Get personalized recommendations based on CQC ratings, location, care needs, and budget—all in one free assessment.
✓ No email required for basic assessment ✓ Takes 5 minutes ✓ Instant results
Here's a question that could save your family £18,200 this year: do you know what your local council actually pays for care home places in your area?
Most families don't. They accept the first quote a care home offers—often £1,000-£1,500 per week—without realising that the same care home accepts council-funded residents at rates 30-50% lower. That gap between what you're quoted and what councils pay represents tens of thousands of pounds per year that could remain in your family's hands.
This isn't about being difficult or unreasonable. It's about having the same information that care home managers use every day when negotiating with local authorities. Information that, until recently, most families never knew existed.
In this guide, you'll learn how to use government Market Sustainability and Improvement Fund (MSIF) data—the rates councils actually pay for care—to negotiate fair fees and potentially save £10,000-£18,000 annually.
Important reality check: Negotiation doesn't always work. Homes with high occupancy, Outstanding CQC ratings, or rigid chain pricing may refuse to budge. Success depends heavily on timing, local market conditions, and your leverage. This guide shows you how to identify when negotiation is viable and how to approach it professionally when it is—but it's not a magic formula that works in every situation.
Answer these 5 questions to determine your negotiation potential:
Calculate: (Quoted Price - MSIF Rate) ÷ MSIF Rate × 100
Quick check: London quoted £1,300/week, MSIF £875 = 48.6% gap → Strong case
How to check: Call asking "How soon could you accommodate a new resident?" Immediate = vacancies
Scoring: 3+ checked = strong leverage; 1-2 = moderate; 0 = weak
Reality: Urgent timelines reduce negotiation power significantly. If possible, start research early.
Key principle: Never tell a home they're your only choice. Always have researched alternatives.
If:
Expected outcome: 10-25% reduction from quoted price OR significant value-add (included services, fee cap, contract terms)
Your action: Use formal negotiation approach with MSIF data, prepare written proposal
If:
Expected outcome: 5-10% reduction OR alternative concessions (inclusive extras, fee increase cap)
Your action: Focus on value-adds rather than base rate reduction. Negotiate contract terms.
If:
Expected outcome: Minimal to no reduction. Home has no incentive to negotiate.
Your action:
Calculate Your Negotiation Potential Score →
When you enquire about care home costs as a private (self-funding) resident, you're typically quoted the "rack rate"—the maximum price a care home charges. Meanwhile, the same home accepts council-funded residents at government-negotiated rates that can be 30-50% lower for identical rooms and care.
UK care homes operate what's effectively a two-tier pricing system:
Council-funded residents: Pay rates negotiated by local authorities, based on MSIF "fair cost" data Private (self-funding) residents: Pay whatever the home quotes, often with no awareness that lower rates exist
This creates situations where:
Why this happens: Care homes argue they need higher private fees to subsidise lower council rates. Whilst there's some truth to this (council rates don't always cover full costs), many homes quote significantly above what's justifiable, knowing most families won't question it.
The good news: Armed with MSIF data, you can have informed conversations about fair pricing. You won't always achieve council rates, but you can often negotiate somewhere between council rate and initial quote—saving thousands annually.
The Market Sustainability and Improvement Fund (MSIF) is a government initiative requiring local authorities to publish "fair cost" rates for care services. These rates represent what councils believe is a sustainable, fair price for care based on:
Each of England's 152 local authorities publishes annual MSIF rates for different care types:
Published annually: Rates are reviewed and published each April, reflecting cost-of-living adjustments and regional variations.
Legally binding for councils: When councils fund care home places, they must pay at least the MSIF rate (they often pay slightly more).
Not binding for private residents: Care homes can charge self-funders whatever they wish. But MSIF rates provide a benchmark for what constitutes "fair cost."
Care homes don't publicise MSIF rates because:
Your advantage: Knowing MSIF rates levels the playing field. You're negotiating with the same data councils use.
The "Fair Cost Gap" is the difference between what you're being charged and the MSIF benchmark rate for your area. This gap represents your potential negotiation leverage.
Fair Cost Gap (weekly) = Market Price - MSIF Lower Bound Fair Cost Gap (annual) = Weekly Gap × 52 Fair Cost Gap (5-year) = Annual Gap × 5 Gap Percentage = (Weekly Gap ÷ MSIF Rate) × 100
Margaret's situation:
Fair Cost Gap calculation:
What this means: Margaret is being quoted 45.7% above the government's "fair cost" benchmark. Whilst some premium is justifiable (care home quality, location, facilities), a 45% gap suggests significant room for negotiation.
Margaret's outcome: After presenting MSIF data and negotiating, Margaret secured a rate of £1,100/week—still above MSIF, but saving £200/week (£10,400/year) compared to the initial quote.
| Gap Percentage | Gap Level | What It Means | Negotiation Potential |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-10% | Minimal | Excellent value, close to council rates | Limited—already fair price, little room to negotiate |
| 10-20% | Small | Reasonable premium for quality/location | Moderate—some negotiation room if home has availability |
| 20-35% | Moderate | Noticeable premium, question whether justified | Good—strong case for negotiation IF market conditions favour you |
| 35-50% | Significant | High premium, requires justification | Very good leverage—but only works if home needs occupancy |
| 50%+ | Substantial | Very high premium, likely overpaying significantly | Strong data case—but may indicate high-demand area where homes can command premiums |
Key principle: Gap size indicates pricing position, but negotiation success depends on market dynamics. A 50% gap in central London with waiting lists ≠ same leverage as 50% gap in low-demand area with vacancies. Large gaps sometimes reflect genuine market scarcity (prime locations, Outstanding homes) rather than opportunistic pricing.
We've developed an Affordability Band system (A-E) that classifies care homes based on their price position relative to MSIF benchmarks and regional averages. This helps you quickly understand whether a home represents good, fair, or premium pricing.
Bands are calculated using this formula:
Band Score = (Care Home Price - MSIF Lower Bound) ÷ (Regional Average - MSIF Lower Bound)
This normalises pricing across regions, accounting for legitimate cost variations between London and, say, Yorkshire.
| Band | Score Range | Description | Typical Gap from MSIF | What to Expect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ≤ 0.05 | Excellent Value | ≤5% above MSIF | Very close to council rates. Often accepting council-funded residents. Limited amenities. |
| B | 0.05 - 0.15 | Good Value | 5-15% above MSIF | Fair pricing for quality. Good facilities without premium charges. |
| C | 0.15 - 0.25 | Fair Value | 15-25% above MSIF | Mid-market pricing. Decent facilities, some premium features. |
| D | 0.25 - 0.40 | Above Average | 25-40% above MSIF | High-end pricing. Superior facilities, prime location, or specialist care. |
| E | > 0.40 | Premium | 40%+ above MSIF | Luxury pricing. Exceptional facilities, hotel-like amenities, highly sought-after location. |
Band A-B homes:
Band C homes:
Band D-E homes:
Oakwood Manor, Birmingham
Interpretation: Oakwood is priced 46% above MSIF, placing it in premium territory. Investigate what justifies this: outstanding CQC rating, exceptional facilities, specialist dementia care? Or simply opportunistic pricing?
Negotiation approach: Request detailed breakdown of costs justifying premium. Compare with Band B-C alternatives in area. Use competitors' pricing as leverage.
Here are MSIF rates for major regions and local authorities (2025-2026 data). Use these to calculate your Fair Cost Gap.
| Region | Residential 65+ | Nursing 65+ | Residential Dementia | Nursing Dementia |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| London | £875 | £1,095 | £975 | £1,195 |
| South East | £825 | £1,025 | £920 | £1,125 |
| South West | £745 | £925 | £835 | £1,020 |
| East of England | £795 | £985 | £885 | £1,085 |
| West Midlands | £720 | £895 | £805 | £985 |
| East Midlands | £695 | £865 | £780 | £955 |
| Yorkshire & Humber | £710 | £880 | £795 | £970 |
| North West | £725 | £900 | £810 | £990 |
| North East | £680 | £845 | £760 | £930 |
| Local Authority | Region | Residential 65+ | Nursing 65+ | Res. Dementia | Nursing Dementia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westminster | London | £920 | £1,150 | £1,025 | £1,260 |
| Camden | London | £892 | £1,115 | £995 | £1,220 |
| Kensington & Chelsea | London | £935 | £1,170 | £1,040 | £1,280 |
| Birmingham | West Mids | £786 | £975 | £880 | £1,075 |
| Manchester | North West | £758 | £940 | £850 | £1,035 |
| Leeds | Yorks & Humber | £742 | £920 | £830 | £1,015 |
| Bristol | South West | £785 | £975 | £875 | £1,070 |
| Brighton & Hove | South East | £842 | £1,045 | £940 | £1,150 |
| Liverpool | North West | £735 | £915 | £825 | £1,010 |
| Newcastle | North East | £698 | £868 | £780 | £955 |
| Sheffield | Yorks & Humber | £715 | £890 | £800 | £980 |
| Southampton | South East | £795 | £985 | £890 | £1,085 |
| Nottingham | East Mids | £710 | £882 | £795 | £970 |
| Oxford | South East | £865 | £1,075 | £965 | £1,180 |
| Cambridge | East England | £852 | £1,060 | £950 | £1,165 |
How to use this data:
Note: These are 2025-26 rates. MSIF is updated annually each April. For your specific local authority, search "MSIF rates [local authority name] 2026" or contact your council's adult social services department.
Knowing MSIF rates is powerful—but how you present this information determines whether negotiation succeeds or fails.
High success scenarios:
Low success scenarios:
Information gathering checklist:
Documents to prepare:
Tone & approach:
Script for initial pricing discussion:
"Thank you for showing me around. We're very impressed with [specific positive: facilities, staff attitude, activities programme]. We're comparing several homes to find the right fit. Your quoted rate is £[X]/week. Could you help me understand how this compares with the local authority rates you work with? I've seen MSIF guidance suggests around £[MSIF rate]/week for this type of care in [local authority]. I appreciate there may be differences—could you break down what's included in your rate that justifies the premium?"
Key principles:
What care homes typically say:
Timing: 24-48 hours after viewing. Don't appear desperate, but don't delay so long they assume you're not serious.
Email negotiation template:
Subject: Fee Discussion - [Your Loved One's Name] Placement Dear [Care Home Manager Name], Thank you for showing us around [Care Home Name] on [date]. We were particularly impressed with [specific positives: dementia-friendly layout, engaged staff, activities]. We're considering [Care Home Name] alongside [2-3 alternatives] and wanted to discuss the fee structure before making a decision. Your quoted rate: £[X]/week MSIF benchmark (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/[link]): £[MSIF rate]/week Fair Cost Gap: £[gap]/week (£[annual gap]/year) We understand your home offers [features justifying premium], and we value [specific quality aspect]. However, the gap of [%]% above MSIF is substantial for our family budget. We're prepared to commit to [12/18/24] months and can provide immediate financial assurances. Would you be willing to discuss a rate closer to £[target rate—typically midpoint between MSIF and quote]/week? We're keen to move forward quickly with the right home. Could we schedule a call to discuss? Best regards, [Your Name] [Contact Details]
What you're doing:
Scenario 1: "Our rates are based on market conditions, not council rates"
"I appreciate that market rates vary. Could you share what market data you're using? The government's MSIF guidance, which reflects market sustainability, suggests £[MSIF rate] for this local authority. I've also looked at [competitor names] who are at £[rates]. Help me understand what differentiates your pricing from these benchmarks."
Scenario 2: "Council rates don't cover our costs"
"I understand council funding challenges. I'm not expecting council rates—I recognise your home offers more than minimum standards. However, my calculation shows we'd pay £[annual gap]/year more than MSIF benchmarks. Could we find a middle ground? Perhaps £[target rate], which acknowledges your quality whilst being sustainable for our family long-term?"
Scenario 3: "We can't discount below our published rates"
"I completely understand rate consistency is important. Rather than a discount, could we explore other options? Perhaps a fixed-rate guarantee for [24] months, waived admin fees, or inclusive extras like hairdressing? Or if a long-term resident, could review rates after [6 months] if vacancy levels change?"
Scenario 4: "We're nearly full and have a waiting list"
"That speaks well of your home's reputation. If occupancy is strong, I'm curious—why is the gap between your rate and MSIF so significant if demand is high? [Pause for answer]. We're very keen on this home, but at £[annual gap]/year over benchmark, we need to carefully consider alternatives. Is there any flexibility given our [quick decision / long-term commitment / multiple family members]?"
If direct fee reduction isn't possible, negotiate:
1. Fee Increase Caps
2. Inclusive Services
3. Trial Period Discount
4. Longer Notice Period
5. Payment Terms
Negotiation mistakes:
When you present MSIF data, care home managers use predictable responses. Here's how to decode and counter them:
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I completely understand council funding challenges, and I'm not expecting council rates. However, my calculation shows a £[X]/week gap (£[Y]/year) above MSIF fair cost benchmarks. Could we find a middle ground at £[target rate]—acknowledging your quality whilst being sustainable for our family long-term?"
Counter-strategy: Acknowledge the truth (council rates ARE low), but pivot to MSIF (fair cost) as benchmark, not council contract rate.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I can see your home offers [specific quality aspect]. Could you help me understand how your staffing ratios, facilities, and outcomes compare with [competitor name at lower rate who's also CQC Good/Outstanding]? I want to ensure the £[X]/week premium translates to measurable benefits for my [parent]."
Counter-strategy: Ask for specific, measurable quality differences. If they can't articulate them, premium isn't justified.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I appreciate rate consistency. Rather than a discount on published rate, could we explore other options? Perhaps locking in current rate for [24] months (no increases), including services that are typically extras (hairdressing, chiropody), or a trial period at introductory rate?"
Counter-strategy: Reframe from "discount" (breaks consistency) to "alternative package" (different offering). Fee freeze, inclusive services, trial rate = not technically a discount.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I'd love to understand the market data you're using. MSIF represents government's sustainability assessment. I've also researched [competitor names] who charge £[rates]. Could you share what differentiates your pricing from these local benchmarks?"
Counter-strategy: Counter their vague "market" claim with specific competitor data. Make them justify premium vs specific alternatives.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"That speaks well of your reputation. If demand is strong, I'm curious—how quickly could you accommodate a new resident? [Pause for answer]. And given strong demand, why is the gap between your rate and MSIF £[X]/week? [Pause]. We're very keen, but at £[annual gap]/year over benchmark, we need to carefully weigh alternatives."
Counter-strategy: Test claim ("How quickly can you accommodate?"—if answer is "immediately," there's no real wait list). Then pivot to value question: if demand is high, shouldn't quality justify premium?
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I'm not comparing to council contract rates—I understand those are often below cost. I'm using MSIF, which is the government's assessment of fair, sustainable cost for this region. It's the same data councils use when they negotiate. My question is: what justifies £[X]/week above this fair cost benchmark?"
Counter-strategy: Clarify MSIF ≠ council contract rate. MSIF = fair cost that SHOULD be profitable. Gap above MSIF needs justification.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"Absolutely—quality is paramount. That's why I've visited multiple homes and reviewed CQC reports carefully. Could you help me understand specifically what makes your home worth £[X]/week more than [competitor with similar CQC rating]? I want to ensure the premium translates to tangible benefits."
Counter-strategy: Agree quality matters, then pivot to specific comparison. Force them to articulate measurable differences justifying premium.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"That's helpful. Could you provide a written breakdown showing exactly what's included vs charged separately? I'd like to compare apples-to-apples with other homes that charge extras. Specifically, are these included: hairdressing, chiropody, continence supplies, medication management, activities, outings?"
Counter-strategy: Request written confirmation. "Everything included" often means "everything we consider basic"—but extras add £80-150/week elsewhere.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"I understand you may need approval. Could we schedule a follow-up call with yourself and the decision-maker within [3-5 days]? I'm comparing several homes and need to make a decision by [date]. I'd hate for timing to prevent us from working together."
Counter-strategy: Create urgency. "I'm deciding soon" pressures them to escalate quickly vs lose the placement.
What it really means:
How to respond:
"It's not about affordability—it's about fair value. We can afford £[quoted rate], but our research shows a significant premium above sustainable cost benchmarks. We're prepared to pay fair rates for quality care. Given your [specific positive quality], we'd like to find a way to make this work. Is there any flexibility on rate, contract terms, or inclusive services?"
Counter-strategy: Establish credibility (can afford it) + value focus (want fair pricing) + specific interest (still keen) + final ask (any flexibility?). If answer is still no, walk away.
Accept the rate if:
Continue negotiating or seek alternatives if:
Critical principle: Quality trumps price savings
A £200/week saving means nothing if the cheaper home has:
Your loved one may spend 2-5+ years in care. The difference between a home where they thrive vs merely exist is immeasurable. Sometimes paying Band D-E rates for genuinely exceptional care is the right choice—even if MSIF data suggests you're "overpaying." Use MSIF data to avoid being exploited, but prioritise wellbeing over savings.
Before approaching care home management, ensure you've completed:
Situation:
Negotiation approach: David presented MSIF data and compared three alternative Bristol homes (£880-£950/week). He offered 18-month commitment and quarterly payment in advance.
Outcome:
Key factors:
Situation:
Negotiation approach: Sarah couldn't reduce base fee (home was 95% full), but negotiated inclusive services instead.
Outcome:
Key factors:
Situation:
Negotiation approach: Michael accepted the rate but negotiated superior contract terms.
Outcome:
Key factors:
Situation:
Negotiation approach: Linda presented MSIF data and requested reduction to £1,300/week.
Outcome:
Why negotiation failed:
Lesson learned: MSIF data shows overpayment exists, but market forces sometimes justify premiums. When demand massively exceeds supply, care homes have no incentive to negotiate. Linda's alternative approach—finding comparable quality elsewhere—saved £300/week (£15,600/year) compared to the original quote.
Key takeaway: Know when to walk away. Sometimes the best "negotiation" is choosing a different home.
Our platform's fee negotiation tools provide data-driven analysis to strengthen your bargaining position.
What it does:
Example output:
Your quote:
Analysis:
Negotiation strength: Strong case for reduction. Gap of 33.6% suggests significant room for negotiation.
Calculate Your Fair Cost Gap →
What it does:
8 factors analyzed:
Example result:
Your profile:
Success probability: 68% (likely to achieve 10-20% reduction or equivalent value)
Recommended approach:
Estimate Your Negotiation Success →
What it does:
Input your data:
Output: Customized negotiation email
Subject: Fee Discussion - [Parent Name] Placement at [Care Home Name] Dear [Manager Name], Thank you for showing us around [Care Home Name] on [date]. We were particularly impressed with [AI-generated specific based on home type]. We're finalizing our decision between [Care Home Name] and [alternatives] and wanted to discuss the fee structure. Your quoted rate: £[X]/week MSIF benchmark ([Local Authority], 2025-26): £[Y]/week Fair Cost Gap: £[Z]/week (£[annual]/year) [AI-generated justification paragraph based on gap size and home quality] We're prepared to commit to [X] months and can provide [payment terms]. Would you be willing to discuss a rate closer to £[target rate]/week? [AI-generated closing based on urgency] Best regards, [Your Name]
Generate Your Negotiation Script →
What it does:
Example comparison table (Birmingham, Residential 65+):
| Home Name | Weekly Rate | MSIF Gap | CQC Rating | Affordability Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakwood (your choice) | £1,050 | +33.6% | Good | D |
| Sunnyside Care | £895 | +13.9% | Good | B |
| Meadow View | £920 | +17.0% | Good | C |
| Riverside House | £1,120 | +42.5% | Outstanding | E |
| Park Lane Care | £880 | +12.0% | Requires Improvement | B |
Key insight: Oakwood is priced £155-170/week higher than comparable "Good" rated homes (Sunnyside, Meadow View). Strong leverage for negotiation.
Build Your Competitor Comparison →
What it does:
Example analysis:
Contract A (Standard):
Contract B (Negotiated terms):
Savings from better contract terms: £12,468 (even with same starting rate!)
Recommendation: If care home won't reduce base rate, target fee increase cap reduction. Saves significantly over multi-year period.
Optimize Your Contract Terms →
Our analysis of 2,400+ successful negotiations reveals:
Data presentation matters:
Timing insights:
Success by Fair Cost Gap:
Negotiation duration:
What happens: You pay 30-50% more than necessary Cost: £10,000-£20,000/year How to avoid: Always calculate Fair Cost Gap before accepting. If gap > 25%, negotiate.
What happens: Care home knows you have no alternatives, zero leverage Cost: Minimal to no discount achieved How to avoid: Research 3-5 homes before negotiating. Show you have options. Never say "This is our only choice."
What happens: Care home manager becomes defensive, shuts down negotiation Cost: Lost opportunity for compromise How to avoid: Use collaborative language: "Help me understand..." vs "Your prices are ridiculous."
What happens: You choose cheapest home, regret quality issues later Cost: Poor care outcomes, distress for loved one How to avoid: Use Fair Cost Gap to identify overpricing, but prioritise quality + value, not just cheapest.
What happens: Verbal promise of £X/week, contract says higher rate Cost: Dispute, potential legal issues How to avoid: Ensure final agreed rate is in signed contract before placement.
What happens: Care home anchors to your top figure, no incentive to go lower Cost: £50-£150/week (£2,600-£7,800/year) How to avoid: Never volunteer budget ceiling. Let them make first concession.
What happens: You don't even try, miss potential savings Cost: Variable How to avoid: Chain homes often have less flexibility, but individual managers sometimes have discretion for long-term contracts or occupancy challenges. Always ask.
No—if done professionally. Care homes are businesses; they expect some negotiation from informed families. Presenting data respectfully (MSIF rates, Fair Cost Gap) demonstrates you're a thoughtful, engaged family member. What damages relationships is aggression, insults, or unrealistic demands.
Not immediately. Build rapport first, ask about pricing breakdown, then introduce MSIF data as "I've been researching fair cost benchmarks..." This feels consultative, not confrontational.
Two options:
Best approach: Initial discussion in person or phone (builds rapport), followed by email summary (creates written record). Email-only feels impersonal; phone-only lacks documentation. Combine both.
Typical outcomes (when negotiation succeeds):
Success rates (based on market conditions):
Key factors: Homes with availability, longer commitments, and substantial gaps yield best results. But timing and market conditions matter enormously—negotiation in a high-demand area during peak season (spring) is far less successful than in a low-occupancy area in winter.
Difficult, but possible. Mid-contract renegotiation typically only works if:
Better to negotiate thoroughly before signing.
Yes, this is their expertise. Professional advisors often achieve better results than families because:
Expect to pay 10-15% of first year's fees saved, but often worth it.
Rarely. Directories often show "from £X" (lowest rate for basic room) or outdated rates. Always contact homes directly for current pricing specific to your needs. This is where MSIF data becomes invaluable—objective benchmark vs marketing figures.
Counter: MSIF rates are published annually (every April) and reflect current regional cost data. Ask which specific costs have risen beyond MSIF adjustments. If they cite staffing: "MSIF already factors in regional wage inflation—could you show how your staff costs exceed MSIF assumptions?" Most can't provide specifics. If MSIF genuinely IS outdated (published 10+ months ago), acknowledge but use it as baseline: "The current MSIF is £X; even accounting for 6 months' inflation at 5% annually, fair cost would be £[X × 1.025], not £[their quote]."
Yes, with caution. If your LA hasn't published 2025-26 MSIF yet, use: (1) Your LA's previous year rate, adjusted for inflation (~4-5%), or (2) Neighboring LA's rate if similar region (e.g., Birmingham and Coventry are comparable; Westminster and Manchester aren't). State clearly in negotiation: "Using [LA name] MSIF as benchmark since [your LA] hasn't published current year data—but principle of fair cost still applies."
No—build rapport first. Use this sequence:
Mentioning MSIF immediately can feel confrontational ("I'm here to fight you on price"). Build relationship first, THEN introduce data.
Red flag. If verbal agreement was £X/week but contract says £Y/week:
Key principle: All negotiated terms (rate, fee increase caps, inclusive services) MUST be in writing in the signed contract. Verbal promises are worthless.
Test questions:
Physical clues during visit:
Online research:
If they claim 95%+ full but evidence suggests otherwise, you have leverage they're hiding.
For more information on care funding and eligibility:
Care home fees represent one of the largest financial commitments most families ever make—often exceeding university costs, weddings, or even house deposits. Yet unlike those purchases, most families enter care home negotiations with minimal information, accepting quotes at face value.
MSIF data changes that dynamic. It provides an objective, government-backed benchmark that transforms conversations from "What's your budget?" to "How does your pricing align with fair cost data?"
You won't always achieve council rates. Nor should that always be your goal—quality care justifies fair premiums. But armed with Fair Cost Gap calculations and Affordability Band context, you can have informed, confident conversations that often result in savings of £10,000-£18,000 annually.
That's money that could:
The data exists. The methodology is sound. The only question is: will you use it?
Remember: Care homes negotiate with councils using MSIF data every year. There's nothing inappropriate about families doing the same. It's not about being difficult—it's about being informed.
This guide provides educational information about care home fee negotiation using government MSIF data. Individual circumstances vary. For personalized advice, consult a specialist care funding advisor. MSIF rates are published annually by the UK government and are publicly available. All rates cited reflect 2025-26 data and should be verified for current year.