IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bracjl/v22y2017i01p10-44_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The future of social care funding: who pays?

Author

Listed:
  • Kenny, T.
  • Barnfield, J.
  • Daly, L.
  • Dunn, A.
  • Passey, D.
  • Rickayzen, B.
  • Teow, A.

Abstract

With the UK population ageing, deciding upon a satisfactory and sustainable system for the funding of people’s long-term care (LTC) needs has long been a topic of political debate. Phase 1 of the Care Act 2014 (“the Act”) brought in some of the reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission in 2011. However, the Government announced during 2015 that Phase 2 of “the Act” such as the introduction of a £72,000 cap on Local Authority care costs and a change in the means testing thresholds 1 would be deferred until 2020. In addition to this delay, the “freedom and choice” agenda for pensions has come into force. It is therefore timely that the potential market responses to help people pay for their care within the new pensions environment should be considered. In this paper, we analyse whether the proposed reforms meet the policy intention of protecting people from catastrophic care costs, whilst facilitating individual understanding of their potential care funding requirements. In particular, we review a number of financial products and ascertain the extent to which such products might help individuals to fund the LTC costs for which they would be responsible for meeting. We also produce case studies to demonstrate the complexities of the care funding system. Finally, we review the potential impact on incentives for individuals to save for care costs under the proposed new means testing thresholds and compare these with the current thresholds. We conclude that: ∙ Although it is still too early to understand exactly how individuals will respond to the pensions freedom and choice agenda, there are a number of financial products that might complement the new flexibilities and help people make provision for care costs. ∙ The new care funding system is complex making it difficult for people to understand their potential care costs. ∙ The current means testing system causes a disincentive to save. The new means testing thresholds provide a greater level of reward for savers than the existing thresholds and therefore may increase the level of saving for care; however, the new thresholds could still act as a barrier since disincentives still exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenny, T. & Barnfield, J. & Daly, L. & Dunn, A. & Passey, D. & Rickayzen, B. & Teow, A., 2017. "The future of social care funding: who pays?," British Actuarial Journal, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 10-44, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:22:y:2017:i:01:p:10-44_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S135732171600012X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Vidal-Meliá & Manuel Ventura-Marco & Juan Manuel Pérez-Salamero González, 2018. "Social Insurance Accounting for a Notional Defined Contribution Scheme Combining Retirement and Long-Term Care Benefits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-36, August.
    2. Carlos Vidal-Meliá & Manuel Ventura-Marco & Juan Manuel Pérez-Salamero González, 2018. "Actuarial accounting for a notional defined contribution scheme combining retirement and longterm care benefits," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2018-16, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    3. Manuel Ventura-Marco & Carlos Vidal-Meliá & Juan Manuel Pérez-Salamero González, 2022. "Life care annuities to help couples cope with the cost of long-term care," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2022-03, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    4. J. Iñaki De La Peña & M. Cristina Fernández-Ramos & Asier Garayeta & Iratxe D. Martín, 2022. "Transforming Private Pensions: An Actuarial Model to Face Long-Term Costs," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bracjl:v:22:y:2017:i:01:p:10-44_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/baj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.