UPDATE: The Daily Mail has now corrected its online article. For details, see the bottom of this post.
Today the government outlined how its new £72,000 cap on care costs will work in practice.
Politicians of all parties had agreed on the need for reform. However, the Labour party has criticised the Coalition for diluting the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission, which proposed imposing a £35,000 cap on how much anyone would pay for their social care. Unlike the NHS, social care is not free at the point of use - and up to one in 10 people are exposed to costs of over £100,000.
Sir Andrew recommended a cap of £35,000 in 2010/11 prices. The Coalition's cap of £72,000 is in 2016/17 prices, as this is when the policy will come into force.
In other words, the BBC and the Daily Mail are not comparing like with like. Instead of Sir Andrew's £35,000 cap, the government will introduce a cap that's equivalent to £61,000 in 2010/11 prices.
Earlier this year, Sir Andrew admitted that while he would have preferred a lower cap, his report had recommended a maximum of £50,000 a year in 2010/11 prices. He went on to say, "It doesn't seem to me that it is so different from what we wanted".
We've asked both the Daily Mail and the BBC to correct their articles.
UPDATE 18 July 2013, 5pm (4 hours later)
The Daily Mail has promptly corrected the online version of its article. Previously, it said that the government's cap was "more than double" the £35,000 recommended by an independent review. It now says that it's "almost double".
UPDATE 5 September 2013 (50 days later)
The BBC has finally corrected its online article. It's disappointing that the complaints process required us to send three different complaints before the matter was dealt with and it adds to our mixed experience of using the BBC's process. In any case, we're pleased the matter has finally been settled.
Neither the Mail nor the BBC make any mention of having changed their pieces.
The integrity of our elections is in danger, and we need your help
You’re probably here looking for facts. Thank you for that trust. But with the EU parliament elections on the way and more elections a possibility, we need to act now to make sure our elections are protected, before it’s too late.
Could you help protect our elections by becoming a Full Fact donor?
Misinformation isn’t new, but advancements in technology mean it can spread at an unprecedented scale. Our dangerously outdated election laws have not kept up with the digital age, putting our next elections at risk of abuse.
Currently, it’s possible for a candidate to run a thousand different political ads to win the same seat, promising something different to each group it targets. At the same time, there’s no law requiring those who publish online campaigns to disclose who they are or how they are funded. The opportunity for bad actors to manipulate election results is left wide open.
You may already know about our work to make public debate online more honest and transparent. Every day, we call out the most harmful misinformation on social media platforms when and where we see it. But right now, we’re urging the government to overhaul our election laws to make sure political campaigning is held to the same level of scrutiny online as it is offline.
This work all depends on the generosity of hundreds of people who all believe that for democracy to work, we need transparency. Our monthly donors help strengthen our voice, and show our politicians that this really matters. Would you consider joining them?
Become a donor today to make sure our elections are protected.