The DH says that ministers and officials are completely open-minded about what will be in next year's green paper on the future of adult services. The current engagement process is about finding out the views of stakeholders. So who better than the Community Care readers to offer some ideas and opinions?
So what reforms would you like to see? Should the focus be on the elderly or younger adults with care needs? Should everyone be entitled to the same level of care regardless of financial circumstances? Should care be government funded or do we need insurance schemes?
Community Care can be a conduit for your views and we want to hear what you think.
It's all go in terms of the debate on the adult social care green paper with voluntary sector and local government leaders both weighing in today.
The Local Government Association has produced a report proposing a radical shake-up of funding for care and support for older and disabled people:- essentially most or all public funds would be pooled into a single budget (much wider than the current individual budgets, taking in NHS funding and benefits as well). Expect some disquiet about the idea of merging benefits such as Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance into a local budget on the basis this may introduce local variability in access to what is currently a national entitlement for those eligible.
From the voluntary sector corner, the Right care, Right deal coalition has launched a report on its priorities for the green paper - more personalisation, better support for carers, fairer access, more prevention and more funding (on which it and the LGA are agreed).
Hopefully this is a sign that the debate - a bit too abstract so far, with people not really wanting to show their hands - is hotting up a bit.
Now it looks like we're going to have to say "adult services green papers" as the Welsh assembly government has kicked off a similar debate in Wales today, which will also lead to a green paper next year.
It is asking many of the same questions but it will be interesting to see how far these two debates and processes converge and diverge due to the different needs, circumstances and - let's be honest - political cultures.
The Right care, Right deal coalition has come out in favour of a national system of social care eligibility and entitlement today, replacing the current system of locally-based determinations.
They say this will be fairer and more equitable, and that the argument against - that councils' ability to determine eligibility enables them to tailor services to local needs - do not stack up.
What do people think? The idea appears to be getting a head of steam behind it and has had strong support in the government's care and support engagement process, which will inform next year's green paper.
National eligibility criteria do not sit well with locally-determined funding. Some "squaring of the circle" will have to take place if it is to work.
Things can be as equitable as the government want to make them. If the money isn't there to fund things it won't make much difference. I'd much rather that there is means-testing though and that there is more focus on services for people who can't actually afford them rather than on people who don't think they should pay.
Think-tank the New Local Government Network has put out a proposal for a ring-fenced social insurance fund to finance care for older people in the future.
Under the plan, everyone would pay into this fund during their working lives, but would then receive free care at the point of need in older age (the report doesn't focus on funding care for younger disabled adults).
In addition, it claims that it could fund care at a "higher level" than is currently available from the public purse - though not before 2030 as there would not be enough money in the ring-fenced fund until then.
Till then, they are proposing a transitional arrangement, under which ageing 'baby boomers' would be able to put a charge on their homes (if they were homeowners) to pay for care which would be recovered after their deaths (non-homeowners would have the opportunity to pay an extra social insurance contribution or, if they don't have the means, have their care met from general taxation).
Sounds an interesting solution - and one that would establish social care as a true public service - though one would obviously have to consider something different for younger disabled adults and the idea of a 'care tax' may (as the report admits) prove unpopular.
On another note we seems to be hearing murmurings that the adult social care green paper will be delayed a bit - summer, rather than spring.
The problem with the NLGN proposals is that it perpetuates, for another 20 years, the iniquitous sequestration, by the state, of older people's homes in order to pay for their care. It will continue the perverse incentive to "spend while you've got it", since those with no assets will still get the same care (essentially) as those whose homes are used as payment.