Funding and planning for social care in later life: a deliberative focus group study

Abstract

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.

Social Care Insurance: A Review of Psychological Influences on Uptake

“…In general, individuals do not plan early for future social care need. A lack of future planning was identified earlier by Francesca et al ( 9 ), and has been corroborated by other research ( 25 , 26 ). It is well-known that many individuals have a myopic outlook and focus on the short rather than the long-term ( 27 ).…”

“…Recent evidence also suggests that persuasive messages should be tailored to the age of the recipient, as beliefs about the benefits of aging are mixed between younger, middle, and older generations (25). The authors report varying responses to social care investment, such as "avoiding it, " "living for today, " "saving anyway, " and "protecting own assets" (e.g., older individuals might buy care insurance to protect their assets).…”

“…Media reports and related Care Quality Commission reports often report negative stories about care homes. These negative stories are easily accessible in memory (25) and could be used in the promotion of private care plans. Because of such "memory availability" (aka priming) effects, people pay far more for flight insurance but do not buy flood or earthquake insurance even when subsidized and priced below its actuarially fair price (100).…”

Interentity Cooperation in the Social Welfare Sector in Poland (2014–2020): Chances and Limitations

“…Jednym z podstawowych zadań pracownika socjalnego jest współpraca i współdziałanie z innymi specjalistami w celu przeciwdziałania i ograniczania patologii i skutków negatywnych zjawisk społecznych, łagodzenie skutków ubóstwa. Jak wskazują badania i praktyka zawodowa współpraca pomiędzy instytucjami pomocy społecznej i innymi podmiotami pozostawia wiele do życzenia (Dixon et al, 2019). D. Trawkowska pisała o działaniach pozornych w pomocy społecznej.…”

Concealed Social Problems – Their Causes and Specific Features in Poland

“…Ukryte problemy społeczne są niewidoczne z kilku powodów. Szczególnie ważnym wydaje się powód w postaci ukrywania ich przez jednostki czy grupy doświadczające naruszenia ich praw oraz jawnego niedostrzegania przez polityków społecznych, którzy albo nie mają pomysłu na rozwiązanie problemu, albo bagatelizują problem uważając, że to jednostka jest sprawcą tego problemu i sama powinna za ten problem odpowiadać (Dixon, Trathen et al, 2019). Szczególnie zaś, jeśli zakłada się, że to jednostka doświadcza pewnych dotkliwości z racji nieprzestrze-gania zasad porządku aksjonormatywnego.…”