Quarter Fewer Good Care Options Relative To Need In Worst Off Areas, New Report Shows

Older people in England’s worst off local areas have 25.8% fewer good quality care options relative to their level of health need than those in the best off areas, according to major new analysis published today by the International Longevity Centre (ILC).

The report – Inequality Street – reveals how poor health, lower quality care and heavier burdens of unpaid care compound in the exact same communities.

Key findings:

The care gap: the worst-off fifth of local authorities has a quarter fewer good-quality care options, relative to need, than the best-off fifth – 33 options for every 10,000 older people estimated to be in poor health, compared with 45 in the best-off areas.

Unpaid carers filling the gap: In the worst-off fifth of areas, almost 6% of residents provide at least 20 hours of unpaid care a week, compared with under 4% in the best-off fifth. Areas with more intensive unpaid care also have higher economic inactivity among people aged 50 to 64.

Most under served local authorities: Ten of the most under-served authorities are: Tameside, Halton, Wigan, Knowsley, North Tyneside, Walsall, Redcar and Cleveland, Liverpool, Rochdale and County Durham.

Rosie Fogden, ILC’s Director of Health and Economic Growth, said:

“Where you live shouldn’t decide whether you get good care – but that’s exactly what’s happening. Older people in the worst-off areas according to our index are sicker for longer and have fewer good-quality care options locally. Families are being asked to pick up the slack, often putting in many hours of unpaid care every week.

Funding must follow need, and go into the places where poor health, weak tax bases and unpaid care pile up together.”