Selling a property worth around £300,000 will pay the costs of living in a care home for seven years, new research reveals.
The cost of care in a residential home has risen by about 20 per cent to £816 a week or around £42,400 a year since 2020-2021.
That outstrips the rise in average house prices in England, which have increased 12 per cent in the same period, potentially reducing the amount of cash a homeowner could raise if they need to move to a care home.
Care costs have risen faster than house prices in all English regions during this time, according to the study by financial services firm Just Group.
‘The home is often the most valuable asset which, under current rules, makes it a major source of finance for people funding their own care,’ says director Stephen Lowe.
Related Articles
HOW THIS IS MONEY CAN HELP
Some 40 per cent of homeowners aged 45-plus surveyed for Just’s latest annual care report said they would sell their homes to pay for care, ahead of any other funding option such as pensions, investments or the state.
At present, reforms to how people will have to pay for care are on hold after the Government delayed the launch of a lifetime care spending cap until autumn 2025, after the next election.
The plan would introduce an £86,000 ceiling on how much an individual has to spend on care – but based on some, not all, of their private contributions rather than on total costs – and raise the threshold to start receiving support from £23,250 to £100,000.
‘The “house price to care cost” ratio is a useful measure because currently about half of care home residents pay all their own fees and a significant amount of funding is sourced from people selling their homes,’ says Lowe.
But regional differences in average house prices and care costs create some huge disparities in how far property wealth will stretch if you need care.
Average care costs are lowest in north east England at £35,672 a year, but house prices at £157,557 would cover about four and a half years of care.
Care fees in London are the second highest in the country after the south east at £46,852 a year, but much higher than average house prices of £508,037 would fund nearly 11 years in a residential home.
However, Londoners’ ability to pay for care is being squeezed because from 2020-2021 average house prices have risen 3 per cent but residential home fees have jumped 17 per cent.
Lowe says of the data in the table above: ‘These are optimistic figures because in the real-world self-funders meeting all their own costs pay higher fees than those receiving some or all council funding, while the costs would be higher still if specialist nursing care were needed.
‘Under the current means-tested social care system, those with assets of more than £23,250 have to pay for their own care and this will include their residence unless it is still being lived in by someone such as a spouse.
‘Reforms that might have helped to protect the value of the home have been delayed and may never be implemented.
‘The care sector is facing huge funding pressures and, as we head towards a general election, voters should look at what answers the politicians are suggesting.’
The map below shows the years of nursing care that would be funded, as well as the cost of residential care, if you sold the average-priced house in a region of England.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
Alberta is changing the system for how publicly funded agencies — including school districts, universities and health-care providers — can own and sell property.
If passed, Bill 13, the Real Property Governance Act, would require provincial agencies, boards and commissions to give the province first right of refusal when they’re selling surplus land and buildings.
The proposed change affects Alberta’s post-secondary institutions, school jurisdictions and charter schools, Alberta Health Services and numerous government organizations including the Alberta Social Housing Corporation, among others.
Infrastructure Minister Pete Guthrie said Thursday the province will also no longer transfer ownership of new buildings, like schools and hospitals, to the organization running them. Instead, the plan is for the government to retain ownership and make long-term lease arrangements with operators.
However, institutions like school boards would continue to be responsible for maintenance.
After the bill was tabled Thursday, Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta president Dennis MacNeil said school boards have many questions about what it means for them.
Public agencies still get to make decisions about when land or buildings are no longer needed, although that process requires additional government approval when it comes to schools.
MacNeil said he has concerns about school boards’ autonomy to decide what happens to a school after it closes.
“If it’s in the hands of the government as opposed to the hands of the board, then it would be easier to turn it over to another entity that may be in competition with the public school board,” he said.
Legislation stems from MacKinnon panel recommendation
The government estimates that public agencies, boards and commissions hold $83 billion in assets, while the infrastructure ministry owns just $12 billion.
“That kind of gives you an idea of … the transferring away of assets that we do not hold as having availability to and access to as the government of Alberta,” Guthrie said.
The policy is a call back to the 2019 blue ribbon panel led by former Saskatchewan finance minister Janice MacKinnon that made recommendations for sweeping changes to Alberta government finances.
One of the MacKinnon panel recommendations was to “redefine” government land assets to include the broader public sector. The panel suggested that setting policy to deal with surplus land and buildings could offset other capital costs or provide more revenue for the province.
Guthrie said the province’s goal is to make it easier to understand the full inventory of government-owned property and more readily convert available real estate to “priority” uses — for example, affordable housing or addictions recovery centres.
Bill Werry is executive director of the Alberta Post-Secondary Network, a collective of 26 presidents of the province’s colleges and universities.
He said post-secondary institutions will be looking to work with the government on the regulations around provincial ownership and lease arrangements for public assets.
“Not all of our institutions are the same size and scope, nor do they all have the same history or land and assets,” he said.
“The majority of our members are part of the government’s consolidated financial reporting so they’ve already got obligations to the province relative to land and buildings as it stands.”
According to Guthrie, when it comes to post-secondary institutions, anything held within their land trusts would not be included in the new system.