Breakthrough on care funding

EdInvestor

This is a very welcome move :T

Elderly people are to be given money to pay for their own care in a move being hailed as one of the most radical welfare reforms in a generation. They will have the right to decide how and where they spend the cash, instead of social workers dictating what help they need to live in their own homes. Personal budgets will also be set up for younger disabled people frustrated by their lack of choice.
Under the system, being rolled out from next April, older people or their chosen relatives will set up bank accounts into which councils will pay a monthly sum. Beneficiaries will receive the cash after means tests taking account of their health and personal needs. They will then be able to shop around for the best packages of care, and, for instance, may decide to spend more on cleaners, or help with food.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/dec/09/longtermcare

Biggles

Is it new? I'm rather unclear how this differs from Direct Payments, which is an option that's been around for years and seemed to do much the same thing.

balmaiden

It sounds good doesn't it?
Having worked with the elderly for many years during my working life, I see this not as a good thing at all. Many of todays pensioners have lived through times of great hardship and have little in the way of savings. Some will view this money as "theirs" and it will be either saved or given to family. Believe you me I know,as I saw this happen time and time again, as pensioners in our area started to recieve Direct Payments, as mentioned in the above post.

I saw clients, who previously really enjoyed their "free" i.e funded day care, refuse point blank when they were asked to pay the £15 per day fee from their Direct Payment. No they would rather stay at home and keep the money. The £15 covered transport to the centre, a hot well cooked lunch,as much tea as they could drink, entertainment,advice and information and above all, companionship. I have also known them to cancel cleaners and meals on wheels, because they are considered to be too expensive when they had to be paid for.

The answer to me is straight forward enough, free day care, meals on wheels and cleaners for all who need/fit the criteria.

By giving these payments direct to the client the council are fulfilling there obligation of care to the elderly and saving themselves money to boot.

After all it is not their fault if the frail forgetful 90 year old starves to death in her own home not seen or visited for several days. She had the money in the bank if she needed it, didn't she?

As I say it does sound good and had I not winessed things at first hand I too would have applauded this idea

EdInvestor

balmaiden wrote: »

Many of todays pensioners have lived through times of great hardship and have little in the way of savings. Some will view this money as "theirs" and it will be either saved or given to family.

Why would this be a bad thing (especially if family was providing care)?

I saw clients, who previously really enjoyed their "free" i.e funded day care, refuse point blank when they were asked to pay the £15 per day fee from their Direct Payment. No they would rather stay at home and keep the money. The £15 covered transport to the centre, a hot well cooked lunch,as much tea as they could drink, entertainment,advice and information and above all, companionship.

Frankly, faced with this choice I would say exactly the same and especially if I was poor and every penny counted.There may be plenty betters ways to spend 15 quid.

I have also known them to cancel cleaners and meals on wheels, because they are considered to be too expensive when they had to be paid for.

And perhaps they were?Meals on wheels for instance has a poor reputation.Private sector caterers appear better.

The answer to me is straight forward enough, free day care, meals on wheels and cleaners for all who need/fit the criteria.

Sorry but IMHO this is very old fashioned institutional type thinking, out of touch with the modern world.

By giving these payments direct to the client the council are fulfilling there obligation of care to the elderly and saving themselves money to boot.

Is this not a good thing? Counciul taxpayers (including elderly ones) will cheer.

After all it is not their fault if the frail forgetful 90 year old starves to death in her own home not seen or visited for several days.

Are you expecting the entire social services department to be made redundant?

monkeyspanner

Sounds good but have to agree if it is anything like direct payments it will be difficult for the end user. Direct payments in Devon required the user to have a separate bank account just for care receipts and payments and to present quarterly accounts to DCC. The accounts were way beyond my MIL ability which meant having an enduring power of attorney and us doing the accounts and supervisimg the bank account.

Direct payments was presented as a choice to my MIL when DCC decided to take a lower tender offer for care services. My MIL simply did not understand that by exercising her 'choice' she would end up doubling her weekly contribution. Why? because DCC were only making direct payments up to the level of the new tender hourly rate so staying with the old provider left a shortfall in addition to her weekly assessed contribution.

The end result was my MIL would cancel the service from time to time particularly on Bank Holidays when a double time charge was made. Not just double time on the horly rate paid to the carers but double the total hourly rate. This enabled her to keep her contribution down but obviously she wasn't getting the level of service she had previously enjoyed.

The best part of this would be to keep the 'care manager' out of the situation.

EdInvestor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3023164.ece

Sunday Times version

Biggles

I'm still unclear as to what exactly is 'new', as my mother had the option of Direct Payments about three years ago.

But it looked then - and looks now - like a bright idea on behalf of a politician who can see savings to be made by passing the administrative work down to those least able to do it, the elderly & disabled, but who would have to do it for free.

I particularly like "Ministers believe the risks of abuse ..... are outweighed by the benefits of putting people in charge of their own affairs." I think they mean putting people in charge of their affairs!

Bogof_Babe

This will still be means tested will it? So no change there for the thrifty who have what is considered "too much money" to qualify for free care.

seven-day-weekend

balmaiden wrote: »

It sounds good doesn't it?
Having worked with the elderly for many years during my working life, I see this not as a good thing at all. Many of todays pensioners have lived through times of great hardship and have little in the way of savings. Some will view this money as "theirs" and it will be either saved or given to family. Believe you me I know,as I saw this happen time and time again, as pensioners in our area started to recieve Direct Payments, as mentioned in the above post.

I saw clients, who previously really enjoyed their "free" i.e funded day care, refuse point blank when they were asked to pay the £15 per day fee from their Direct Payment. No they would rather stay at home and keep the money. The £15 covered transport to the centre, a hot well cooked lunch,as much tea as they could drink, entertainment,advice and information and above all, companionship. I have also known them to cancel cleaners and meals on wheels, because they are considered to be too expensive when they had to be paid for.

The answer to me is straight forward enough, free day care, meals on wheels and cleaners for all who need/fit the criteria.

By giving these payments direct to the client the council are fulfilling there obligation of care to the elderly and saving themselves money to boot.

After all it is not their fault if the frail forgetful 90 year old starves to death in her own home not seen or visited for several days. She had the money in the bank if she needed it, didn't she?

As I say it does sound good and had I not winessed things at first hand I too would have applauded this idea

But isn't the idea of this so that they can exercise choice?

I for one, if I needed assistance, would rather pay for a companion to take me for a pub luch than go to a day centre (hasten to add I'm only 57 at the moment!). Why should an elderly person have that choice removed?

Providing the frail 90-year-old is still looked after I think it's a good idea.

EdInvestor

As I understand the current system, there are designated care provider companies .The SS department decides on a care budget for an individual based on what they think people need and then signs up one of the companies to provide it.

Under the direct payment system, you can have more control over which company or individual provides the care.The new system might take this a bit further by just paying the amount you are entitled to for care into your account and then you get to spend it as and when (and on whatever) you like.

Rather like an expanded Attendance Allowance.

Biggles

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But isn't the idea of this so that they can exercise choice?

I for one, if I needed assistance, would rather pay for a companion to take me for a pub luch than go to a day centre (hasten to add I'm only 57 at the moment!). Why should an elderly person have that choice removed?

Providing the frail 90-year-old is still looked after I think it's a good idea.

Sure, as long as he is looked after.

I think the extrapolation of Balmaiden's point is that some 90-year-olds will keep the money and begrudge spending a penny on food or care.