Funding and planning for social care in later life: a deliberative focus group study.
chronic illness and disability
long-term care
paying for care
social care
Journal
Health & social care in the community
ISSN: 1365-2524
Titre abrégé: Health Soc Care Community
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9306359
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
18
09
2018
revised:
20
03
2019
accepted:
31
03
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
5
6
2020
entrez:
15
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study examined people's perceptions and behaviours in relation to planning for their social care needs, and their values and priorities concerning how social care should be funded. Eight deliberative focus groups were conducted in May 2018 with 53 participants, aged 25-82 years, in London, Manchester and rural locations near York and Sheffield. Multiple uncertainties created barriers to planning for social care needs including not knowing how much to save, not thinking it possible for an average person to save enough to meet significant needs, reluctance to plan for something potentially unnecessary, lack of suitable and secure ways of saving, and a perception of social care policy as unsettled. Participants also had significant concerns that they would not be able to obtain good-quality care, regardless of resources. In addition, it was commonly thought unrealistic to expect families to provide more than low-intensity, supplementary care, while use of housing assets to pay for care was considered unfair, both for home-owners who could lose their assets and non-home-owners who were left reliant on the state although it was more acceptable where people were childless or had substantial assets. Participants thought any new arrangements should be inclusive, personally affordable, sustainable, transparent, good-quality and honest. They preferred to contribute regularly rather than find considerable sums of money at times of crisis, and preferred to risk-pool, with everyone obliged or heavily encouraged to contribute. Transparency was valued so those better at 'working the system' were not able to benefit unfairly and participants wanted to know that, if they contributed, they would be assured of good-quality care. Trust in Government and other institutions, however, was low. New funding arrangements should incorporate measures to increase transparency and trust, be clear about the responsibilities of individuals and the state, provide meaningful options to save, and place significant focus on improving actual and perceived care quality. For acceptability, proposals should be framed to emphasise their affective dimensions and positive values.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e687-e696Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme support to Policy Innovation Research Unit
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Adams, J., Curry, C., Hu, B., King, D., Wittenberg, R., Espuny Pujol, F., … Morciano, M. (2018). Care and state pension reform: The conservative party manifesto proposal to include housing wealth in the means test for home care: how might it affect public spending on long-term care for older people?. Norwich Research Park, Norwich: Pensions Policy Institute/ Personal Social Services Research Unit/ University of East Anglia.
Bottery, S., Varrow, M., Thorlby, R., & Wellings, D. (2018). A fork in the road: Next steps for social care funding reform. London: Health Foundation/Kings Fund.
Care Quality Commission (2017). The state of health care and adult social care in England 2016/17. London: Care Quality Commission.
Commission on Funding and Care Support. (2011). Fairer care funding: the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support. (the ‘Dilnot report’).
Croucher, K., & Rhodes, P. (2006). Testing consumer views on paying for long-term care (1859354785). York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
NHS Digital. (2017). Adult Social Care Activity and Finance Report: Detailed Analysis England 2016-17.
Fernández, J.-L., & Forder, J. (2010). Ageing societies: Challenges and opportunities. London: Bupa.
Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. Bmc Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
Gandhi, K., & Bowers, H. (2008). Duty and obligation: The invisible glue in care and support. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Gray, A. M., & Devine, P. (2015). No Change: Northern Ireland attitudes and social care policy (Research Update 114). Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2015. Belfast: ARK.
Gregory, S. (2014). Attitudes to health and social care: Review of existing research (for the Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England). London, UK: The King’s Fund.
Hanratty, B., Lowson, E., Holmes, L., Grande, G., Addington-Hall, J., Payne, S., & Seymour, J. (2012). Funding health and social services for older people-a qualitative study of care recipients in the last year of life. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(5), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2012.110189
Hardcastle, R. (2012). How can we incentivise pension saving? A behavioural perspective. Working Paper no 109. Departmentfor Work and Pensions.
Hewitson, B., Seale, B., & Joyce, L. (2011). Public engagement exploring care and support funding options: TNS-BMRB report of findings in Fairer care funding: Supporting documents. London: HM Government. Available from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221121559/https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/carecommission/files/2011/07/Volume-III-Supporting-documents.pdf [Last accessed 17 May 2019].
HM Revenue and Customs (2018). Direct effects of illustrative tax changes. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714482/SS18_Direct_effects_of_illustrative_tax_changes_bulletinFinal_v1.1.pdf.
Involve and House of Commons. (2018). Citizens’ assembly on social care recommendations for funding adult social care.
IPPR and PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009). Expectations and aspirations: public attitudes towards social care. London: IPPR.
Ipsos MORI (2011). Public opinion research on social care funding. A literature review on behalf of the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, in Fairer care funding: Supporting documents. London: HM Government.
Ipsos MORI (2017). Public perceptions of the NHS and social care: An ongoing tracking study conducted for the Department of Health, December 2011. London: Department of Health.
Ipsos MORI. (2018). Understanding public attitudes to social care funding reform in England: report prepared for the Health Foundation and the King’s Fund.
King's Fund and Caring Choices (2008). The future of care funding: Time for a change. London: King's Fund.
Kingston, A., Robinson, L., Booth, H., Knapp, M., Jagger, C., & for the MODEM project,, (2018). Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: Estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) model. Age and Ageing, 47(3), 374-380. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx201
LaingBuisson. (2017). Care of older people UK market report, twenty-eighth edition. London: LaingBuisson.
The Lancet, Global Health Metrics (2017) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet, 390(10100):1211-1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2.
Local Government Association (2009). Call to make the care of our ageing population a priority for all political parties. London: Local Government Association.
NHS (2019). The NHS Long Term Plan.
Overton, L., & O'Mahony, L. F. (2017). Understanding attitudes to paying for care amongst equity release consumers: Citizenship, solidarity and the ‘hardworking homeowner’. Journal of Social Policy, 46(1), 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000416
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed). London: SAGE.
Robertson, R., Gregory, S., & Jabbal, J. (2014). The social care and health systems of nine countries. A report for the Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England. London: Kings Fund.
Rothwell, E., Anderson, R., & Botkin, J. (2016). Deliberative discussion focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 734-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315591150
Stone, E., & Wood, C. (2010). A funding settlement that works for people, not services. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults., 11, 14-23. https://doi.org/10.5042/qiaoa.2010.0712
Sussex, J., Burge, P., Lu, H., Exley, J., & King, S. (2019). Public acceptability of health and social care funding options: Funding options for the NHS and social care in the UK. London: Health Foundation.
Wenzel, L., Bennett, L., Bottery, S., Murray, R., & Sahib, B. (2018) Approaches to social care funding: Social care funding options. London: Kings Fund/ Health Foundation.