Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Dementia | Research article

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

Authors: Edward J. D. Webb, David Meads, Clare Gardiner

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
5
For a small number of five-year age categories in the disease category Certain infections and parasitic diseases, more people were observed to claim than were estimated to exist in the population. Low absolute numbers of people were involved, which led to the underestimation of the disease prevalence. In these cases, the estimated population was assumed to split evenly between claiming all levels of a given benefit.
 
Literature
4.
go back to reference Marie Curie. The cost of dying: the financial impact of terminal illness; 2019. Marie Curie. The cost of dying: the financial impact of terminal illness; 2019.
7.
go back to reference Macmillan Cancer Support, "Under pressure: the growing strain on cancer carers,” 2016. Macmillan Cancer Support, "Under pressure: the growing strain on cancer carers,” 2016.
8.
go back to reference Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A, Summerton N. Lung cancer patients’ perceptions of access to financial benefits: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(505):589–94.PubMedPubMedCentral Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A, Summerton N. Lung cancer patients’ perceptions of access to financial benefits: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(505):589–94.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Tunnage B, Tudor Edwards R, Linck P. Estimation of the extent of unclaimed disability living allowance and attendance allowance for people with a terminal diagnosis of cancer. In: Centre for the Economics of Health, University of Wales, Bangor; 2004. Tunnage B, Tudor Edwards R, Linck P. Estimation of the extent of unclaimed disability living allowance and attendance allowance for people with a terminal diagnosis of cancer. In: Centre for the Economics of Health, University of Wales, Bangor; 2004.
13.
go back to reference All Party Parliamentary Group for Terminal Illness, “Six Months To Live? Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Terminal Illness inquiry into the legal definition of terminal illness,” 2019. All Party Parliamentary Group for Terminal Illness, “Six Months To Live? Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Terminal Illness inquiry into the legal definition of terminal illness,” 2019.
14.
go back to reference Social Security Directorate. Terminal illness and Disability Assistance: policy position paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2019. Social Security Directorate. Terminal illness and Disability Assistance: policy position paper. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2019.
15.
go back to reference Wittenberg R, Hu B, Barraza-Araiza L, Rehill A. Projections of older people with dementia and costs of dementia care in the United Kingdom, 2019–2040. London: London School of Economics; 2019. Wittenberg R, Hu B, Barraza-Araiza L, Rehill A. Projections of older people with dementia and costs of dementia care in the United Kingdom, 2019–2040. London: London School of Economics; 2019.
20.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2016. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2019. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2016. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2019.
21.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2015. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2019. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2015. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2019.
22.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2014. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2018. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2014. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2018.
23.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2013: UK Data Service; 2015. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2013: UK Data Service; 2015.
24.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2012: UK Data Service; 2014. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2012: UK Data Service; 2014.
25.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and NatCen Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2011: UK Data Service; 2013. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and NatCen Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2011: UK Data Service; 2013.
26.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and Royal Free and University College Medical School Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2010. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2015. NatCen Social Research and Royal Free and University College Medical School Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2010. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2015.
27.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2009. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2015. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2009. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2015.
28.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2008. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2013. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2008. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2013.
29.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2007. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2007. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
30.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2006. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2011. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2006. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2011.
31.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2005. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2011. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2005. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2011.
32.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2004. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2004. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
33.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2003. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2003. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
34.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2002. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2002. 2nd ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
35.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2001. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2010. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2001. 3rd ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
36.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2000. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2011. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 2000. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2011.
37.
go back to reference National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 1999. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2010. National Centre for Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 1999. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
38.
go back to reference University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 1998. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2010. University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and National Centre for Social Research. Health Survey for England, 1998. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2010.
39.
go back to reference Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1997. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2017. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1997. 4th ed: UK Data Service; 2017.
40.
go back to reference Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1996. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2017. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1996. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2017.
41.
go back to reference Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1995. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2017. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London. Health Survey for England, 1995. 5th ed: UK Data Service; 2017.
42.
go back to reference NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2018. 1st ed. Colchester: UK Data Service; 2021. NatCen Social Research and University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. Health Survey for England, 2018. 1st ed. Colchester: UK Data Service; 2021.
43.
go back to reference World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: 10th revision (ICD-10). 10th ed; 1992. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: 10th revision (ICD-10). 10th ed; 1992.
44.
go back to reference Forsythe GE, Malcolm MA, Moler CB. Computer methods for mathematical computations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1977. Forsythe GE, Malcolm MA, Moler CB. Computer methods for mathematical computations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1977.
45.
go back to reference Verhulst P-F. Notice sur la loi que la population suit dans son accroissement. Corresp Math Phys. 1838;10:113–26. Verhulst P-F. Notice sur la loi que la population suit dans son accroissement. Corresp Math Phys. 1838;10:113–26.
46.
go back to reference Tsoularis A, Wallace JJM b. Analysis of logistic growth models. Math Biosci. 2002;179:21–55. Tsoularis A, Wallace JJM b. Analysis of logistic growth models. Math Biosci. 2002;179:21–55.
47.
go back to reference Etkind S, Bone A, Gomes B, Lovell N, Evans C, Higginson I, et al. How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services. BMC Med. 2017;15:102. Etkind S, Bone A, Gomes B, Lovell N, Evans C, Higginson I, et al. How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services. BMC Med. 2017;15:102.
50.
go back to reference Wittenberg R, Knapp M, Hu B, Comas-Herrera A, King D, Rehill A, et al. The costs of dementia in England. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34:1095–103. Wittenberg R, Knapp M, Hu B, Comas-Herrera A, King D, Rehill A, et al. The costs of dementia in England. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34:1095–103.
51.
go back to reference Lewis F, Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, O’Neill P, Cockcroft L. The trajectory of dementia in the UK-making a difference. London: Office of Health Economics Consulting Reports; 2014. Lewis F, Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, O’Neill P, Cockcroft L. The trajectory of dementia in the UK-making a difference. London: Office of Health Economics Consulting Reports; 2014.
53.
go back to reference Yi D, Johnston BM, Ryan K, Daveson BA, Meier DE, Smith M, et al. Drivers of care costs and quality in the last 3 months of life among older people receiving palliative care: a multinational mortality follow-back survey across England, Ireland and the United States. Palliat Med. 2020;34(4):513–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319896745.PubMedCrossRef Yi D, Johnston BM, Ryan K, Daveson BA, Meier DE, Smith M, et al. Drivers of care costs and quality in the last 3 months of life among older people receiving palliative care: a multinational mortality follow-back survey across England, Ireland and the United States. Palliat Med. 2020;34(4):513–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0269216319896745​.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Lai DW. Effect of financial costs on caregiving burden of family caregivers of older adults. SAGE Open. 2012;2:2158244012470467.CrossRef Lai DW. Effect of financial costs on caregiving burden of family caregivers of older adults. SAGE Open. 2012;2:2158244012470467.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Grande G, Rowland C, van den Berg B, Batistatou E, Hanratty B. In: BMJ publishing group ltd, editor. P77 levels of psychological distress and predictors of distress in family carers of patients with cancer at end of life; 2017.CrossRef Grande G, Rowland C, van den Berg B, Batistatou E, Hanratty B. In: BMJ publishing group ltd, editor. P77 levels of psychological distress and predictors of distress in family carers of patients with cancer at end of life; 2017.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Changing the eligibility criteria for welfare payments at the end of life – a budget impact analysis for England and Wales
Authors
Edward J. D. Webb
David Meads
Clare Gardiner
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keywords
Dementia
Dementia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06390-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Health Services Research 1/2021 Go to the issue