the children of the elderly people concerned and not quite enough on what I think is the bigger issue: how we make sure no elderly person is faced with inadequate or inappropriate care.”

Redwood suggested the cost of care could be taken out of people’s estates once they have died, an idea put forward by Labour before the last election and attacked by the Conservatives as a “death tax”.

In July, the Dilnot Commission proposed capping individuals’ lifetime contribution to their social care costs at between £25,000 and £50,000, with £35,000 the recommended figure. It also calls for the means-tested threshold, where people must fund the full cost themselves, to rise from £23,250 to £100,000.

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (3)

  • My mother needed Long Term care aged 67 a mere two years after retiring having worked all her life for the NHS. She had a stroke resulting in dementia. The house has a 50% charge against it, they have taken almost all her savings and pension, and the family (me) are asked to put in money for extras not covered by the care home. Her husband can't sell up and move to something smaller either and has carried on working as now can't afford to retire on single wage. I know there should have been some planning in there but both were low earners and saw their home as security.

    Government(s) have had years to sort this unfairness out, a disgrace.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Andy Newman - if your father is living in their property, no charge can be registered; the property has to be disregarded if a spouse lives there.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • According to Andrew Dilnot, the estimated cost to the State of paying for everything beyond the first £35,000 is going to be about £1.7Bn, which it doesn't have, so it can be found only by making cuts elsewhere.

    Why won't the government even countenance allowing tax relief on the premiums to LTC Insurance plans? How much cover would £200m of AP's secure, at a relatively trifling cost to the Treasury of only £40m p.a.? Even twice that is a helluva lot less than £1.7Bn. And the Treasury would recover at least some of it by way of income tax, NIC and Corporation Tax.

    Where's the sense in going first for the most expensive option?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


How do you plan to vote at the general election?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments