Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:03:45.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the distributional impact of reforms to disability benefits for older people in the UK: implications of alternative measures of income and disability costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2012

RUTH HANCOCK  and
STEPHEN PUDNEY
RUTH HANCOCK*
Affiliation:
Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
STEPHEN PUDNEY
Affiliation:
Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Ruth Hancock, Health Economics Group, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The UK Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are non-means-tested benefits paid to many disabled people aged 65 + . They may also increase entitlements to means-tested benefits through the Severe Disability Premium (SDP). We investigate proposed reforms involving withdrawal of AA/DLA. Despite their present non-means-tested nature, we show that withdrawal would affect mainly low-income people, whose losses could be mitigated if SDP were retained at its current or a higher level. We also show the importance of the method of describing distributional impacts and that use of inappropriate income definitions in official reports has overstated recipients' capacity to absorb the loss of these benefits.

Keywords

disability benefitolder peoplewelfare reformdisability costsincome measurement
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , February 2014 , pp. 232 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Age UK 2010. Pension Credit Factsheet 48. Available online at http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/ENGB/FS48%20Pension%20Credit%20April%202010%20%20AM064_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true [Accessed 25 August 2010].Google Scholar
Arntz, M. and Thomsen, S. L. 2010. Are personal budgets a financially sound reform option for German long-term care insurance? Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie & Statistik, 230, 4, 378–402.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R. and Hancock, R. 2008. Disability benefits and paying for care. In Churchill, N. (ed.), Advancing Opportunity: Older People and Social Care. The Smith Institute, London, 92–111.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R., Lakey, J. and McKay, S. 1993. The Economic Problems of Disabled People. Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Brewer, M., Browne, J., Leicester, A. and Miller, H. 2010. Options for fiscal tightening: tax increases and benefit cuts. In Chote, R., Emmerson, C. and Shaw, J. (eds), The IFS Green Budget. Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, 135–212.Google Scholar
Cleveland, W. S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 368, 829–36.Google Scholar
Commission on Funding Care and Support 2011. Fairer Care Funding: The Report of the Commission on Funding Care and Support. Available online at http://www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/2011/07/04/commission-report/ [Accessed 15 July 2011].Google Scholar
Creedy, J., Hérault, N. and Guyonne, K. 2009. Abolishing the tax-free threshold in Australia: simulating alternative reforms. Fiscal Studies, 30, 2, 219–46.Google Scholar
Curtis, L. 2011. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2011. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions 2009. Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 2007–08. Department for Work and Pensions, London.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security 1990. The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People. Cm 917, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Hancock, R., Pudney, S., Barker, G., Hernandez, M. and Sutherland, H. 2004. The take-up of multiple means-tested benefits by British pensioners: evidence from the Family Resources Survey. Fiscal Studies, 25, 3, 279–303.Google Scholar
Hancock, R., Wittenberg, R., Pickard, L., Comas-Herrera, A., Juarez-Garcia, A., King, D. and Malley, J. 2007. Paying for long-term care for older people in the uk: modelling the costs and distributional effects of a range of options. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2336/2, Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Government 2009. Shaping the Future of Care Together. CM 7673, The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Government 2010a. Building the National Care Service. CM784, The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Government 2010b. State of the Nation Report: Poverty, Worklessness and Welfare Dependency in the UK. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Government 2012. Caring for our future: progress report on funding reform. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Jones, A. and O'Donnell, O. 1995. Equivalence scales and the cost of disability. Journal of Public Economics, 56, 2, 273–89.Google Scholar
Klavus, J. 1999. Health care and economic well-being: estimating equivalence scales for public health care utilization. Health Economics, 8, 7, 613–25.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, A. 1988. The Financial Circumstance of Disabled Adults Living in Private Households. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
McVicar, D. 2008. Why have UK disability benefit rolls grown so much? Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 1, 114–39.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2010. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers: A Synthesis of Findings Across OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Pudney, S. E. 2010. Disability benefits for older people: How does the UK Attendance Allowance system really work? ISER Working Paper No. 2010-02, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.Google Scholar
Pudney, S. E., Hancock, R. M. and Sutherland, H. 2006. Simulating the reform of means-tested benefits with endogenous take-up and claim costs. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68, 2, 135–66.Google Scholar
Pudney, S. E., Zantomio, F., Hancock, R. M. and Morciano, M. 2010. Memorandum by the Universities of Essex and East Anglia. In House of Commons Health Committee, Social Care: 3rd Report of Session 2009–10 Volume II (Oral & Written Evidence). HC 22-II, The Stationery Office, London, 172–8.Google Scholar
Radner, D. B. 1997. Noncash income, equivalence scales and the measurement of economic well-being. Review of Income and Wealth, 43, 1, 71–88.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R., Hirst, M. and Lawton, D. 1995. Evaluation of Disability Living Allowance & Attendance Allowance. DSS Research Report 41, Department of Social Security, London.Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health 2010. Terms of reference for the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support. Written ministerial statement, 20 July.Google Scholar
Smith, N., Middleton, S., Ashton-Brooks, K., Cox, L., Dobson, B. and Reith, L. 2004. Disabled People's Costs of Living: More Than You Would Think. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK.Google Scholar
Sutherland, H., Hancock, R., Hills, J. and Zantomio, F. 2008. Keeping up or falling behind? The impact of benefit and tax uprating on incomes and poverty. Fiscal Studies, 29, 4, 467–98.Google Scholar
Thompson, P., Lavery, M. and Curtice, J. 1990. Short-changed by Disability. Disability Income Group, London.Google Scholar
Tibble, M. 2005. Review of existing research on the extra costs of disability. DWP Working Paper 21, Department for Work and Pensions, London.Google Scholar
Wanless, D. 2006. Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-term View. King's Fund, London.Google Scholar
Zaidi, A. and Burchardt, T. 2005. Comparing incomes when needs differ: equivalization for the extra costs of disability in the UK. Review of Income and Wealth, 51, 1, 89–114.Google Scholar