No need to pay care home costs

trevs707

A great deal of people feel intimidated by the NHS, PCT and Social Services, or just feel embarrassed about talking about the issue of money in relation to Care Home costs. However, you MUST look at these sites if you are/or know of/ someone who is currently paying for, or has been told they will have to pay for Care Home costs.

Please just take the time to look and pass these links to anyone you know will benefit from them. I have been completely stunned by what is happening behind our backs at a time our relatives need the help and support they have already paid for.

http://www.continuingcarecampaign.info

http://www.gpss.force9.co.uk/nhscare/

Martin - It would be good if you could support this in some way in order to bring more focus on it within the public domain.

saving_pennies

If a person goes through social services they assess how much a person has to contribute towards care. It is worth knowing that if the person is not able to contribute the amount asked, the care identified by social services still has to be provided as they have a duty of care. Obviously the amount they owe will build into a debt. I'm in this situation at the moment (in relation to care at home) although I'm appealing the amount they want me to contribute. I've discovered that managers have can apply discretion in cases where there is genuine difficult meeting payments.

kurgon

CHC )continuing health care) is not that simple. It's a matter of an assessed primary health need. and cannot be applioed retrospectively. If you have someone already in a care home, then you would not be able to apply for CHC in this area but may be able to apply for funded nursing care. An absolute minefield as many who have been involved with it will know.

trevs707

In terms of the two replies above - With all due respect, I am not sure you have read the material on the links that I have provided.

The bottom line is what both the NHS and Social Services are doing is unlawful as judged by the Appeal Courts. The seriousness of this situation shouldn't be diluted because individual's have bought into the process that has been imposed by the DoH with the introduction of a definition between "Primary Health Needs" & "Social Needs".

The situation is clearly summarised by the Law Society in their Evidence to the House of Commons Select Health Committee Inquiry into NHS Continuing Care. "The judgment in Coughlan clearly establishes that where a person's primary need is for health care, and that is why they are placed in nursing home accommodation, the NHS is responsible for the full cost of the package."


You really should read the material within the links I have provided. Other relatives I have spoken to on the ward have responded in a similar way to saving_pennies & kurgon and trust that the NHS and Social Services must know what they are doing and therefore comply without challenging them.

monkeyspanner

kurgon wrote: »

CHC )continuing health care) is not that simple. It's a matter of an assessed primary health need. and cannot be applioed retrospectively. If you have someone already in a care home, then you would not be able to apply for CHC in this area but may be able to apply for funded nursing care. An absolute minefield as many who have been involved with it will know.

Sorry to contradict you but assuming you are in England you can obtain retrospective CHC funding and if your health needs are sufficient you can obtain CHC funding wherever you reside including a care home. We did both for my MIL.

kurgon

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Sorry to contradict you but assuming you are in England you can obtain retrospective CHC funding and if your health needs are sufficient you can obtain CHC funding wherever you reside including a care home. We did both for my MIL.

Then you were an exception - read the DoH guidance that clearly states this is the case.

trevs707

kurgon wrote: »

Then you were an exception - read the DoH guidance that clearly states this is the case.

For ease of reference is there any chance you can point to the paragraph in “The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care” July 2009 (revised) which all SHA’s & PCT’s have a remit to adopt?

ianua1

saving_pennies wrote: »

If a person goes through social services they assess how much a person has to contribute towards care. It is worth knowing that if the person is not able to contribute the amount asked, the care identified by social services still has to be provided as they have a duty of care. Obviously the amount they owe will build into a debt. I'm in this situation at the moment (in relation to care at home) although I'm appealing the amount they want me to contribute. I've discovered that managers have can apply discretion in cases where there is genuine difficult meeting payments.

If the person has a health need they are nothing to do with social services. Social Services cannot supply any care which is above 'ancilliary and incidental'. Anyone with a health need in the UK is the responsibility of the NHS under the NHS Act 1946. Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Appeal's Court Coughlan Judgment state what the Local Authorities have a duty of care to lawfully provide. Anything else including forcing people to sell their homes and use their life savings is unlawful.

ianua1

trevs707 wrote: »

For ease of reference is there any chance you can point to the paragraph in “The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care” July 2009 (revised) which all SHA’s & PCT’s have a remit to adopt?

The framework is a guideline not law. Also, NHSCC is a concept phrase introduced by the NHS to make people qualify for what they are entitled to under the Health Act. Every British citizen with a health need is entitled to free care at the point of delivery. Also, the criteria by which people are assesed for NHSCC was found to be 'fatally flawed' in the Grogan Case of 2006.

ianua1

kurgon wrote: »

CHC )continuing health care) is not that simple. It's a matter of an assessed primary health need. and cannot be applioed retrospectively. If you have someone already in a care home, then you would not be able to apply for CHC in this area but may be able to apply for funded nursing care. An absolute minefield as many who have been involved with it will know.

The phrase 'Primary Health Need' is a phrase introduced by the NHS in reply to the Coughlan Judgment where Lord Woolf's said, "Here the needs of Miss Coughlan and her fellow occupants (of her Exeter care home) were primarily health needs for which the Health Authority is as a matter of law responsible" . The term is not mentioned in the Health Act and so has no basis in law.

ianua1

trevs707 wrote: »

In terms of the two replies above - With all due respect, I am not sure you have read the material on the links that I have provided.

The bottom line is what both the NHS and Social Services are doing is unlawful as judged by the Appeal Courts. The seriousness of this situation shouldn't be diluted because individual's have bought into the process that has been imposed by the DoH with the introduction of a definition between "Primary Health Needs" & "Social Needs".

The situation is clearly summarised by the Law Society in their Evidence to the House of Commons Select Health Committee Inquiry into NHS Continuing Care."The judgment in Coughlan clearly establishes that where a person's primary need is for health care, and that is why they are placed in nursing home accommodation, the NHS is responsible for the full cost of the package."


You really should read the material within the links I have provided. Other relatives I have spoken to on the ward have responded in a similar way to saving_pennies & kurgon and trust that the NHS and Social Services must know what they are doing and therefore comply without challenging them.

Good post. I totally agree.