Updated study to calculate reasonable fees, based on the operating costs of efficient care homes for older people in England. (The previous study can be found here)
The demands resulting from an ageing population means that more care homes will be needed in the future. However, most public sector funding agencies do not currently offer fees that are sufficient to encourage care home operators to invest in new capacity for state-funded clients. Calculating a fair market price for care offers a transparent and evidence-based mechanism for working out what such fees should be, based on the costs borne by care homes in the financial year 2008/09.
Updates for the third edition include:
Download the datasheet here (.xls file, 160KB)
In order to make use of this facility, the Word and Excel files should be saved in the same folder on a PC running a Windows operating system. All of the parameters set in the toolkit spreadsheet may be varied, if desired, to test the effect on calculated fee levels. Note that the hyperlinks will no longer work if either of the file names are changed.
The most reliable way to download these documents is to right click on the links and choose 'Save Target As...'. Please note: Neither The Policy Press nor the Joseph Rowntree Foundation can deal with enquiries relating to the functionality of the spreadsheet. Please refer to the full report for details of how to use the spreadsheet.
This study refines the formula published by the JRF in 2002 (revised 2004) for calculating reasonable fees, based on the operating costs of efficient care homes for older people in England. Using 2008 benchmarks, the study guides users through its associated spreadsheet and advises on modifications to reflect local market conditions
Despite upward realignment between 2002 and 2006, fees paid by most English councils still offer inadequate returns to care homes for older people. This has reduced choice for council-supported residents and led to a virtual cessation of development of new care home capacity catering primarily for them. However, such is the projected demographic pressure of demand that substantial expansion of capacity will be required. Independent sector providers will not develop such capacity unless fees offer a reasonable return.
Building on reports published in 2002 and 2004, this study refines and develops guidance to enable care commissioners to identify the reasonable costs that typical, efficient care home operators may incur, and the reasonable fees they may expect to receive. The study rejects an average cost approach, as this would include the costs of inefficient operators.
The toolkit spreadsheet generates costs (fair market fees) as summarised in Table 1 (.xls file).
Staffing costs typically absorb 45–60 per cent of care home fees, and include care, catering, cleaning, laundry, management, administration and reception staff. Costs for hourly paid staff can be calculated by multiplying the volume of resources required (using benchmark data on the number of staff hours per resident) by weighted average hourly pay rates (including unsocial hours enhancements), plus on-costs (see below). To determine local pay rates, care commissioners need to survey actual rates and enhancements paid. A cost allowance for (salaried) management, administration and reception staff is based on national norms for a home of approximately 50 beds.
On-costs include the following:
These include utilities, food, registration fees, grounds maintenance, and maintenance capital expenditure (in place of depreciation). Typically, these costs absorb 12–15 per cent of care home fees. They can be calculated fairly readily on a ‘per resident’ basis, with relatively little regional variation. The study used benchmark data from major care home operators.
Capital costs, including investors’ and operators’ returns, account for the balance of fees. The study proposed a target return on capital of 12 per cent annually for ‘spot’ purchase, which remains the dominant procurement mode of care home services among councils.
Table 2 (.xls file) summarises the estimated reasonable costs incurred by efficient care home providers.
To avoid super-profits for physically sub-standard homes, the study proposes that councils should apply a capital cost adjustment factor, with the ‘floor’ being 50 per cent of the ‘ceiling’ capital costs of a home which fully complies with physical standards. This would be based on a transparent physical environment grading tool, which should be developed by stakeholders. Such tools are already used, for example within several councils in the north-east. CSCI ratings should also be used as an overall quality trigger for payment of fair market fees as calculated through the toolkit spreadsheet.
The proposed approach to setting 'ceiling' and 'floor' fair market fees is that:
The principal modifications in the 2008 toolkit spreadsheet are:
On balance, the modifications have increased the calculated fair market price for care at a faster rate than general inflation.
The study concludes that most public sector commissioning bodies do not at present pay fees at levels which are adequate to support and sustain a care home sector that meets all of the most recent National Minimum Standards.
The potential additional cost to the public sector of an England-wide commitment to pay a fair market price for a fully modernised care home sector, in terms of physical environment, can be approximated by comparing the England ceiling rates (i.e. the fair market fees calculated for ‘new’ homes) with the average gross fees currently paid by English local authorities. The additional cost to the public sector is estimated at approximately £540 million per annum at 2008/09 prices and volumes of demand.
While the toolkit spreadsheet’s structure has remained virtually unchanged since the 2004 report, it has been repopulated with benchmarks and data collected in spring 2008 by Laing & Buisson from three sources: