This compares what a council pays for a week in a care home with the average paid across England: 1.0 means exactly average, 1.2 means 20% more, 0.9 means 10% less. It matters because care homes are one of the biggest costs in adult social care, so paying over the odds adds up quickly. A high value can mean poor purchasing or a pricier local market; a low value can mean good negotiating — or corners being cut. It puts every council on the same easy-to-read scale.
| name | asc_care_home_unit_cost_premium |
|---|---|
| dataset | 07-adult-social-care-finance |
| kind | constructed |
| type | numeric |
| unit | ratio (1.0 = national average) |
| grain | council (CASSR), keyed on GEOGRAPHY_CODE |
| role | feature |
| source | Formula: asc_unit_cost_res_nursing_care(council) / asc_unit_cost_res_nursing_care(England), where the England value uses the same filter with GEOGRAPHY_LEVEL='England' (England row verified present in the same CSV) |
| period | FY 2024-25 |
| missingness | NA where the council's unit cost is suppressed (`[x]`); treat `[x]` as NA, never zero |
| score_note | Instantly readable vs-England ratio, but a simple rescale of asc_unit_cost_res_nursing_care. |
| peer_group | CASSRs (the 153 social-care authorities) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
Whether the council pays above or below the national average for a week of care-home care (residential + nursing combined), before any mix adjustment. Caveat: unadjusted for case mix — refine with the age-band/PSR-level unit costs (asc_unit_cost_by_setting_age_psr) to control for it.