Aren't the majority of care homes privately owned and owners make an absolute fortune from them?
My view is that the Government (and its supporters) is taking the "care home fatcats" should have been able to obtain their own PPE to deflect it from the criticism it is facing with regard to the lack of protevction afforded to care homes.
A bit rich from the private sector-loving party.
Governments of both hues have failed to address adult social care because they see it as too difficult and not a one term issue.
The system is essentially a hybrid of private care and means-tested care via the State.
Although the fees seem high, care home operators are rightly subject to very high standards. Some care homes that manage to attract 90-100% of privately paying patients are actually both profitable and efficient. Nothing wrong with that but a sort of U.S. private model.
Others, who have a mix of residents, privately funded and local authority funded struggle to maintain the high standards (not usually through lack of dedication) because the local authority pays the care home so little. There have been insolvencies and there will likely be more (especially where there have been deaths as people are understandably reluctant to take up beds in care homes just now).
Here in Surrey, local authorities might pay about £35,000 p.a. ++ against a private rate of £65,000 p.a. ++ or more. Privately funded residents are effectively
subsidising means-tested residents.
The local authorities rely on Council Tax and or Govt grants to fund care but the local authorities get the rap for raising Council Tax. Or the Care Homes get it when their systems falter because of their depleted income.
With a growing elderly demographic, Governments just keep kicking this can down the road because no one, not the residents (or their children sometimes in line to inherit) and not taxpayers in general really want to pay for the care.