Adult social care reform and funding up to 2010

In 2010, Downing Street and the (then) Department of Health commissioned a review of the social and economic benefits of adult social care reform (Glasby et al., Reference Glasby, Ham, Littlechild and McKay2010). We described an English social care system widely recognised as ‘broken’, by commentators, policy makers, service users and families alike. Our report outlined the drivers of increasing social care demand, including demographic change and changes in family structure. We discussed the sources of perceived injustices in the existing system, including rising public expectations and increasing concerns about geographical and economic equity. We described a sense of ‘crisis’ in terms of funding, fairness and perception and provided an overview of the recent history of adult social care policy responses to these issues, setting out five key rationales for reforming adult social care:

1. 1. Maintaining social and public expectations that the state will provide a degree of collective support to its most vulnerable citizens;

2. 2. Supporting people to have greater choice and control over their services, and hence over their lives;

3. 3. Enabling people to remain independent for as long as possible so that their needs do not deteriorate into a future/costly crisis;

4. 4. Providing support to those in need so that they can contribute fully as active citizens; and

5. 5. Reducing some of the negative impacts of poor social care on families and individuals who care for others.

In addition, we reviewed the evidence for five potential mechanisms for reform pursued by successive governments over time which seemed likely to continue to influence future policy:

1. 1. Strategic commissioning – seeking best value for money by securing services from a mixed economy of care;

2. 2. Greater collaboration between health and social care (on the assumption that local agencies working together might meet needs more effectively and reduce the costs of operating independently of each other);

3. 3. Personalisation – utilising direct payments and personal budgets to achieve better outcomes for either the same (or potentially slightly less) money for some user groups;

4. 4. Technology – with potential to provide better support to people through a system of telecare as well as to improve the efficiency of current working practices;

5. 5. Workforce reform – reducing the costs associated with unfilled vacancies, use of agency staff and absenteeism.

In particular, we reviewed the impact each of these reform mechanisms might potentially have, setting out three future scenarios for future adult social care reforms and costs. In 2002, a formal review of health care spending commissioned by the government and undertaken by Sir Derek Wanless, a leading banker, projected different spending scenarios for the NHS. This was picked up with enthusiasm by the (then) New Labour government and led to significant increases in NHS funding in order to try to achieve a ‘fully engaged’ scenario (Wanless, Reference Wanless2002, preface: Letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in which:

Although the Review also recommended a similar process be undertaken in social care, this recommendation was not taken up by the government. Building on this approach, we set out three similar scenarios for social care:

• Slow uptake : future policy and practice remain as now, with periodic attempts to more fully integrate health and social care, but without sustained and real change; little permanent workforce reform; some support for carers; ongoing preventative/rehabilitative pilots, but a failure to embed these in mainstream services; and low uptake of technology. This scenario describes a system which tries to meet basic social expectations by providing a bare minimum, albeit with some aspiration to higher quality and more responsive rights-based services. Despite a stated commitment to longer-term change, action is limited and sporadic, with the commitment more rhetoric than reality. Under this scenario, costs increase at a rate of 2% per year (Figures 3a-c), leading to a doubling of adult social care costs within two decades.

• Solid progress : while the stated aims of policy remain similar, there is a more concerted effort to improve outcomes and deliver savings through integration; a greater understanding/embedding of the principles of personalisation; a genuine and sustained attempt to rebalance mainstream services towards a more preventative/rehabilitative approach (i.e. to move away from a ‘fire-fighting’ approach which focuses on meeting the needs of people in crisis, to one which can increase investment in prevention and rehabilitation to help people remain living independently at home, or to return home after a spell in hospital if they have experienced some sort of crisis in their health); a sustained commitment to a commissioning-led systemFootnote ¹ ; greater support for carers; significant workforce reform; and more innovative use of IT. In practice, the intended benefits are not fully realized to quite the extent envisaged (for example, integration does not deliver as much as expected, and the impact of personalisation is reduced by professional and cultural barriers). Over time, thinking retreats to meeting basic needs, extending some rights and trying to boost prevention/rehabilitation. Under this scenario, costs are contained at current levels.

• Fully engaged : there is a sustained commitment to genuine change, motivated by a desire to realize in full the benefits for the health and social care system and for wider society. Where the evidence base is currently contested or unclear, the mechanisms used surpass expectations and start to really deliver. Thus, partnerships achieve the outcomes/savings that intuition suggests they ought; commissioning proves an effective lever for reforming the system; personalisation is experienced as a lived reality by front-line staff and service users; there are high rates of technology take-up; and there is effective and ongoing workforce reform. This approach is underpinned by a genuine commitment to a rights-based approach, to mainstreaming prevention and rehabilitation, and to using social care funding to achieve a much broader range of social and economic benefits for users and carers. Under this scenario, there is a 2% reduction in costs (albeit the assumptions about what may be possible to achieve verge on the heroic).

To our knowledge, this was the first time the ‘Wanless scenarios’ – influential in persuading New Labour to significantly increase NHS spending, essentially tripling the health care budget over their period in office – were applied to adult social care, and the first analysis to present policy makers with such detailed projections for different levels of commitment to reform. Ultimately, our review highlighted the high costs of inaction – on existing demographic trends and with standard cost assumptions, we concluded that the real costs of adult social care (that is, after allowing for inflation) could double within two decades. Moreover, this would be the case for current services and approaches (which had already been strongly criticised for failing to fully and appropriately meet need), leading to significantly higher costs with no improvement in the quality of care. Even under our most optimistic and demanding scenario of ‘full engagement’, real spending on social care would merely be held at its 2010 level.

Adult social care policy and funding since 2010

Following the defeat of New Labour in 2010, the newly elected Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition rejected the previous administration’s White Paper, publishing its own ‘Vision for Social Care’ (HM Government, 2010). This set out seven key principles for reforming the adult social care system, focusing on prevention, personalisation, partnership, plurality, protection, productivity and people (Department of Health, 2010, p.8). Despite their impressive alliteration, these felt no different to previous policy commitments. The new government also committed to producing a new White Paper, and creating a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care by building on two key reviews: a legal review (commissioned by the New Labour government in 2008) led by the Law Commission, and a review of funding options for long-term care (chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot).

The Law Commission’s review (Law Commission, 2011), published in May 2011, surveyed over sixty years of social care law since the National Assistance Act 1948. It concluded that the law had become confusing and unclear, and proposed a single statute that would integrate existing duties while updating them with best practice in terms of personalisation, safeguarding and commissioning (key parts of the current system, but lacking a statutory basis). Its core recommendation was to establish a new, positive legal basis for social care: the duty of local authorities to promote individual wellbeing, as opposed to ‘meeting need’. This would also necessitate local authorities thinking about the wellbeing of the population, not just those individuals fitting pre-defined eligibility criteria.

In July 2011, ‘Fairer Care Funding’: the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support was published (Dilnot, Reference Dilnot2011). This argued that care remains the last large uninsurable social risk: private insurers had failed to produce products that enable people to pool this risk through the market, and individuals can face catastrophic costs that cannot be predicted in advance (no one knows who will need care and who will not). In response, the report proposed raising the asset threshold from the existing £23,250 to £100,000, expanding the number of people who would receive state-funded care. It also proposed a cap on the amount any individual would contribute to their care (potentially £35,000), thereby helping individuals to plan ahead for future care costs and encouraging the insurance industry to develop new products.

The government then published a Draft Care and Support Bill (HM Government, 2012) in two parts, corresponding to each Commission’s recommendations, later enacted as the Care Act (HM Government, 2014). This represented the largest overhaul of adult social care law since the establishment of the welfare state. Part One of the Care Act was implemented in April 2015, alongside other support documents and statutory guidance. The Act:

• Defined adult social care as the promotion of individual wellbeing

• Placed a duty on local authorities to promote prevention and integration

• Established a new right to assessment for carers

• Placed a duty on authorities to maintain an information and advice service for all residents

• Placed a duty on authorities to facilitate a diverse, vibrant and sustainable market for care and support services that benefit the whole population

• Established a right to advocacy if a person lacks the capacity to be fully engaged in statutory social care functions

• Established national eligibility criteria for social care assessments

• Placed a duty on authorities to make safeguarding enquiries and establish an ‘Adult Safeguarding Board’ made up of local stakeholders, including the NHS and police.

Part Two of the Care Act set out the government’s response to the Dilnot Commission. It set an increased upper capital limit of £118,000 for care home residents (including the value of their home) and £27,000 for those who receive care at home. It also set an increased lower capital limit of £17,000 and an overall cap on expenditure of £72,000. These changes were marked for implementation in April 2016. Government also set out an aspiration that by defining care cost liability, interest in developing care insurance products would be stimulated in the private insurance market.

Although Part Two of the Care Act was much less generous than recommended by the Dilnot Commission, the newly elected Conservative government (2015-) baulked at its practical and cost implications and delayed enactment of Part Two of the Act, later abandoning it altogether (see Jarrett, Reference Jarrett2018, Reference Jarrett2019 for an overview of a number of the key events set out in the paragraph below). Following Theresa May’s election as leader, the Conservatives pledged to publish a Green Paper putting forward new proposals. During the 2017 General Election campaign (Conservative Party, 2017), the government set out ideas even further removed from the Dilnot recommendations: eschewing the lifetime cap and proposing to include the value of people’s homes when means-testing for home care (as well as for residential care). Negative reaction to the proposals was seen as a key factor in the loss of the Conservative’s overall majority, with many perceiving the changes to be regressive and/or a reduction in service. Political opponents labelled the changes a ‘Dementia Tax’, and the policy (which seemed to have been developed in a small inner circle without adequate consultation and debate) quickly unravelled. During a press conference to discuss the proposals, May declared ‘nothing has changed’ while also announcing a possible cap on costs and that yet further proposals would be set out in the government Green Paper, previously announced in the March 2017 Budget. In the context of Brexit negotiations, the government has delayed this Green Paper’s publication multiple times; it remains unpublished at time of writing. There have been at least 12 government Green/White Papers, vision documents and independent reviews since 1999 (Jarrett, Reference Jarrett2019), yet we are no closer to reforming the funding of adult social care than twenty years ago. Indeed, of proposals relating specifically to funding, none of the main recommendations have been implemented, and it is difficult to believe it will be 13^th time lucky.

In spite of the focus of the Care Act on promoting wellbeing, many have argued that the laudable intentions of the new legislation were instantly undermined by the ‘austerity’ agenda begun by the Coalition Government in 2010. This was described by one council leader as ‘the end of local government as we know it’ (Glasby, Reference Glasby2015) and the Local Government Association calculates councils will have lost almost 60p in every £1 central government provides for local services (2010-20) (https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/funding-black-hole). Our own analysis (Figure 1) shows that local authority spending on adult social care increased in real terms until 2011. Thereafter it declined (despite increases in need and demand), with an 8% reduction in gross spending between 2009-10 and 2015-16. Moreover, Figure 2 shows a massive reduction in the real growth rate of gross spending on adult social care and in the ratio of gross spending to Gross Value Added. Although councils protected social care expenditure relative to other areas of local government expenditure over the period, additional demographic pressures, broader funding pressures and increases in costs (such as the implementation of the National Living Wage) have culminated in a sense of ‘crisis’ in publicly funded adult social care services, and per adult spending fell by 13.5% over the period (Humphries et al., Reference Humphries, Thorlby, Holder, Hall and Charles2016). In recognition of these pressures, piecemeal injections of additional funding have been needed (for example, with government allowing local authorities to place an additional charge on local Council Tax, and some transfers of funding from NHS budgets). Consequentially, gross adult social care spending reached £17.53 billion, with a slight in-year increase in 2017 (albeit still lower than in 2010) (Cromarty, Reference Cromarty2019).

Figure 1.

Gross expenditure on adult social care

Source: Adult Social Care Activity and Finance Report, England 2017-18 for 2009-2018, NHS Digital; Personal Social Services: Expenditure and Unit Costs England, 2007-08 for 1994-2008, NHS Digital; GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP September 2018, HM Treasury, 2018

Figure 2.

Real growth rate of gross expenditure on adult social care

Source: Adult Social Care Activity and Finance Report, England 2017-18 for 2009-2018, NHS Digital; Personal Social Services: Expenditure and Unit Costs England, 2007-08 for 1994-2008, NHS Digital; GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP September 2018, HM Treasury; Regional gross value added (income approach), December 2018, ONS.

Returning to our 2010 analysis, we characterise the last ten years as a ‘lost decade’ for adult social care. Although the Care Act is now on the statute book, its influence on what is happening has in practice been minimal. Indeed an early review carried out by the Minister responsible for steering the legislation through Parliament found that (regarding the experience of carers, at least) the new law was too often poorly understood or ignored – and that the answer to the question of ‘has this made a difference?’ was ‘not yet’ (Carers Trust, 2016). Moreover, for many commentators, the failure of successive governments to move beyond platitudes and re-statements of previous policy towards anything substantive has been simply appalling (see, for example, Glasby, Reference Glasby2015; Humphries et al., Reference Humphries, Thorlby, Holder, Hall and Charles2016; Butler, Reference Butler2018; House of Commons Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees, 2018; Age UK, 2019; Johnson, Reference Johnson2019). There is no evidence of any real progress with the five main reform mechanisms we identified in 2010 and, indeed, quite a lot of evidence that previous attempts to pursue such policies have either stalled or gone backwards (Table 1).

Table 1.

Progress with key reforms

Of the three scenarios set out in 2010, this is worse than ‘slow uptake’, and – had funding remained available – we would expect the cost of adult social care to have rocketed. However, adult social care spending is heavily constrained by the availability of local government funding more generally, and it is possible to shed light on these seeming impossible financial and service pressures by comparing what happened in practice with our initial 2010 projections (Figure 3a-3c).

Between 2008 and 2014, local authority spending on social care for working-age people with physical impairments, learning disabilities or mental health problems was broadly consistent with or slightly above a ‘slow uptake’ scenario (increasing at an overall rate of around 2% per year). Given broader cuts to local government funding, this is a significant cost pressure – but spending has at least (broadly) kept pace with what we might have expected from our 2010 projections. Over the same period, however, spending on older people’s social care departed dramatically from our projections. In Figures 3b-3c, spending on older people (both on their residential/nursing care and on community services including home care services) fell significantly in real terms, to well below the levels needed to sustain previous services, even in the most challenging, ambitious and optimistic of our scenarios.

Given the ‘lost decade’ summarised above, a significant gap has thus opened between the rising cost of maintaining current services and the actual money spent. Actual spending on residential/nursing care for older people in 2018 was £4,449 million, for instance, while projected spending, under a ‘slow uptake’ scenario, was £7,066 million. Actual spending in 2013 and projected spending under a ‘slow uptake’ scenario on day and domiciliary provision for older people were £2,872 million and £3,739 million respectively. This raises profound questions about the impact this disparity may be having on service users, staff and other services.

Figures 3.

a-c: Projected v actual spending (public adult social care funding) at 2008 prices, 2008-

a. Gross spending on working-age adults (£m in real terms) with physical impairments, learning disabilities or mental health problemsb. Spending on residential/nursing care for older people (65+) (£m in real terms)c. Spending on community services for older people - day and domiciliary provision (£m in real terms)Source for all 3 Figures: Glasby et al. 2010; Personal Social Services: Expenditure and Unit Costs England, 2007-2015, NHS Digital; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2016-18, NHS Digital

The impact of spending reductions

With need and costs projected to rise significantly, and spending, especially on older people’s services, falling dramatically, our review of the evidence/analysis suggests that six key impacts are emerging:

1. 1. Increasing levels of unmet/under-met need and rising levels of ‘self-funding’: based on an analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, Age UK (2018) estimates that the number of older people who do not receive adequate support with ‘Activities of Daily Living’ (getting out of bed, going to the toilet, getting washed and dressed, etc.) increased to 1.4 million people in 2017. This means one in seven older people (14% of the 65+ population) was living with some level of unmet need (an increase of 19% since 2015). When the definition is broadened to ‘Instrumental Activities of Daily Living’ (shopping, cooking, managing medication, etc.), the number of older people who do not get the help they need rises to 1.6 million. Overall, an estimated 400,000 fewer older people are receiving social care as eligibility criteria have tightened in response to insufficient resources (Age UK, 2018). When this happens, extra pressure is placed on families (see below) and more people are forced to make their own arrangements, as best they can, in the absence of public support, by arranging and paying for their own care where this is feasible. Although it is difficult to obtain accurate information on levels of self-funding, latest UK Household Longitudinal Survey (UKHLS) data suggest around 350,000 people fund their own home care or care home places in England, many more than previously thought (Henwood et al., Reference Henwood, McKay, Needham and Glasby2018). Moreover, unlike other areas of life where having financial resources opens up new choices and opportunities, self-funders tend to be isolated, marginalised and disadvantaged compared to people receiving publicly-funded support, and pay a premium of some 40% for their residential/nursing care, effectively cross-subsidising council-funded residents (Henwood et al., Reference Henwood, McKay, Needham and Glasby2018).

2. 2. Quality of care: where people are receiving social care support, there are increasing pressures on quality. The House of Commons Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees observe (2018, p.12):

1. 3. Pressures on carers: the growth in unmet need is also reflected in growing pressure on carers (family members, friends and neighbours who provide unpaid support for people with social care needs). In the annual budget survey of Directors of Adult Social Services, well over a quarter felt cuts to services had already reduced quality of life for carers, and many more expected this to be the case in future (ADASS, 2019). In the State of Caring survey 2019, over one-third of carers (37%) responding described themselves as “struggling to make ends meet”, while only one in ten felt confident that the support they receive and rely upon will continue (Carers UK, 2019). Nearly three-quarters (72%) said they had suffered mental ill health as a result of caring and 61% reported physical ill health as a result of caring. Data provided by NHS Digital (2019a) suggest that the proportion of carers reporting negative effects on their health has increased since 2016-17, with more carers reporting feeling tired, having disturbed sleep, general feelings of stress and feeling depressed.

2. 4. Pressures on staff: a review of the adult social care workforce (National Audit Office, 2018) identified high overall turnover rates (27.8% in 2016-17) and vacancy levels (6.6% in 2016-17, and even higher for the care worker and registered nurse sub-categories), exacerbated by the difficulty of recruiting to low paid, low status roles. The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2017) has also drawn attention to the stressful and uncertain nature of care work, with many members of social care staff facing low wages, zero hours contracts and poor training. In 2018, 47.8% of care workers left within a year of starting (p.3) and the mean number of sickness days for directly employed adult social care staff in local authorities was 10.3 days per year (compared with 4.3 days for all workers nationally) (NHS Digital, 2019b, p.19).

3. 5. Pressures on service providers: as the gap between need and funding widens, the provider market – mainly for-profit providers – has faced severe and sustained financial pressures. In 2017, a Competition and Markets Authority study of care homes in England (Competition and Markets Authority, 2017) concluded that existing (primarily publicly-funded) care home markets would prove to be unsustainable at current rates paid by local authorities. The ADASS (2019, p.30) Budget Survey revealed that “75% of Councils (up from 66% last year) reported that providers in their area had closed, ceased trading or handed back contracts in the last six months, with thousands of individuals affected as a consequence.” There have also been widespread media reports of national providers (both in home care and residential care), such as Allied Healthcare and Four Seasons, facing severe financial problems and potential bankruptcy (Care Quality Commission, 2018).

4. 6. Pressures on partner agencies: when access to adult social care is significantly reduced, pressure can increase on the NHS (a universal service, free at the point of delivery, and unable to ‘say no’ to people in need in the way adult social care can). In recent years, vociferous campaigning to boost adult social care spending by various NHS bodies (see, for example, Dickson, Reference Dickson2019) has seen the NHS use its greater popularity, visibility and political capital to advocate on behalf of social care partners. A particular pressure point has been older people medically fit for discharge from hospital who are unable to vacate their bed due to lack of capacity in community services. Internal NHS factors account for most delays, but since 2010 waiting for social care services has grown as a reason for this. By October 2018, the most common reason for delay was patients awaiting a care package in their own home (rolling average of 1,008 patients delayed per day) while the third most common was awaiting a nursing home placement (rolling average of 673 patients delayed per day). Between August 2010 and February 2017, 1,185 more patients per day were delayed for social care-related reasons, a 96% increase (Nuffield Trust, 2019). Most debate has centred on the knock-on effects of the social care crisis on the NHS, but pressures have also been reported on the police and other services (see, for example, Cottam, Reference Cottam2018). Our 2010 analysis also demonstrated that spending on adult social care can affect people’s ability to work and social security spending, so it seems likely cuts in adult social care and social security also affect other partner agencies.

Long-term cost projections

Our cost projections for adult social care are based on assumptions about the proportion of people who will receive support from local authorities, the movement of the population, changes in the unit cost of social care and Gross Value Added (GVA), and stability in adult social care policies (see Annex for details). Existing studies focus on projecting adult social care spending (e.g. Wittenberg et al., Reference Wittenberg, Hu and Hancock2018), but do not explore if local authorities and the government can meet increased care demand. Tax revenue, a primary resource for adult social care support, is closely related to local economies, which can be measured by GVA. We therefore use GVA as a proxy for government’s financial capacity and project the ratio of gross spending on adult social care to GVA. The purpose of this projection is to emphasise the importance of the government budget (economic growth) when examining the sustainability of the adult social care system.

Our data source for adult social care expenditure is the finance return (PSS-EX1), now replaced (from 2014) by the Adult Social Care Finance Return (ASC-FR). The ASC-FR introduces new classifications [Long-Term (LT) and Short-Term (ST) support], posing comparability problems post-2014, especially for primary support and service provision. LT support refers to continuous care to maintain an individual’s quality of life, provided in a nursing, residential or community setting; ST support is time-limited and aims to maximise an individual’s independence, reducing their future need for support. Based on the new classification framework, we project gross spending on LT and ST support for older people (65+) and the working-age population, as well as the corresponding ratio of spending to total GVA, for 2018 to 2060; our projections are based on the three scenarios used in our 2010 analysis. We assume that the proportion of older people who receive support from local authorities for LT or ST support are constant. With constant ratios and 2016-based population projections from the ONS, we project the number of people receiving support. Projected costs are the product of the number of people receiving support, the real costs of this in 2018 and the assumed growth rate of real costs. From 1997 to 2018, the average GVA growth rate in real terms was approximately 2%. We therefore assume GVA increases by 2% annually for our projection period. The ratio of spending on adult social care to GVA is calculated by dividing projected spending by GVA.

We assume that the number of people who receive local authority funded care support changes with ONS population projections. In 2018, 565,385 people aged 65+ received LT support; this increases to 945,613 in 2060 (Table 2). For ‘slow uptake’ and ‘solid progress’ scenarios, projected gross spending on LT support for older people increases, respectively, from £7,100m in 2018 to £27,279m and £11,847m in 2060. Spending is projected to fall, to £6,655m in 2040 and to £5,083m in 2060, under a ‘fully engaged’ scenario. Figure 4 displays the share of spending to GVA in England, which decreases in the ‘solid progress’ and ‘fully engaged’ scenarios, from 0.457% in 2018 to 0.333% and 0.142%, respectively, in 2060. Under ‘slow uptake’, the share is projected to increase to 0.668% in 2040 and to 0.764% in 2060.

Table 2.

Projected gross spending on long-term care for older people (65+) (£m)

Figure 4.

Projected gross spending on long-term support for older people (% GVA)

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

In 2018, the number of working-age people receiving LT support was 292,380 (Table 3), increasing to 299,092 in 2040 and 304,519 in 2060. In a ‘fully engaged’ scenario, spending on LT support will decrease from £6,871m (2018) to £4,506m in 2040 and to £3,063m in 2060. Under ‘solid progress’ and ‘slow uptake’ scenarios, it will increase to £7,156m and £16,439m respectively. The share of spending to GVA decreases from 0.442% in 2018 to 0.2% in 2060 with ‘solid progress’, and to 0.086% under a ‘fully engaged’ scenario (Figure 5). If the average cost increases by 2% annually (‘slow uptake’), this share will increase to 0.452% in 2040 and to 0.46% in 2060.

Table 3.

Projected gross spending on long-term support for working-age people (£m)

Figure 5.

Projected gross spending on long-term support for working-age people (% GVA)

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

The number of people aged 65+ receiving ST care was 183,735 in 2018 (Table 4) and projected to increase to 268,612 in 2040 and to 307,299 in 2060. Under a ‘solid progress’ scenario, gross expenditure will rise from £400m in 2018 to £669m in 2060, and to £1,536m under a ‘slow-uptake’ scenario. Spending is projected to fall, to £286m in 2060 under a ‘fully engaged’ scenario, while the share of spending to GVA decreases to 0.008% (Figure 6). The share will also drop under a ‘solid progress’ scenario (to 0.019%), although gross spending increases. We project that the share will increase to 0.043% under the ‘slow uptake’ scenario.

Table 4.

Projected gross spending on short-term care for older people (£m)

Figure 6.

Projected gross spending on short-term support for older people (% GVA)

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

The number of working-age people receiving ST support was 26,665 in 2018 and will increase slightly, to 27,277, by 2040 and to 27,772 by 2060 (Table 5). Gross spending on ST support for this group was £159m in 2018. Spending is projected to remain constant and to increase slightly to £165m in 2060 under a ‘solid progress’ scenario. Under a ‘fully engaged’ scenario, however, spending will fall to £71m in 2060, while under a ‘slow uptake’ scenario it increases to £379m. Along with economic growth, the share of spending to GVA decreases dramatically under ‘solid progress’ and ‘fully engaged’ scenarios (Figure 7). The share will slightly increase (from 0.01% in 2018 to 0.011% in 2060) under a ‘slow uptake’ scenario.

Table 5.

Projected gross spending on short-term care for working-age people (£m)

Figure 7.

Projected gross spending on short-term support for working-age people (% GVA)

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

Figure 8 displays the projected share of gross public spending on all adult care services to GVA. Between 1997 and 2018, the share reached a 1.419% high in 2009 and a 1.053% low in 1997; we include these historical upper and lower bound values (using dashed reference lines in the figure) to reference our projections. The proportion of gross spending on adult social care to GVA was 1.153% in 2018 – above the lower reference. Under a ‘fully engaged’ scenario, the share will decrease, and go below the lower reference, by 2021, as it will (by 2025) under a ‘solid progress’ scenario. Even in the ‘slow uptake’ scenario (where gross expenditure on adult social care is expected to increase), the share of spending to GVA will still be below the upper reference level. This suggests governments will be able to meet increased demand for adult social care if the economy grows at 2% annually, but that the availability of future funding for it is inextricably linked to the future performance of the economy.

Figure 8.

Projected gross spending on adult social care (% GVA)

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

Figures 9-11 show the projected share of gross spending under different growth rate conditions. In Figures 9-11, the growth rate of GVA is assumed to increase by 1%, 0.5%, and 0%, respectively. If governments maintain the current ‘slow uptake’ scenario, the share of gross expenditure on adult social care to GVA will exceed the upper reference line by 2031 (given 1% economic growth), 2028 (given 0.5% economic growth) and by 2026 (if the economy stays at 2018 growth levels). If the share exceeds the upper boundary, it may be difficult for government to meet increased demand for social care. When investigating sustainable funding for adult social care, our projections emphasise the need to consider economic growth and early implementation of reforms. As the population ages, the government’s financial burden will increase, and available funds for implementing reform will decrease.

Figures 9

Projected gross spending on adult social care (% GVA) - GVA increases by 1% annually

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

Figures 10

Projected gross spending on adult social care (% GVA) - GVA increases by 0.5% annually

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital

Figures 11

Projected gross spending on adult social care (% GVA) - No increase in GVA

Source: 2016-based population projection, ONS; Regional gross value added (income approach), ONS; Adult Social Care Activity and Finance: England, 2017-18, NHS Digital