Tory care funding plans would mean bigger role for social workers

Councils would need more social workers to deal with the assessment requirements of the Conservatives' proposals, says Pete Feldon

Description_of_image_used_in_Tory_care_funding_proposals_would_mean_bigger_role_for_social_workers_file_card_with_word_assessments_on_it_on_computer_keyboard_tashatuvango_fotolia
Photo: tashatuvango/fotolia

By Pete Feldon

The Conservatives’ headline-grabbing manifesto proposal to reform social care and the subsequent ‘clarification’ of it has certainly got many people thinking about how care could or should be paid for.

This could lead to an upsurge in demand for information and advice from local authorities in the short-term, but it also provides an opportunity to engage the public in a wider debate about the impact of these proposals.

The Conservatives have proposed that where a local authority has decided to meet an individual’s care and support needs at home, the individual would have to pay the full cost where the value of their total assets exceeds £100,000. The same threshold would apply for those having their needs met in residential care. Where an individual owned a property this would be taken into account, but it would not have to be sold in their lifetime. In addition it has been ‘clarified’ that there would be a cap (an upper limit) on the total amount that an individual would have to pay towards their care costs.

It’s good news for people with care and support needs that the proposals will include this cap. If the cap were to be implemented in the way set out in the Care Act 2014 and its accompanying statutory guidance, then self-funders would have a financial incentive to seek a needs assessment from the local authority as this would be the gateway to having their care costs capped.

Staffing numbers challenge

However, whilst social workers will be pleased that self-funders would benefit from a professional assessment – because this means that they are more likely to make decisions that prevent, reduce or delay their needs for care – there would be a challenge for local authorities in ensuring that sufficient staff were available to respond to the increase in the volume of assessments.

The proposed changes to the means-testing threshold for people living at home means that a large number of existing council-funded service users would become self-funders. These are people whose current non-housing assets are worth less than £23,250 but whose total assets (including housing) would take them over the £100,000 threshold.

In addition there would be a significant number of people who cease to be self-funders and become eligible for financial support, including:

  • those receiving care at home who are living in rented accommodation and have savings between the current upper limit of £23,250 and the new limit of £100,000;
  • those in residential care whose home is excluded for charging purposes and have assets between £23,250 and £100,000.

Where they have made their own arrangements for their care and support, they would want to find out if they qualify for financial assistance, and thus would require a needs assessment and all that is subsequently entailed if the local authority agrees to meet their needs.

More assessments required

The planned introduction of the Care Act capping arrangement was deferred to April 2020 from the original implementation date of April 2016. This was ostensibly so that the requirements of those who are self-funding residential care could be properly planned for and resourced. At whatever date were chosen for the introduction of a scheme of this nature, there would be a short-term surge in demand from those people who were already in residential care because expenditure that counts towards the cap commences from this date.

The large number of property owners who would become self-funders under the Tory proposals would not be presenting the same type of short-term challenge, as they would already be in the system and would have received an assessment and a care and support plan. The emphasis would be on financial reassessment and being considered for a deferred payments scheme. However, non-property owners who have made their own arrangements to have their needs met at home and who ceased to be self-funders would want to be assessed.

If these proposals were implemented there would be a period before and after the implementation date when there would need to be a significant short-term increase in the staff available to undertake these tasks. Much of the work could be routinised, but inevitably there would be a proportion of complex cases where it were essential that social workers have a lead role. There would need to be an increase in the number of social workers employed, both to take on the complex cases and be available to advise staff who were working with people whose circumstances are straightforward.

All this is in the future, and conditional on the Conservatives winning the election, but the high profile of this issue may mean that many people will want advice now about how to best manage their finances to pay for their care. Some people may worry about whether they can afford the care that they need, and there are those who will want to maximise the amount of their assets they can pass on to their children. Social workers will be familiar with the local authority duty to tell people how they can access independent financial advice, and should continue to provide this.

Ensuring that there is an incentive for self-funders with care and support needs to receive a professional assessment of their needs is a vital element of capping as set out in the Care Act. Let’s try and make sure that this happens.

Pete Feldon is the author of The Social Worker’s Guide to the Care Act 2014, published by Critical Publishing in May 2017. He is also the author of the A-Z of the Care Act 2014, which defines and explains the key terms used in the act and statutory guidance and is available on Community Care Inform Adults. 

 

4 Responses to Tory care funding plans would mean bigger role for social workers

  1. Steven Brooks May 26, 2017 at 11:48 am #

    I agree that this looks as though there would be a rise in assessments, but these assessments would not necessarily need to be undertaken by social workers

  2. Nick Johnson May 26, 2017 at 12:04 pm #

    I wonder whether the (Conservative) intention is to have all of this managed through financial institutions? I know this was the hope of the Dilnot proposals which were shelved when insurers decided not to embrace them. Social work’s future might be with the Pru!

  3. Chux May 26, 2017 at 1:59 pm #

    What it means is that there is no longer solely revenue funded care provision for those remaining at home that need it, any capital assets including your home will now count… this isn’t the current situation. In reality people will pay for a 100% of their care at home,and not only the elderly. The cap hasn’t been set, and the very generous Torres will let you keep a 100k.of the value of your home. Who’s funding the care untill the person dies and the asset is realisable? Haven’t heard the Tories explain that one to councils yet.

    Don’t be fooled, social care will no longer be provided for by pooled national resources…if you’ve got something they can flog then that’s what’s going first. I thought I paid into a scheme to pay for this.

    What incentive (if they can afford it) do young people have to buy their own home?

    Oh, and social workers won’t be employed to do assessments, there are already some LAs who use support staff to do this.

  4. Kim May 28, 2017 at 8:09 pm #

    So I guess in the meantime Local Authorities will have to get loans while waiting for care recipients to pass away and they get to fleece their estates.