Alternatives to long-term care insurance and how to pay for care
The spiralling cost of long-term care is a concern for many in Britain's ageing population, especially since it can be difficult to get state support.
Long-term care insurance used to offer individuals protection to help cover these costs, but these policies no longer exist.
However, there are alternatives. Here, Telegraph Money explains what your options are to help meet care costs, and how much you might expect to pay.
What is long-term care insurance?
Why is it no longer available?
Alternatives to long-term care insurance
Cost of long-term care in the UK
Can the Government fund long-term care?
What is long-term care insurance?
Long-term care insurance is a legacy product that provides protection for later in life care costs.
The policies are no longer available on the market to buy, although customers may still be receiving payouts from existing plans.
Policies provided holders with a regular income to pay fees for a nursing home or for home care, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
This could include round-the-clock care in your home or for particular services, such as help with bathing and dressing.
Why is it no longer available?
Part of the reason long-term care insurance came to an end was the escalating costs of care and increasing life expectancy. Combined, this made it unaffordable for policy holders.
As there is no cap on the cost of care in the UK, it became too hard to develop a workable product.
Under Boris Johnson, the Conservatives had planned to introduce a £86,000 cap on the amount individuals would have to pay towards their own care costs, after which the state stepped in.
However, since coming to power last year Labour has announced that it will not go ahead with the previous government's plan.
As a result, many individuals will have to continue contributing high amounts to their care costs. There are around 130,000 care home residents who self-fund their care, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Alternatives to long-term care insurance
While long-term care insurance is no longer offered in the UK, there are other options that help meet individual care needs.
However, they are not comprehensive and so you need to make sure you know what is and isn't covered and how that corresponds to your needs.
It is also worth checking that you don't have an old long-term care insurance policy or existing coverage through long-standing life insurance.
Care fee annuity
A care fee annuity, also called an immediate needs annuity, is designed to bridge the gap between your income and the cost of your care for the long term.
An immediate care annuity works in a similar way to a normal annuity, where you receive a guaranteed income – but the money goes directly to your care provider rather than to you.
As the payment doesn't come to you it isn't classed as income, and therefore isn't taxable. It helps avoid a situation where you are left without the funds necessary to pay for care.
However, this kind of product requires you to provide a named care provider in order to access the money, which means you must either already be receiving care, or you're just about to start receiving care and know which provider you'll be using.
To buy an annuity of this kind it is best to find a financial planner specialising in long-term care. You may have to complete a medical assessment for a prospective provider so they can estimate your likely needs.
Your annuity rate – the amount of money you are given – will depend on a variety of factors, including your age and medical history. It is also worth looking at an option to protect against fee rises by increasing your annuity payment annually by a fixed percentage or inflation.
Sarah Pennells, consumer finance specialist at Royal London, said: ' Making decisions around care, for yourself or a parent, are never easy, but thinking about how you would pay care fees, ahead of any crisis, is a sensible approach to take.
'One of the options to consider is whether an 'immediate needs annuity' is right for you. There aren't many insurers who offer this product, but it can be bought at the point that you need care.
'In exchange for you paying a lump sum to an insurance company, it could pay your care costs for as long as you live.
'Although not cheap, as they can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, these products can be a big help if you have capital or savings you want to preserve.
'However, depending on how quickly care home fees rise, they are not guaranteed to cover care home fees in full for as long as you need them.'
Critical illness cover
Critical illness cover is a form of life insurance that will pay out a lump sum if you are diagnosed with an illness covered by your policy.
The policy holder can then use that money for any costs, such as necessary long-term care. However, you will need to ensure that your illness is covered by the policy to get a payout, otherwise you could be left with costs that aren't covered.
Conditions that are likely to be covered include strokes, Alzheimer's and cancer. Critical illness insurance doesn't just cover care later in life, but can also be taken out at a younger age to protect against illness.
Some providers also offer policies designed to provide cover for children.
However, there may be a maximum age that you are still eligible to take out the policy. For Aviva, for example, it is 64.
Prices for critical illness cover vary based on factors such as your age, health and level of coverage, but premiums can be as cheap as £12 a month with an average of £29 a month, according to comparison site MoneySupermarket.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers
NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby
Every baby born in the UK will have their DNA mapped by the NHS as part of efforts to assess their future risk of hundreds of diseases. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said every newborn would undergo whole genome sequencing within a decade. Streeting has said the move was part of a ten-year health plan, due to be published early next month, which will allow babies to 'leapfrog' major killers. 'The revolution in medical science means that we can transform the NHS over the coming decade, from a service which diagnoses and treats ill-health, to one that predicts and prevents it,' Streeting told The Telegraph. 'Genomics presents us with the opportunity to leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it.
