Jamie Buchan, chief executive officer of Southern Cross Healthcare, the UK’s largest care provider, has given a cautious ‘thumbs up’ to Conservative plans to revolutionise the way elderly care is funded.

In England, residential care costs are currently met by the individual if they have assets of more than £23,000 – often meaning that properties have to be sold to fund long-term care.

The Conservative Party, if elected, would give the option of a one-off voluntary payment of £8,000 at 65 to waive fees for life.

Mr Buchan said: “This scheme, whilst not the entire solution by any means, has the makings of being a very important component part of a successful reform of the care system and the way it is funded.

“We hear a lot of rhetoric about public spending cuts, but this is one area where the Government and care providers must work together and I am pleased that a debate has opened and national initiatives are being disucssed. It is important that the resources are in place to ensure the care system works and elderly people receive the care they deserve.

“However, I also believe that in our modern society it is not acceptable for there to be an inequality in the levels of care across the country. This is tied very closely with the need for the fees paid by local authorities to be more uniform.

“There is evidence of increasing numbers of councils using quality ratings to pay higher fees to the better performing care homes and lower fees to poorly performing ones. Southern Cross is a big supporter of the CQC quality ratings but what we must all work towards achieving is greater uniformity and cost-efficiency of the inspection system.”

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why raising the retirement age has any connection with the provision of care for the elderly and the way in which it's funded

a) decrease demand on existing services slightly, as work "keeps people going" - particularly men.
b) people working longer means higher revenue from income tax, which could be used to fund addtional old-age care requirements.

There is a balance to be struck in which the working generation pay for the needs of the young and the elderly. Currently the balance has drifted too far in favour of a heavy burden on the working generation, with 50% of kids encouraged to stay on at university until they're 23+ and the retirement age set at 65, the 42 years in the middle are no longer enough to pay for the needs of all three generations symultaneously with life expectancy at > 80.

In JAMC's world about 20% of school leavers would stay in education beyond 18, and the age at which the state pension could be drawn would be at least 70. Also mandatory retirement would not be an option available to the employer.