Location of Repository

Securing good care for older people: taking a long-term view

By Bleddyn Davies


The paper aims to explain and evaluate two key features of Securing Good Care for Older People, the Wanless Report on alternative mechanisms for funding long-term care of older people. One is the new elements of the methodology for evaluating the alternatives (section 1.1). The paper argues that more successfully than previously and analyses in other countries, these elements focus attention on what are really the core issues: the means and ends which are the unique foci of long-term care, and estimates of the consequences of alternatives for them. By doing so, the report faces the politicians and policy analysis and research communities with a formidable challenge, to master and contribute to the development of the new framework and evidence. Failure to meet the challenge will increases the risk that the policy system will reinforce rather than weaken causes of gross inequity and inefficiency caused by the under-funding of long-term care seemingly unanswerably demonstrated by the report. The second key feature is the type of funding model the Report recommends given expected changes in the balance between demands and public expenditure. Section 1.2 argues that the report’s analysis as successfully transforms the state of the argument about this as much as about the framework, methodology and evidence for evaluating alternatives, demonstrating the relative weakness of models widely advocated a decade ago. Part 2 discusses how to build on the Report. Section 2.1 discusses the framing of issues and the analysis of evidence for each of the key foci of the report’s main contribution to evaluation methodology. Section 2.2 discusses whether the recommended model would be the wisest choice given the environment likely during the next few decades

Topics: HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform
Publisher: Oxford Institute of Ageing
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:3705
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles



  1. (1988). Ageing Populations: the Social Policy Implications. doi
  2. (1986). American lessons for British policy research on the long-term care of the elderly.
  3. (2006). Building on a Single Assessment Process: a Draft Strategy Paper. London: Department of Health.
  4. (1989). Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond, Cm 849.
  5. (1975). Causal processes and techniques in the modelling of policy outcomes.
  6. (2006). Cause and effect.
  7. Commission for Social Care Improvement [CSCI] (2006a) Real voices real choices. London: Commission for Social Care Improvement.
  8. Commission for Social Care Improvement [CSCI] (2006b) A discussion paper: Support Brokerage. London: Commission for Social Care Improvement.
  9. Commission for Social Care Inspection [CSCI] (2006c) The State of Social Care in England 2005–06.
  10. (1998). Community Care: Agenda for Action. doi
  11. (1988). Costs and residential social care.
  12. (2006). Could Self-Neglect in Older Adults Be a Geriatric Syndrome? doi
  13. (2006). Council for Social Care Inspection
  14. (1988). Demand for Long-Term Care: Projections of Long-Term Care Finance for Elderly People. PSSRU monographs. doi
  15. (1996). Depressed mood and the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly living in the community.
  16. (1996). Depression and other psychiatric morbidity in carers of elderly people living at home. doi
  17. (1963). Economic Analysis, doi
  18. (2006). Editorial: Cuts tarnish golden age.
  19. (2004). Effects of Home and Community Social Services on Users’ Utilisation of Acute Beds.
  20. (2000). Equity and Efficiency Policy in Community Care: Needs, Service Productivities, Efficiencies and their Implications. PSSRU Studies in Social Care.
  21. (2005). Evercare evaluation interim report: implications for supporting people with long-term conditions.
  22. (2006). Evercare Evaluation: Final Report.
  23. (2005). Facing the Cost of Long-Term Care. Towards a Sustainable Funding System.
  24. (2001). Fair Access to Care Services: Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Care Services. London: Department of Health.
  25. (2007). forthcoming). Consequences of Local Variations in Social Care on the Performance of the Acute Health Care Sector. doi
  26. (2006). Foundation doi
  27. (2007). Full Transcript of The Times Interview with Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of The National Institute for Clinical Excellence,
  28. (2004). Funding long-term care for older people: Lessons from other countries.
  29. Health (2003b) Fair Access 6o Care Services: Practice Guidance: Implementation Questions And Answers. London: Department of Health.
  30. (1997). Health and Social Security doi
  31. Health News (2007a) LGA renews its call for full care financing debate. Care and Health News,
  32. Health News (2007b) CSCI warns against broad sweep regulator. Care and Health News,
  33. Health Social Services Inspectorate (1990a) Care Management and Assessment: Practitioners’ Guide.
  34. Health Social Services Inspectorate (1990b) Care Management and Assessment:Managers’ Guide.
  35. (1988). Heineken and matching processes in the Thanet Community Care Project.
  36. (1970). Helping the Aged. London: Allen and Unwin. doi
  37. (2003). Implementing the single assessment process: driving change or expecting the impossible. doi
  38. (2004). In Control. doi
  39. (2005). Independence Wellbeing and Choice, Cm 6499. London: Department of Health.
  40. (2003). Key Policy Issues in Long-term Care. World Health Organisation:
  41. (2006). La réforme française de l’allocation dépendance ou comment bricoler une politique publique. Révue française de science politique, doi
  42. (2007). Local Government Analysis and Research (LGAR)
  43. (2006). Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Social Services and The Treasurers’ Societies
  44. (2003). Long-term Care in Developed Nations: A Brief Overview.
  45. (2007). Losing sleep over older people’s care? You should be. The Guardian,
  46. (1986). Matching Resources to Needs inCommunity Care. PSSRU Studies in Social Care.
  47. (2005). Measuring and Understanding Social Service Outputs, Discussion Paper 2132/3. Canterbury: PSSRU,
  48. (2004). Measuring success in healthcare – the time has come to do it properly. Health Policy Matters, Issue 9.
  49. (1977). Needs and outputs. doi
  50. (1976). On local expenditure and a standard level of service. In: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Local Government Finance, Cmnd 6453,
  51. (2006). Paying for Long-Term Care for Older People in the UK: Modelling the Costs and Distributional Effects of a Range of Options, Discussion paper 2336. Canterbury: PSSRU, doi
  52. (2004). Pensions Review. doi
  53. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policy-making in Britain. doi
  54. (2007). Preparing for the worst, doi
  55. (1986). Princeton NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
  56. (1985). Production of Welfare Approach: State of the Art and Future Directions, Discussion Paper 400. Canterbury: PSSRU,
  57. (2002). Psychological distress among informal supporters of frail older people at home and institutions. doi
  58. (2006). Rationale, design and sustainability of long term care insurance in Japan - Five years on. doi
  59. (2006). Rationing health care and the dilemmas it poses - some pale reflections on an agenda of Alan Williams
  60. (2005). Resource Allocation System: Learning Disability Services,
  61. (2005). Resource Allocation: In Control’s Discussion Paper on Resource Allocation. Glasgow: In Control.
  62. (1991). Royal Commission on Long Term Care
  63. (2003). Significance of functional status data for payment and quality. Health Care Financing Review,
  64. (1971). Social indicators: health.
  65. (1977). Social service studies and the explanation of policy outcomes. doi
  66. (1974). Standards and the theory of social welfare planning
  67. (2007). Stern Review: the Economics of Climate Change. doi
  68. (2007). The architecture of partnerships: urban communities in the shadow of hierarchy. doi
  69. (2002). The Development of a Measure of Social Care Outcome for Older People: DP 1690/2. Canterbury: PSSRU,
  70. (1998). the Environment Transport and the Regions doi
  71. (2000). The Management and Effectiveness of the Home Care Service.
  72. (1976). The measurement of needs and the allocation of grant. In: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Local Government Finance, Cmnd 6543,
  73. (2000). The NHS Plan. The Government’s Response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, Cm 4818–II. London: The Stationery Office.
  74. (2005). The OECD Health Project: Long-term Care for Older People. doi
  75. (1975). The Philadelphia Morale Scale: A revision. doi
  76. (1993). The prevalence of dementia, depression and neurosis in later life: the Liverpool MRC-ALPHA Study. doi
  77. (2006). The real buzz is getting it right. The Home Carer,
  78. (1965). The semi-sovereign people.
  79. (1944). The structure of social planning. doi
  80. (2006). The tightening of eligibility criteria – special report.
  81. (2006). Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: An application to social care for older people. doi
  82. (2006). Wanless Social Care Review: Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-term View. London: King’s Fund.
  83. (2006). What does a 2°C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? A brief analysis based on multigas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates.In:
  84. (1991). What is Lesson Drawing? doi
  85. (2007). When is enough, and how do we know? Spending on health care.
  86. (1989). Why we must fight the eighth deadly sin: parochialism. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.