As we reported here last May, PM Theresa May had promised to introduce a ‘floor’ for aged care charges after an election campaign announcement to make people pay for their aged care until their assets, including the family home, dropped to £100,000, caused the Conservative party’s lead over Labour to drop by 50%.
Now the Government has announced it will limit how much people need to pay for social care, although the level of the cap is yet to be determined. Those paying for care will also be guaranteed a minimum amount – previously set at £100,000 – that would be passed onto their families.
Under the current system, someone suffering from Alzheimer’s and needing aged care would not be able to pass on as large an inheritance to their children as someone who had cancer, because the latter’s treatment would be provided free by the NHS. The family home would not need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, but the Government would recoup costs after their death.
Former pensions minister Baroness Altmann says this is unfair because “a millionaire with cancer gets their costs covered, while a little old widow with dementia who has only ever had a house and savings in the Post Office loses it all.”
But with the UK expecting a £2.3 billion shortfall in social care funding by 2020, what is more important – ensuring kids still get their inheritance or caring for elderly and frail residents?
