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

Coalition cracks grow over Dilnot LTC plans

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Senior Liberal Democrat sources have raised concerns about Andrew Dilnot’s long-term care funding plans, saying the proposals are expensive, bureaucratic and regressive.

The Dilnot commission report, published in July last year, calls for a cap on individuals’ lifetime contributions to social care costs of between £25,000 and £50,000, with £35,000 the recommended figure. When the cap is reached, any remaining care costs would be met by the Government.

A senior LibDem MP told Money Marketing: “The concept of a cap is a good one but it is not clear how this is going to be funded and there is no money available from existing resources.

“Given that this will help better-off people, because the reform is targeted at people who have resources, you could only really justify it if you raised the money in a progressive way or it will be a very regressive measure. We could potentially be creating quite a bureaucratic system. There are also serious issues over how the incentives work and whether it will encourage people to invest in preventive care. When you add those things together, there are big issues to be resolved before we can endorse it.”

In November, Money Marketing reported industry concern that the Government’s decision to publish its social care white paper separate from Dilnot’s funding recommendations will see the reforms sidelined. The Government is expected to produce the white paper by May.

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

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 (1)

  • I find myself agreeing with the LibDems here. Far from simplifying the care system Dilnots reforms would make it significantly more complex with three financial assessments running consecutively on the same persons capital and income.

    In my view any spare funding in the care system should be used to pay care providers a fair amount for the care they provide rather than the current system where those that are self funding are effectively subsiding their local authority which is buying care at less than cost price.

    You can't take it with you when you go and Dilnot's scheme to protect assets is effectively the state paying to protect the inheritance of the next generation.

    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


Do you see the value in adviser trade bodies?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments