In brief: Jersey taxpayers face a phased increase in long-term care contributions, rising from 1.5% to 2.5% between 2028 and 2030. The Government of Jersey’s draft Budget cites sharply rising costs driven by demographic change and increasingly complex care packages, with an internal review concluding that higher contributions are the only viable short-term fix.
The Bill Is Coming — Just Not Yet
If you were hoping the Government of Jersey might quietly absorb the rising cost of long-term care out of sheer administrative efficiency, the draft Budget unveiled at the end of last month has some news for you. The maximum long-term care contribution rate is set to climb from its current 1.5% to 2.5% by 2030 — a full percentage point increase, phased in as 0.3% in 2028, 0.4% in 2029, and a final 0.3% in 2030, according to the Jersey Evening Post.
To soften the blow — and the government deserves at least a polite nod for this — the increase has been deferred until 2028, with ministers explicitly acknowledging “the cost-of-living pressures being felt by many families at present.” A one-off transfer of £5 million from the general revenue fund will also be made to support the long-term care fund in 2027, bridging the gap before the new contribution rates kick in.
The long-term care fund provides both universal and means-tested support for adults with long-term care needs. It is funded through taxpayer contributions based on assessable earnings — accounting for applicable tax allowances and reliefs — alongside a States grant that stood at £41 million this year, and investment income.
Demographics Don’t Lie
The government’s own spending plans cite a “sharp increase” in costs over the last couple of years, driven by “a combination of demographic changes and the increasing complexity of care packages.” Future costs are forecast to keep rising “steadily” — and the numbers behind that forecast are stark.
Statistics Jersey figures show that the number of Islanders over 65 has increased by 13% in the past five years, while the number of under-16s has dropped by 7%. An ageing population requiring more complex care, supported by a proportionally smaller working-age base: it is not a complicated equation, even if the solution is an uncomfortable one.
The previous government’s 2026 Budget had already flagged the likelihood of a contribution rate rise from 1.5% to 2.5%, and ministers at the time committed to a thorough review of the scheme before confirming any increase. That internal review has now been completed, and its conclusion — as the draft Budget states — is that “increasing the income into the fund in the short term is the only viable option to maintain the vital support provided by the fund to many local residents living with care needs.”
Options to tighten eligibility criteria or reduce the value of available benefits were “carefully considered” but are “not recommended for further development at this stage.” Improvements to service delivery that might reduce costs over time will be pursued, the document notes, but these “will take time to implement.”
Scrutiny Asks the Harder Questions
Not everyone is simply nodding this through. Former Health Minister and current Public Accounts Committee chair Deputy Karen Wilson told the JEP that, while she understood why additional funding was required, Islanders have “a desire to understand what’s driving the increase.” Raising the contribution rate might stabilise the fund in the short term, she said, but “it doesn’t really address the underlying issue — which is what the demand for care really looks like.”
Deputy Wilson also noted that an actuarial review of the Long-Term Care Fund is due in 2027, which could see the planned contribution rate adjustments revised “based on what they find.” Her broader point is a sound one: the government is, by its own admission, working with current data based on the current model of care. What Jersey’s care needs will look like in 2050 requires longer-range modelling and strategic planning — work backwards from the destination, rather than reacting to each year’s cost pressures as they arrive.
Health policy director Ruth Johnson recently told a Scrutiny panel that options to address spiralling healthcare costs could include more tax funding, higher social security contributions, more “pay-as-you-go” payments, and increased private health insurance premiums — with overall health costs forecast to rise by almost 3% a year above inflation for the next 20 years.
The NSFW Perspective
There is something almost refreshingly honest about a government saying, in plain language, that raising contributions is “the only viable option.” No elaborate rebranding, no consultancy-speak about “investment in outcomes” — just a straightforward acknowledgement that an ageing population costs more to support, and someone has to pay for it.
The phased approach and the 2027 actuarial review do at least suggest a degree of caution. But Deputy Wilson’s challenge is the right one: a reactive funding patch is not a long-term care strategy. Jersey’s demographic trajectory is not a surprise — it has been visible in the data for years. The question taxpayers might reasonably ask is why the modelling and strategic planning she describes is only now being discussed, rather than having been completed before the contribution rate was put to a vote. The fund is vital. The support it provides is real. But “we’ll figure out the long-term picture later” is not the reassurance that a 13% rise in the over-65 population in five years quite demands.
Source: Jersey Evening Post
