Dataset Information

Changing the eligibility criteria for welfare payments at the end of life - a budget impact analysis for England and Wales.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Terminal illness can cause a financial burden for many households. In England and Wales, fast-track access to welfare payments is available through special rules for the terminally ill (SRTI). Individuals are eligible for SRTI if they are judged to have 6 months or less to live. This criterion has been criticised as lacking a clinical basis, and being unfair for people with conditions where life-expectancy is difficult to accurately assess.

Aim

To conduct a budget impact analysis on the possible increase in expenditure of personal independence payments (PIP) following a change in England and Wales to SRTI so that everyone with a terminal illness is eligible.

Methods

The fraction of individuals with a given long-term condition was estimated by combining data from the Health Survey for England, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Department for Work and Pensions. Logistic growth modelling and ONS population projections were used to project PIP expenditure from 2020 to 2025. The increased expenditure was calculated for hypothetical scenarios which may occur following an SRTI regime change, specifically an increase of 1, 2 and 3 percentage points in the fraction of individuals claiming PIP under SRTI. Data from the literature on the projected prevalence of mild, moderate and severe dementia was used to calculate the cost if everyone with a given severity of dementia claimed PIP under SRTI.

Results

Under the current SRTI regime, PIP expenditure under SRTI was projected to increase from £0.231bn in 2020 to £0.260bn in 2025, compared to equivalent figures of £11.1bn and £12.7bn under non-SRTI. Expenditure in 2025 following an increase in the fraction claiming of 1, 2 and 3 percentage points was projected to be £1.1bn, £1.9bn and £2.7bn respectively. In 2025, PIP expenditure was estimated to be £7.4bn if everyone with dementia claimed under SRTI, compared to £6.4bn if only individuals with moderate and severe dementia claimed, and £4.7bn if only individuals with severe dementia claimed.

Conclusion

Changes in SRTI are projected to lead to increases in PIP expenditure. However, the increased cost is small compared to expenditure under non-SRTI, especially as the highest costs were associated with extreme scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Webb EJD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo plan for pensions and health and social services, future mortality and life expectancy need to be forecast. Consistent forecasts for all subnational units within a country are very rare. Our aim was to forecast mortality and life expectancy for England and Wales' districts.MethodsWe developed Bayesian spatiotemporal models for forecasting of age-specific mortality and life expectancy at a local, small-area level. The models included components that accounted for mortality in relation to age, birth cohort, time, and space. We used geocoded mortality and population data between 1981 and 2012 from the Office for National Statistics together with the model with the smallest error to forecast age-specific death rates and life expectancy to 2030 for 375 of England and Wales' 376 districts. We measured model performance by withholding recent data and comparing forecasts with this withheld data.FindingsLife expectancy at birth in England and Wales was 79·5 years (95% credible interval 79·5-79·6) for men and 83·3 years (83·3-83·4) for women in 2012. District life expectancies ranged between 75·2 years (74·9-75·6) and 83·4 years (82·1-84·8) for men and between 80·2 years (79·8-80·5) and 87·3 years (86·0-88·8) for women. Between 1981 and 2012, life expectancy increased by 8·2 years for men and 6·0 years for women, closing the female-male gap from 6·0 to 3·8 years. National life expectancy in 2030 is expected to reach 85·7 (84·2-87·4) years for men and 87·6 (86·7-88·9) years for women, further reducing the female advantage to 1·9 years. Life expectancy will reach or surpass 81·4 years for men and reach or surpass 84·5 years for women in every district by 2030. Longevity inequality across districts, measured as the difference between the 1st and 99th percentiles of district life expectancies, has risen since 1981, and is forecast to rise steadily to 8·3 years (6·8-9·7) for men and 8·3 years (7·1-9·4) for women by 2030.InterpretationPresent forecasts underestimate the expected rise in life expectancy, especially for men, and hence the need to provide improved health and social services and pensions for elderly people in England and Wales. Health and social policies are needed to curb widening life expectancy inequalities, help deprived districts catch up in longevity gains, and avoid a so-called grand divergence in health and longevity.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Public Health England.

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have highlighted that where individuals live is far more important for risk of dying with COVID-19, than for dying of other causes. Deprivation is commonly proposed as explaining such differences. During the period of localised restrictions in late 2020, areas with higher restrictions tended to be more deprived. We explore how this impacted the relationship between deprivation and mortality and see whether local or regional deprivation matters more for inequalities in COVID-19 mortality.MethodsWe use publicly available population data on deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality between March 2020 and April 2021 to investigate the scale of spatial inequalities. We use a multiscale approach to simultaneously consider three spatial scales through which processes driving inequalities may act. We go on to explore whether deprivation explains such inequalities.ResultsAdjusting for population age structure and number of care homes, we find highest regional inequality in October 2020, with a COVID-19 mortality rate ratio of 5.86 (95% CI 3.31 to 19.00) for the median between-region comparison. We find spatial context is most important, and spatial inequalities higher, during periods of low mortality. Almost all unexplained spatial inequality in October 2020 is removed by adjusting for deprivation. During October 2020, one standard deviation increase in regional deprivation was associated with 20% higher local mortality (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.30).ConclusionsSpatial inequalities are greatest in periods of lowest overall mortality, implying that as mortality declines it does not do so equally. During the prolonged period of low restrictions and low mortality in summer 2020, spatial inequalities strongly increased. Contrary to previous months, we show that the strong spatial patterning during autumn 2020 is almost entirely explained by deprivation. As overall mortality declines, policymakers must be proactive in detecting areas where this is not happening, or risk worsening already strong health inequalities.