Tag Archives: Age UK

Are people really ‘over-saving’ for retirement?

167x167_calculator

Defining what makes an ‘adequate’ retirement income is always going to be tricky. It’s inherently difficult to know exactly what people’s spending choices and needs are likely to be, or how they will adjust to stopping work.

Add in the changing nature of retirement, where increasing numbers of people are working past their State Pension age, it becomes even harder.

New paper, new ideas?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) recently published a paper investigating a new method of looking at retirement incomes. It identifies an ‘optimum’ level of pension saving for each couple household. Instead of income band, this is based on a range of personal circumstances (e.g. number of children) and an
assessment of spending patterns. It then evaluates whether people have saved below, at, above or the ‘optimal’ level required to achieve a comparable standard of living for their retirement. Continue reading

Prevention is better than cure

Report image

This week’s blog is contributed by Léa Renoux, policy officer, at Age UK 

Today sees the launch of a new report on prevention and health promotion by The Richmond Group of Charities, a coalition of ten UK health charities including Age UK.

The report, What is preventing progress? was prompted by a seemingly common but worrying observation; that too many people are living with, and dying from, conditions that could have been prevented.

Nearly one in four deaths is potentially avoidable, which amounts to more than 100,000 deaths every year[i]. This is adding considerable pressure on an NHS which is already struggling to make ends meet – the rise in potentially preventable conditions is expected to increase NHS costs by £5 billion a year by 2018[ii].

For our group of charities, the answer is straightforward: prevention is better than cure.
Continue reading

Government failure on accessible housing undermines independent living

Houses

In its national planning guidance the Government says:

The need to provide housing for older people is critical, given the projected increase in the number of households aged 65 and over accounts for over half of the new households’

Yet, their current review of housing standards has failed to seize the opportunity to age proof all new homes. The measures they are proposing could in fact end up restricting progress on accessible housing.  This is terrible news because accessible, well designed houses and flats give all of us the security of knowing that if our mobility is reduced, our homes make it much easier to live independently – hopefully in a location of our choice.

Instead the Government has made improved access standards for new homes an option, to be determined by local authorities. This option, known as ‘category 2’ is based on the Lifetime Homes Standard – a set of 16 criteria which make homes easier and cheaper to adapt.

This optional approach, which requires evidence of need and viability, seems to imply that life time homes should primarily be applied to retirement housing. Most of the house building industry seems to regard retirement schemes as the most sensible response to the projected growth in the older population. The implication is that if your housing becomes inaccessible, due to poor design, it simply requires you to move into retirement housing or residential care. Continue reading

A vision for the NHS

On the 23 October 2014, NHS England published its Five Year Forward View, a vision document for the future of the NHS.

The timing, and the timeline, is very deliberate: this is NHS England’s chief executive, Simon Stevens, setting his stall for next year’s general election.

Whichever party (or parties) form/s the next government will have to decide whether they take this vision on. And whether they are willing to pay for it.

This is a crucial point because Stevens has addressed the enduring taboo of money. Politicians are largely in a state of denial about the funding crisis facing the NHS, forecasted to be short by about £30 billion by 2020/21.

That’s just under a third of the annual budget of the NHS. Stevens is clear: if you want the NHS to continue providing a universal health care service, free at the point of delivery, you cannot escape the fact that more money will need to be found.

For a pre-election period, where more spending, even on the NHS, is avoided like the plague by political parties, this is the very definition of throwing down the gauntlet.

So what does the vision say? Continue reading