Jeff Salway: Plenty of pointers for Holyrood in Dilnot's care cost proposals

The economist's commission on funding of care and support, which revealed its findings on Monday, was billed as the last chance to tackle the crisis before it finally spiralled out of control.

He succeeded in coming up with recommendations that share the burden between individuals and the state. But with the reforms likely to cost the UK government up to 2 billion a year extra, the chances of them seeing the light of day in the current administration are slim.

However, the report, which covered the English system, offers food for thought north of the Border and its findings should be taken seriously. Its release coincided with warnings that free personal and nursing care for the elderly in Scotland - the main difference between the two systems - could be on the way out, as the government seeks to bridge a widening funding gap.

The Dilnot report confirms that the state will have to considerably boost its funding for care. It proposed a cap on individual contributions of about 35,000 and a big increase in the means-testing threshold for state support.

The Actuarial Profession estimates that one in four over-65s will have some form of care or support in the future, with costs ranging from 25,000 a year at the basic end to more than 50,000 for specialised care.

The cap is a good idea, as it provides much-needed certainty. If you know how much you're likely to have to contribute to your care, you can plan accordingly. That should pave the way for the financial services industry to step in with pre-funded products, which the Dilnot report encourages. Yet while the government wants insurers to help ease the funding burden, the lack of demand that sank the long-term care insurance sector in the mid-noughties remains a stumbling block.

A clear parallel can be drawn here with the other big funding crisis: pensions. Few people want to think about pensions 30 or 40 years before the event and even fewer want to entertain the idea of long-term care at any point in their lives.

If we're not sufficiently incentivised to save for pensions - which most people will need eventually - the government has no hope of encouraging private savings for long-term care, an eventuality with less certainty than pensions.

That's just human nature but, as with pensions, there's also an awareness gap, thanks partly to the misguided belief that someone else (i.e. the state) will foot the bill. The paucity of support on offer regarding care funding options has been covered in this space recently.

There are some very good IFAs out there specialising in long-term care, but they are kept at arm's length by local authorities in Scotland, which unnecessarily leave people to fend for themselves.Ask your local authority about care funding and you'll be lucky to be told anything about the various options on the table, let alone given details of the many organisations that can provide advice (such as Symponia).

So the first thing that needs to change is access to advice. It's there but it's not targeted at those who need it. Only then can the government look towards insurers to bridge the funding gap.

In the meantime, an opportunity will be missed as the UK government drags its heels in responding to Dilnot's proposals.

But the report offered plenty for Holyrood to think about and - if the Scottish Government really understands that doing nothing isn't an option - to act upon.

COMPARISON sites have done more to empower consumers than anything else in recent years. But their growing influence creates problems, too.

The data they produce are taken as gospel, regardless of any commercial relationships that help shape those results. There is also a tendency to use the sites in isolation, yet it's more effective to combine comparison site findings with the deals offered by firms directly. Aggregators play a key role in financial services now, but don't take it for granted that they give the best price every time.