Back

Benefit take-up in the last year of life: a population-based study using linked data for England and Wales

Davies, J. M.; Fairs, A.; Ayoubkhani, D.; Marshall, S.; Diggle, M.; Bradshaw, A.; French, M.; Stone, J.; Hussain, J.; Fimister, G.; Harding, R.; Sleeman, K.; Nafilyan, V.

2026-04-11 palliative medicine
10.64898/2026.04.10.26350614 medRxiv
Show abstract

Context: In the UK, and in other countries, people living with a terminal illness are eligible for financial support to help with the costs of serious illness and to support their dignity and independence. This study investigates the take-up of benefits in the last year of life and identifies sociodemographic, clinical, and geographical factors associated with underclaiming. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using linked mortality, Census and benefits data for all people who died aged 16+ from chronic illnesses in England and Wales between 1 May 2018 and 30 April 2021. Outcome was receipt of non-means tested disability benefits in the last 12 months of life. We describe geographical variation in take up, and association with sociodemographic, clinical and geographical exposures using Poisson models. Findings: Our population included 1,049,493 eligible decedents, with an overall take-up rate of 65.9%. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, variation in take-up by cause of death was wide: liver disease 44% (95% CI 43, 45%), heart failure 52% (51, 52%), cancer 62% (61, 62%), dementia 75% (74, 75%), and neurodegenerative diseases 90% (88, 91%). Across Local Authorities, the age-and-sex-standardised take-up varied from 53% to 78%; rates were generally higher in more deprived areas, but not uniformly. Conclusions: In England and Wales, 1 in 3 people who die from expected causes (120,000 each year) do not receive the benefits for which they are eligible. Our analysis uses novel data linkages and highlights clinical and sociodemographic groups and geographical areas that could be targeted with proactive take-up initiatives.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.1%
2
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.0%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.1%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
7
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
8
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
11
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
14
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
17
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
18
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%