The objectives are part of the government's response to the @CommonsHealth report on the cost of inaction in adult social care. The full response is here
www.gov.uk/government/p...

Among the other findings: the government doesn’t know the impact of recent increases in employers’ national insurance contributions on the #socialcare market. MPs says they should find out now and consider actions to tackle adverse impacts.

The full spending review documents are here Spending Review 2025 document www.gov.uk/government/p...

Why the delay? Internal wrangling over the figures /which budget the money will come from? Desire to get max publicity for a good news story? Neither is a good enough excuse for the uncertainty, and it does nothing to improve the govt's credibility on #socialcare.

There is a promise of 'over £4bn' for social care in 2028/29 compared with 2025/26. But £4bn more than what? Existing grant funding? Local authority spending power? Is some of this paying for fair pay? We just don't know. Again, 'further details to be set out shortly'.

First the fair pay agreement. It is not mentioned by name in the SR documents, though the costs of it are apparently included and more news is promised soon. However the lack of information will only add to provider scepticism about the likely adequacy of funding.

The complications of actually introducing a fair pay agreement - a policy untried anywhere else in the world - suggests to me the cautious approach is the right one. But if I were a careworker, I’d almost certainly feel differently.

If you’re a pessimist (realist, perhaps) you’d maybe settle for a more modest pay increase now, one that makes as big a dent in vacancies as possible at a more limited cost, and hope it leaves some financial headroom for spending on other short and long-term #socialcare problems.

If you’re an optimist, you may want a generous fair pay agreement and hope the substantial figures it will involve will a) be fully funded (otherwise quality goes backward) and b) be ‘baked in’ to the #socialcare system by the time wider reform is contemplated in 2028 and beyond.

In practice a decision about pay levels will be made - presumably - this year (and factored into the spending review) but the first phase of Casey will not report until 2026 and the second by 2028. So pay is out there on its own as a problem to be tackled.

Putting all this together, what we needed was a government that would weigh up all the reform options and come up with a coherent, phased, long-term plan for #socialcare, including pay. But that is not what where we are.

And then there’s wider reform. Our current social care system restricts publicly funded support to those with the highest needs and lowest assets, allows individuals to face catastrophic costs, has issues with quality. Etc. etc. etc. www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-...

But there are also other demands even within #socialcare. Providers want higher fees to cover NICs costs. Local authorities want more money to meet rising demand. People who draw on services want better support.

To state the obvious, even £1.5bn of extra spending would be tough at a time when every other public service is calling out for more investment in the upcoming spending review. Despite significant above-inflation increases, the NHS is struggling already. www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-...

Of course, this doesn’t come cheap. Band 3 pay would cost £1.5bn/year for care worker pay, says the report. To introduce pay scales with differentials would cost a further £1.8bn/year = £3.3bn. (Reduced benefits spend/increased tax would cut the net cost to £2bn, it says).