View more on these topics

Report lacks focus on elderly care, says MP

The Dilnot Commission report into the funding of care for the elderly does not focus enough on the quality of care older people receive, according to a Conservative MP.

John Redwood, chair of the Conservative Party’s economic affairs committee, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme last Tuesday that the report focuses too much on protecting the inheritance of heirs and not enough on ensuring elderly people receive adequate and appropriate care.

The report, published in July, recommends capping individuals’ lifetime contributions to their social care costs at £35,000, as well as increasing the means-tested threshold above which people must fund the full cost of their care from £23,250 to £100,000.

Recommended

3

Loud & Clear

Brokers have welcomed moves in the FSA’s latest MMR paper to ban non-advised sales and demand greater clarity over lenders’ provision of advice to consumers

Shadow MPC

Welcome to 2012 and my first predictions for the year. In 2011 I found a different way every month to predict that base rates will stay on hold.

10 September thumbnail

Johnson Fleming set to hold auto-enrolment support webinar

Two years since the process of auto-enrolment began, the looming re-enrolment deadline provides the perfect opportunity to assess whether the support you have in place, which may well have been hastily selected at the start, is fit for purpose. Johnson Fleming is holding a webinar on 10 September at 11:00 to discover the key issues and concerns you should consider when thinking about your current support options.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • EB 17th January 2012 at 3:50 pm

    IT IS DREADFUL THE AMOUNT THAT THOSE IN NEED OF CARE MUST PAY BEFORE CARE IS FUNDED FOR THEM, AND I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE LIMIT SHOULD BE INCREASED, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE INCREASED TO ABOUT £200,000 AS A MIIMUM AS THE AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE EXCEEDS THE £100,000 FIGURES SUGGESTED, MEANING MOST PEOPLE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SELL THEIR HOME. IF THE LIMIT WERE HIGHER THIS WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF SAVINGS FOR THEMSELEVES AND KEEP THEIR PROPERTY THUS IF THEY CHOOSE POVIDING THEM WITH SOME ON-GOING INCOME FOR THE RENT. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE EFFETIVE ‘POCKET MONEY ALLOWANCE’ THE ELDERLY ARE ALLOWED WHILST IN CARE WHEN THEY ARE PARTIALLY/FULLY HAVING CARE COSTS PAID FOR THEM IS RIDICULOUSLY LOW, £23 IS HARDLY ENOUGH FOR TOILETRIES, CLOTHES TO BE MAINTAINED/REPLACED, TELEPHONE CALLS/LETTER WRITING ETC, TRAVEL COSTS IF THEY WISH TO DAY TRIP OUT TO VISIT A FRIEND OR RELATIVE, LET ALONE BUYING THE OCCASIONAL TREAT OR GIFT. DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHY THOSE WHO HAVE PAID TAX, SAVED AND BEEN RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE TO FUND THEIR OWN CARE WHEN CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO WORK AND PAY TAX GET IT ALL FOR FREE…. BUT THAT IS APPLICABLE IN SO MANY FINANCIAL DISCUSSIONS NOT JUST THE CARE ISSUE, AND THAT IS A SAD SIGN OF SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT ATTITUDES TODAY.

  • EB 17th January 2012 at 3:49 pm

    IT IS DREADFUL THE AMOUNT THAT THOSE IN NEED OF CARE MUST PAY BEFORE CARE IS FUNDED FOR THEM, AND I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT THE LIMIT SHOULD BE INCREASED, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE INCREASED TO ABOUT £200,000 AS A MIIMUM AS THE AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE EXCEEDS THE £100,000 FIGURES SUGGESTED, MEANING MOST PEOPLE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SELL THEIR HOME. IF THE LIMIT WERE HIGHER THIS WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF SAVINGS FOR THEMSELEVES AND KEEP THEIR PROPERTY THUS IF THEY CHOOSE POVIDING THEM WITH SOME ON-GOING INCOME FOR THE RENT. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE EFFETIVE ‘POCKET MONEY ALLOWANCE’ THE ELDERLY ARE ALLOWED WHILST IN CARE WHEN THEY ARE PARTIALLY/FULLY HAVING CARE COSTS PAID FOR THEM IS RIDICULOUSLY LOW, £23 IS HARDLY ENOUGH FOR TOILETRIES, CLOTHES TO BE MAINTAINED/REPLACED, TELEPHONE CALLS/LETTER WRITING ETC, TRAVEL COSTS IF THEY WISH TO DAY TRIP OUT TO VISIT A FRIEND OR RELATIVE, LET ALONE BUYING THE OCCASIONAL TREAT OR GIFT. DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHY THOSE WHO HAVE PAID TAX, SAVED AND BEEN RESPONSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE TO FUND THEIR OWN CARE WHEN CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO WORK AND PAY TAX GET IT ALL FOR FREE…. BUT THAT IS APPLICABLE IN SO MANY FINANCIAL DISCUSSIONS NOT JUST THE CARE ISSUE, AND THAT IS A SAD SIGN OF SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT ATTITUDES TODAY.