Sir, There is a further major consequence of the Government’s failure to put a cap on the amount anyone may have to pay towards the cost of their long term care, as proposed by Andrew Dilnot (letter, June 4, and report, June 1). Many people have set aside considerable sums of money in low-interest accounts in case they have to pay anything up to £50,000 a year for their residential care. If they knew that their liability was capped at a reasonable figure then much of this “rainy day” money would be available to help younger relatives with housing and other costs that younger generations can ill afford. Nationally, a vaste sum of money would be released into the economy during a period when it is most needed.
Brian Munday
Canterbury
Sir, If Dilnot is too expensive for the Government under current circumstances, perhaps we could try “reverse Dilnot” — ie, the Government contributes a maximum of £35,000 towards a person’s residential/nursing care before the requirement to self-fund arises. This could be used to finance a series of short spells of respite care and/or the early months of permanent care and thus help to ease the undoubtedly painful transition from independence to life in a care home.
For those who have little or no capital or savings other than their own home, the present system (whereby the value of the house is disregarded for only 12 weeks) means that the house must be put on the market immediately a person goes into care. This is far too soon psychologically, especially if their physical and/or mental condition is fluctuating. It would be more humane to let them first have time to accustom themselves to the idea that they will not be returning home before the house has to be sold.
Advertisement
A. C. Balchin
Otley, West Yorks