[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread - Page 9 - Carers UK Forum

Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
179 posts
Stand easy all !

Various reports around ... end of May ( No ... wishful thinking ? ) at the very earliest !

Chance now for Carers UK to canvas views from it's members BEFORE we are faced with the result ???

( A few thousand out of 7.8 MILLION is better than nothing at all ??? )

11 years ago ... we had this one :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... reak-36397

... and all of us have been paying the price since then !!!

Their c.e.o. due on the forum on the 25 April.

( Perhaps even our Lord Kitch ... " There yer go ... sort that lot out ! ... and don't spare the horses ! " ... ??? )

No one should face poverty through having to care !!!

Perhaps a NEW policy for ALL of us to back to the hilt ... if only ???

( For once , a policy that NO ONE on this forum would argue against ... also will re-engage half the carer army out there ! )
End of May? Which year? ;)
Details delay social care green paper
The latest deadline to be missed was at the end of March, after Hancock had told parliament that he intended to publish it before April. This was the fifth missed deadline, others include: summer 2017, end of 2017, summer 2018, autumn 2018.
“It was a weird meeting – we were being urged to be as supportive as we could, which was strange because we didn’t know much about the detail,”
full article on the link below
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/20 ... reen-paper

Health funding scandal: Millions lose homes to pay for care.

MORE than a million homes have been sold by desperate families forced to pay care bills for loved ones, and many cases should have been funded by the NHS.

The chaotic Continuing Health Care (CHC) system has seen families take out loans and spend their savings while their claims sit in limbo for up to five years.

Authorities have been accused of keeping funding options secret to save on soaring nursing costs for the elderly even though they are liable. They are often ordered to pay back years of fees plus interest running into millions. Age UK says the complaints caught in NHS bureaucracy runs to an "industrial scale" and thousands of relatives believe health officials deliberately make it difficult for them to claim under the scheme.

Pensioners qualify for nursing care and accommodation if they are judged to have clear medical needs.

But campaigners say assessments are often not carried out under national guidelines and families are not told about their rights.

"It is a scandal - authorities are taking advantage of people who do not know the system and cannot fight huge layers of bureaucracy," says Keith Mulcahy, who was told his mother Patricia, 80, who had vascular dementia, suffered multiple strokes, needed oxygen, couldn't speak, feed herself or move, had no medical needs to qualify for full funding.

Her local authority also dismissed a claim for fast-track care, designed for end of life, because she was deemed not likely to die within three months; she died three weeks after the rejection.

"This is a woman who was a nurse, brought up a family, paid her taxes yet they tried everything they could to avoid their responsibilities," says Keith, a decorator, from Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire. "It is disgraceful."

His MP, Conservative Craig Whittaker, has joined Age UK and other MPs calling for reform to a system branded 'complex and corrupt'.

An estimated one million homes have been sold by pensioners to fund care while another two million have had to use their savings, a specialist firm of lawyers claims.

By 2040 one in seven people will be over 70. CHC liabilities rose from £134million in 2011/ 12 to £764million in 2012/13 and continue to climb.

"There are many distressing cases," says Jonathan Dwek, of solicitors Farley Dwek. "Some people are selling their parents' homes when there was no need to had they been properly assessed.

A lot of assessments are incorrect but, if you are fighting the NHS machine, you have an uphill struggle. People due this free package are not being told and they are having to fight for it."

The system is so underresourced some cases take five years before assessment. Donna Cleverley's grandmother, Ethel Angus, died in March 2014. The case to reclaim £50,000 fees will be judged in the next month.

"The system needs reform because families are put through the mill," says Mr Dwek. "Some cases take seven years to resolve and that is people who parted with money a long time ago and the interest is phenomenal.

“Why should the public pay if the NHS can't get its act together?"

The Government came under fire last year for suggesting the elderly pay more for care. NHS head Simon Stevens said retired Britons had £1.5trillion in "accumulated housing wealth" which should be used for care bills rather than taxes being raised.

Donna, 49, from Coventry says her grandmother's right to funding only emerged after a care home worker tip-off. "We just assumed we had to pay the fees," she says.

"She had dementia and was in the home more than two years and died just before her 100th birthday. We were paying £2,700 a month when she should have been covered because she needed nursing not residential care.

It's appalling, the home was quick enough to phone or write if we were late with a payment."

Age UK charity director Caroline Abrahams says: "NHS Continuing Health Care is a lifeline. However, the way you access it is incredibly complex with families embroiled in bureaucracy.

"An older person has to be in very poor health for CHC and it is tragic when families have to fight to get care rather than being able to be there with and for their loved one."


Patricia mulcahy was still driving and helping neighbours with their gardens in Halifax when she started having falls and became forgetful. She was taken into Huddersfield Royal Infirmary but her condition deteriorated at a rapid rate.

As son Keith, 56, worried about her health an insidious problem was about to blight his final moments with his 80-year-old mother. Amid the efforts to stabilise her condition, Keith was regularly asked about her finances and if she was a homeowner.

"I didn't understand at first but it was repeated time and time again. I must have been asked directly seven or more times," he says.

"It was tough watching my mum deteriorate. She was very kind, always helping others and had a great sense of humour but all that was slipping away."

After 11 weeks, Patricia was diagnosed with vascular dementia, suffered multiple strokes, was treated for pneumonia and became doubly incontinent. She couldn't move, feed herself or speak.

"They said she had no primary care needs and had just social needs which was surprising," adds Keith, who researched NHS Continuing Health Care regulations and case histories.

"I was increasingly concerned with how the health authorities were dealing with her while they were badgering me about money. In one meeting they denied my mother needed oxygen but when we went back to the ward she was on a breathing mask."

Patricia was sent to a care home but rapidly returned to hospital after the managers said they could not provide the necessary care. Keith and his partner Ellie attended a meeting with eight hospital staff where his claim for funding was dismissed.

"These meetings intimidate people.They arrive with files and folders and it basically bamboozles ordinary people," he says.

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS FoundationTrust is investigating the case. NHS Calderdale Clinical Commissioning Group says it will investigate his concerns.


It is time that the Government took a long, hard look at how we care for the elderly because it hasn't got it right and it is causing a lot of anxiety.

I was a nurse for 20 years with 14 spent in continuing healthcare and prior to that worked for 10 years as a carer and auxiliary nurse in hospitals and care homes, so I have seen where it works well and where it is fractured.

One of the main issues is a lack of consistency in how the rules are applied and that causes confusion. There are a lot of differences across the country even though there have been attempts to get everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

Reforming the system would make it easier for staff to make accurate assessments and to ensure more people got what they are entitled to.

I now work as an independent assessor for claims companies, some clinical commissioning groups and individuals fighting for their rights, and I have seen and heard about cases that seem very unfair but no one in healthcare wants that to happen, so it would be good to improve the system for everyone.

It all relates to how we care for the elderly as a society. In Scotland, this care is funded by the state, it is in the budget, but the NHS is still adrift in finding a solution for people who deserve support and dignity in their older years.

The impact of these cases is not just felt by the families, because care homes are closing at an alarming rate, partly because they don't get these funded patients.

It is terrible when families are forced to fight but it is part of a wider issue that needs sorting out.

Healthcare staff, patients and their families all deserve better.
Tom Richmond ... Yorkie Post :

Bed bound with a broken hip and cancer but will deemed well enough to go home.

My experience of elderly social care in the UK.

THERE are now 71,398 new reasons why the Government’s inaction over social care is as scandalous, and damaging, as its mishandling of Brexit. This is the number of frail NHS patients – invariably elderly – who required emergency readmission to hospital last year within 24 hours of their release.

A figure which equates to the average number of voters in each Parliamentary constituency, this represents a 30 per cent increase over five years and the knock-on effect is longer delays for routine surgery – or A&E treatment.

And the disturbing data from Healthwatch, a watchdog chaired by Sir Robert Francis who headed the inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal, also excludes the 484,609 patients rushed back to hospital last year within a month of their original discharge.

This does not surprise me. Two weeks ago, a ‘ward manager type’ at a leading hospital – previously lauded by Theresa May for its excellence – suggested to an elderly relative of mine that they were well enough to be allowed home, even though they were still bed-bound from hip surgery and cancer treatment.

This was without any assessment of their care needs at home. A fortnight later and it has now required the medical intervention of a consultant to ensure my relative’s physical health – and recovery – is not put at undue risk by such haste.

My relation and others concerned are most definitely not ‘bed-blockers’ – the disparaging term applied to such cases – and the care and compassion of most hospital staff is humbling. It is not their fault that their wards are so short-staffed, even more so at weekends when they can struggle to find time to wash patients, or that social care provision is even more unpredictable than Brexit.

But I think it is reprehensible that Labour’s near-silence has been totally eclipsed by the Government’s scandalous non-silence and the indifference shown by all those single issue Brexit ideologues plotting to succeed Mrs May.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not recall the likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab, or their hard line Brexiteer allies like Sir Bill Cash and Mark Francois, even talking about social care since that misleading advert on the side of a bus in the 2016 EU referendum about NHS funding.

Even Matt Hancock, the underwhelming Health and Social Care Secretary, and another leadership aspirant with a very inflated opinion of his capabilities, has next to little to say – despite this issue being part of his brief.

Though he announced an extra £240m in his speech to the Tory party conference last October, in addition to the surcharges now levied routinely on local authority council tax bills, Mr Hancock limited his comments to just this: “We need to make sure that money’s well spent, by reforming the NHS and social care system too…”

The excuse was that a Green Paper on future funding – and provision – of social care was imminent. Yet, six months later, this announcement is still pending and almost as overdue as failing Transport Secretary Chris Grayling’s resignation.

A Department of Health spokesperson says it is a matter for Mr Hancock’s office while the latter, when I called out of personal curiosity and professional cussedness, referred me to 10 Downing Street who, in turn, suggested it was a DoH matter. In short, no one had a clue.

All this while the elderly, people who deserve better in their hour of need, pay the price for the prevailing political inaction and inertia as Mr Hancock prepares to further his leadership bid by delivering a speech to the TaxPayers’ Alliance on the potential for “embracing technology in health and social care” – he is so obsessed with digital gadgets that he believes they are the answer to everything.

It should not be like this. As far as I’m concerned, any candidacy for the Tory – or Labour – leadership is invalidated without a clear, coherent and costed social care plan as a pre-condition of the individual’s policy prospectus for power.

This should include expanding recovery care in community hospitals; extra support for home adaptions so the frail do not put their safety at undue risk and sufficient residential facilities for those with long-term care needs.

All consequences of an ageing society, they are all issues that preceded the start of the Brexit debate and will exist long after Britain’s future relationship with the European Union has been reconciled.

But this can’t happen until the Brexit wing of the now dysfunctional Tory party, and others, recognise that this country cannot shut its doors to outsiders if the NHS is to have sufficient staff from the EU – and elsewhere – to function.

If they cared to visit a hospital, they would also see the angst of highly-skilled doctors, nurses and support staff from around the world who do not know, as the political debate becomes more toxic, if they’re still welcome in a country that they would like to call home. It’s embarrassing to witness this.

It is another reason – to add to the 71,398 cases previously cited – why I believe the failure to act on social care is now the more damaging to Britain’s future than Brexit. And that’s saying something.
Fewer than one in four homeowners saving for future care – survey.

Government should provide free personal care for everyone, charity recommends in report.

Fewer than one in four homeowners are saving for their future care needs, despite more than half fearing they could lose their homes to pay for care in later life, research has found.

A survey commissioned by the Independent Age charity found more than 143,000 older people – more than one-third of the 421,000 currently in residential care – are likely to face costs of £100,000 or more to pay for their care. Such costs have been described as “catastrophic”.

In recent years, the government has proposed introducing a cap to prevent people from having to pay such amounts. However, separate research by Grant Thornton UK LLP, also commissioned by Independent Age, has revealed a cap would fail the majority of older people in care homes.

Instead, in its report, the charity has called on the government to introduce free personal care for everyone.

“Simply put, no one would pay for their care, avoiding up to hundreds of thousands in charges,” said George McNamara, the director of policy and influencing at Independent Age. “Free personal care could be introduced at a similar cost to the government to a cap on care costs.

“It would remove the unfairness in our health and social care systems, whereby someone who has a long-term health condition like cancer gets all of their treatment for free, while someone who develops dementia will be subject to a means test and may end up spending huge amounts on care for the remainder of their life.”

Free personal care would eliminate costs for people receiving care at home. For those in residential settings, it would reduce costs by more than one-third – leaving them to pay non-care related costs including bed, board and lodging.

The government’s proposal of a cap on care costs, which is expected to feature in the much-awaited social care green paper, has been widely speculated about. The research showed that if the proposed cap were set too high, many older people in residential care would not live long enough to reach it – the average length of stay in a care home is 22 months.

In addition, most of the proposed caps take no account of “hotel costs” – the non-care related costs of being in care, including food and lodging, which can exceed £100,000 for a lengthy stay in a care home.

However, other experts are cautious about free personal care. Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director, said: “A cap on care costs would only help a small minority of older people … Free personal care sounds great and there are some suggestions it would cost little more than a cap, but we’re not currently convinced it’s really as good as it looks.

“It would not, for example, help tackle the chronic labour shortage, nor in and of itself improve the quality and sustainability of the care on offer.

“A wide range of reforms is probably what’s required, included a national scheme which allows us to pool our risk of needing care so no one has to live in fear of sky-high care bills.”

Claire Turner, a director of evidence at the Centre for Ageing Better, said: “In addition to delivering a properly funded and effective social care system, the government should consider legislating for flexible, paid carers’ leave and give carers a right to return to the same job.”

The Department of Health and Social Care said: “We introduced landmark reforms to prevent people from being forced to sell their homes to pay for their own care and have given local authorities access to up to £3.9bn more dedicated funding for adult social care this year, with a further £410m available for adults and children’s services.

“We will set out our plans to reform the social care system at the earliest opportunity to ensure it is sustainable for the future.”

Pleased to see that someone at the Guardian reads my posts !!!
.... and the next turn , please !

Labour lays out plans for social care reform ahead of local elections.

Party pledges home help for 160,000 more elderly people as well as £350m for training.

Labour would provide home help to 160,000 more older people to support them with tasks like dressing, bathing and preparing meals under new plans for overhauling social care, the party said.

Ahead of the local elections, Labour said it would increase the number of home care packages available, with at least 50,000 going to those with dementia.

The party set out its commitments to improving elderly care on Friday after promising at the 2017 general election to spend £8bn over the lifetime of a parliament on improving the lives of older people.

Barbara Keeley, the shadow minister for mental health, said: “This Tory government has shamefully abandoned older people and young adults with care needs.

“There is still no sign of their social care green paper which was promised over two years ago, and vulnerable older people have needlessly suffered as a result of the government’s failure.

“People with dementia are unfairly punished when it comes to paying for their care needs so Labour will correct this injustice in government.

“We want care staff to be properly paid and trained, so that they can provide the kind of compassionate care that they want to give.”

Its proposals also include £350m towards training to develop the social care workforce, raising the earnings threshold for carers’ allowance year on year in line with the national living wage and £350m per year to help people with autism and learning disabilities move back into the community from inappropriate inpatient units.

( Had to laugh ... earnings limit first needs to be DOUBLED before indexing !!! )

The announcement is one of a series of policy proposals released by Labour in the last week, including spending £1.3bn a year to reverse recent cuts to local bus services as a means of boosting communities and helping the environment.

Labour turned its attention to social care on Friday two years after the general election at which Theresa May announced a deeply unpopular policy to make people contribute more to their care costs out of the value of their home – which was dubbed a “dementia tax” by its critics.

Its announcement comes as the Kings Fund thinktank warned that the social care system in England is at “crisis point”, with more people requesting care but fewer receiving it.

The study found a 2% rise in new requests for adult social care since 2015-16 but that fewer people are receiving care, with almost 13,000 fewer granted help over the same period.

Local council spending on social care has dropped in real terms and is now £700m below what it was in 2010-11.

Simon Bottery, senior fellow at the King’s Fund and lead author of the report, said: “This report shows that increasing need among working-age adults, an increasing older population and high levels of existing unmet need are combining to put immense pressure on our care and support system, now and for the future.

“Yet there is little evidence that the government understands or is willing to act on these trends despite the impact on older and disabled people, their families and carers.

“The social care green paper, which still has no release date over two years after it was announced, is an opportunity to set out the fundamental reform we desperately need. But while the green paper is delayed, the government must focus on what it can do to support people now.

“Putting more money into the system in this autumn’s spending review would help people to get the help they need while longer-term reform takes effect.”

In the kingdom of the blind , the one eyed man is king.

In social care , where do we find the one eyed man ???
The madness continues ... :

Damian Green suggests modelling social care provision on state pension.

Proposals including fuel allowance tax and surcharges labelled " A tax on getting old " by opposition.

Social care provision should be modelled on the state pension, with taxpayers funding a flat-rate “universal care entitlement”, which patients could supplement from their own funds, according to former Conservative cabinet minister Damian Green.

In a report published by free market thinktank the Centre for Policy Studies, Green argues that current social care provision is patchy and inadequate, and the government should be spending an additional £2.5bn on it each year.

In order to fund the more generous state provision, Green suggests taxing the winter fuel allowance and redirecting any savings made in the forthcoming spending review.

As a “last resort”, he says, the over-50s might be asked to pay a 1% national insurance surcharge, “in exchange for a guarantee that their personal finances will not be exhausted by the costs of social care, and that they will be looked after whatever their condition”.

Green said the proposals would “put social care on a solid footing in this country”, and would model the state pension system in being simple to grasp and fair.

Labour immediately seized on the proposal for a national insurance surcharge, with the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, calling it “a tax on getting old”.

“After nearly a decade of brutal cuts to social care, the Tories now want to make older people pay through increased taxes.

“We want to hear today a clear statement from the government that they will reject this call, protect the triple lock, and follow Labour’s call to fund social care properly,” he said.

However, Green argued the funding boost would allow Whitehall to provide a universal, flat-rate entitlement, of perhaps £2,000 a month for residential care, or £2,500 a month for nursing care for example.

He suggested the funds could be paid directly by government to an approved care home chosen by the patient and their family, after a needs assessment by the local authority.

Under the plans, some patients could also buy an insurance-style “care supplement”, to fund a higher standard of provision, perhaps by releasing part of the value of their property.

Social care funding has become an increasingly toxic political issue. Campaign group Age UK estimates that total public spending on social care has declined by £160m over the last five years despite rising demand; and 1.2 million of over-65s are missing out on the help they need.

The chancellor has repeatedly been forced to set aside extra funding to relieve the intense short-term pressures on local authorities, which have responsibility for meeting patients’ needs.

But the government has repeatedly delayed publishing a long-promised green paper on a new long-term funding model, fearing a backlash such as that following the announcement in the party’s 2017 general election manifesto of what became known as the “dementia tax”.

Theresa May’s insistence that “nothing has changed”, after the Conservatives hastily announced that there would be a cap on care costs, became one of the defining moments of a disastrous campaign.

After the election, Green, who was then work and pensions secretary, was initially meant to be overseeing the green paper, and his intervention is being awaited with interest in government.

A close ally of May for many years, he was sacked as first secretary of state in December 2017, after admitting he lied about the presence of pornographic images on his House of Commons computer, following an investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment.

A Department for Health spokesperson said the green paper on social care would be published “at the earliest opportunity”.

The NHS ... NOT based on the ability to pay ... although some pay more than others through general taxation.


That cancer patient with dementia again ... the Schrödinger's cat conundrum yet again ???

However, Green argued the funding boost would allow Whitehall to provide a universal, flat-rate entitlement, of perhaps £2,000 a month for residential care, or £2,500 a month for nursing care for example.
What planet do they live on..... I realise the £2000 a month he uses is only a 'suggestion', but it wouldn't cover the weekly costs in the North East. Will post code lottery come in to play once again for those that live for example in London and places that are more expensive.

Any insurance comes with terms and conditions, and in many cases are 'loaded' policies due to ill health/disability. Premiums can be increased if someone classed as having a dangerous occupation.

Once again it will be obscene profits made by companies and little money getting through on the ground.

Health secretary Matt Hancock has said the social care green paper will look at shifting people away from care homes to domiciliary care because “more people go into residential care than is clinically justified”.
read in full here
https://www.carehome.co.uk/news/article ... care-homes

More pressure placed on family carers?? There are a variety of reasons why some people need residential/nursing homes.

179 posts