Social care is in crisis... but this is NOT the answer

THE Government’s newly announced health and social care levy is supposed to usher in a new care system, with ‘radical innovation’. Yes, a higher means-testing threshold and capping lifetime care costs are welcome changes, but they do not remedy the problems of the current unfair, broken system.

The proposals seem to be more about funding the NHS than social care, even though inadequate social care can be just as life-threatening as poor healthcare.

The pandemic highlighted the dangers of second-class treatment for social care relative to the NHS, as thousands of elderly people died after being sent from their hospital beds to care homes, with inadequate medical expertise and personal protective

equipment. Every aspect of social care is in crisis, but the supposedly radical reforms do not address the fundamental failings.

The unfairness of stringent means-testing that forces most of the costs on to those who are ill remains, rather than spreading the costs across society as the NHS does.

The measures do not ensure better quality care, nor end the artificial divide between healthcare and social care that sees dementia sufferers paying for their care while cancer patients are funded by all taxpayers.

They will also not restore preventive services like meals-on-wheels that help people stay in their own homes, nor provide care earlier for people with substantial needs.

They will not boost care workers’ pay, or reduce staff turnover and vacancies, nor will they rescue care homes on the brink of financial collapse, control offshore owners, or ensure councils fund the full costs of care.

Even the £86,000 cap is not an upper limit on care spending. Payments for board and lodging, better-quality care homes, or more time with home carers than the council approves, will not count towards the cap, so many will spend well over £150,000 before they receive any state help.

I also believe increasing National Insurance is the wrong choice for raising revenue. Surely older generations should pay into this system too, as they are the people who will need care soonest.

Yet retired baby boomers, not receiving dividends, will pay nothing – because pension and buy-tolet property income are excluded from the 1.25 per cent levy.

It is difficult to understand why younger people should have to pay so much more than if the premium applied to everyone’s total income. A better way forward is, in my view, a proper social insurance arrangement, covering health and care needs together, without artificially distinguishing between different ways of being ill.

All age groups would pay into the system, to provide better standards of care, higher-paid, better-qualified staff and more financially sustainable care homes.

A new Beveridge settlement for the 21st Century that sees everyone contributing to ensure our disabled and elderly people are cared for decently.