Dilnot Commission Report – proposals and problems

Today sees the publication of the much anticipated Dilnot Commission report on the funding of adult social care. Finding that the current system is confusing, unfair and unsustainable, Dilnot makes a number of recommendations.

The key proposal of the report is the recommendation to share the cost of care in later life between us and the State. We will pay for our own care until we reach a “cap” after which the State will pick up the bill. This cap will be between £25,000 and £50,000 with Dilnot favouring £35,000.

So much we have already gleaned from the press pre-launch but the surprise today is that Dilnot is also suggesting that the means tested threshold for residential care rise from £23,500 to £100,000. Good news for homeowners.

Whilst none of us relish the idea of future big bills, these proposals put an end to the possibility of losing all our savings and assets to pay for care. Having a cap means that we know the potential extent of our liability and can put in place plans to meet the cost.

So far so good. But however important and urgent these reforms, there is one crucial stumbling block – money. Today the care and age spokespeople are full of support for the proposals but the mutterings on the political blogs are less positive. Although the government seems to think Dilnot’s proposals are good ideas, the cost of £1.7bn a year is politically troubling, particularly if taxes will need to be raised for its implementation.

And if the State is struggling with the cost, we too will need to think hard how to save a not inconsiderable £35,000 each to pay for our care. Dilnot anticipates that the reforms will encourage the financial services industry to develop appropriate products but today that industry seems to be uncustomarily quiet. In a letter to The Times on Friday, Iain Carpenter, Emeritus Professor (Human Ageing) at University of Kent sounded a warning bell saying: “The recommendations [of the Dilnot report] designed to encourage an insurance market to allow people to protect themselves against the cost of long-term car, are bound to fail. Insurers will continue to give this market a wide berth until somebody has the courage to require care providers to record reliable standardised information on the older person’s physical, mental and social care status without fear or favour…to allow insurers to make equitable decisions on eligibility for care and repayment rates”.

And of course Dilnot did not even begin to address how to ensure quality of care.

So, much to think about. But however difficult, we cannot afford to delay.