MPs urged to vote down government's amendment to social care cap

The Health Foundation and the King’s Fund have urged MPs in Yorkshire, the Midlands and North East to vote down the government’s social care cap amendment to save their poorer constituents from “crippling care costs”.

The warning comes after a joint Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Health Foundation report, funded by the Health Foundation, recently assessed the impact of the government’s amendment. It compared the financial effect of the change for people in different regions of the country.

The report states that people in the North East would spend an extra six per cent of their assets on care, equivalent to an average increase in contribution of £5,700. Yorkshire and Humber people would spend an extra five per cent of their assets, equivalent to £5,300 and in the Midlands it would see an increase in payments worth four per cent of assets, equivalent to £4,600.

Sally Warren, director of policy at The King’s Fund, said: “The government’s change to the cap on social care costs is expected to save the Treasury money, but that saving comes at the expense of poorer people with lower levels of wealth and assets.

“Many of those people will be wondering why the Prime Minister’s pledge no one will have to sell their home to pay for their care no longer applies to them, whilst wealthier people are still protected from catastrophic care costs.”

’This is not levelling up: it’s unfair and a backwards step’

The Health and Care Bill is set to reach its final stages in the House of Commons today where everyone is exposed to the same costs. £86k may be affordable for certain people, but it is a life changing amount for people with low to moderate assets and will still leave them with no choice but to sell their home to pay for their care. This is a departure from the Dilnot Commission’s proposals, which significantly reduces the benefits of the reforms for people with lower levels of wealth. Those with housing wealth of more than £186,000 are unaffected.

Charles Tallack, director of data analytics at the Health Foundation, said: “The government’s amendment represents a significant watering down of the pledge to protect people from catastrophic care costs.

“At a time when the country is facing the biggest hit to household finances since the 1950s, government should be looking to increase financial protection for poorer households.

“Yet this measure will disproportionally affect people with lower wealth and in poorer areas of the country. This is not levelling up: it’s unfair and a backwards step.”