On the cap on care costs - I do not think this is as big a policy change as is being suggested. The amendment has made explicit what was always implicit, but wasn't fully spelled out because the cap was always delayed. 1/ If a local authority was meeting a self-funder's needs, they would be fully charged for those costs (previous plans were down to the last £27k). My reading of the guidance had always been that the cap would be in line with what the person had actually paid, not LA payments.2/

Published proposals confirm that the cap on care costs will 'be implemented using legislation already in place under the 2014 Care Act'. However, this appears to relate to 'personal care' - which is very much a subset of all eligible care under the Care Act. 1/ #socialcare *Really* interesting point - self-funders to be able to insist on accessing LA rates for care, which are generally much lower and on block contracts. LA rate models often rely on the differential rates between LAs and and self-funders to sustain care market. 2/:

The discussion around 'selling a house to pay for care' is bit of a red herring: the question is really whether the *value* of the house needs to be accessed to pay for care. There is already a framework-Deferred Payment Agreements-to prevent sale during the person's lifetime. 1/ If you, a spouse/partner or another qualifying relative is living in your main or only home, the value home is disregarded entirely - the value of the house is not considered for the purposes of determining eligibility for means-tested care. 2/