Breakthrough on care funding

EdInvestor

BBC catches up

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7135552.stm

The money will be initially means tested, but then the cash will be transferred to the person's account to be spent as they see fit.

The idea is it will promote more competition and lower prices from care providers if the real customer is in control rather than a bureaucrat.

It seems that at the moment 60% of the social services budget is spent on care home costs, which as we know are outrageously high. Putting the spending power in the hands of the actual consumer and his/her family, as opposed to a council social worker, could help a lot to get prices down.

Robin_T_Cox

Sounds to me like more government spin, in order to make the scheme more palatable.

Why should the elderly have to 'shop around' for care?

What is the reality of competition in the care provision market place? Will not the companies involved simply avoid outpricing each other in order to reduce their costs?

What percentage of the funds provided for such care will eventually find themselves in the pockets of the shareholders of the care provision companies?

Finally, what savings do we actually expect to see to the taxpayer?

The funding of elderly care is little enough, without it being salami sliced in order to give it to those who do not need the money.

balmaiden

I am sorry if my post seemed "old fashioned" to you Ed. It is based on what I saw happen.
Of course you and I and lots of others would prefer to shop around for our own care if it were so needed. We are able to do so. A lot of older people are confused by what is on offer and sometimes simply cannot be bothered to sort it all out. Life itself is simply tiring enough, without having to sort out and pay for your own care. This perhaps is where family can help and of course there are many families up and down the land that help and care for their elderly loved ones and yes, they do deserve to be paid for their care. By the same token there are many families who think nothing of taking what they can from there elderly family members. This is again, something I have seen many times.
The day care I mentioned costing £15 was and is offered to the elderly frail members of our community. These are people who through either poor mobility,sight or memory problems are unable to leave their homes without assistance be that being guided with a helping arm or wheelchair help. Perhaps some of you saw the story in the newspapers recently of the elderly lady released from hospital, sent home in a taxi and the taxi driver abandoned her outside of her sheltered housing as he wasn't "allowed" to go into her home with her. She was found by her daughter 2 hours later!! This is sad but true of the ridiculous culture we live in. So the elderly vunerable cannot use taxis. So if they can't use taxis and they have no families nearby what do they do if they do not use a day centre? They stay at home of course.

In looking at this try and put yourself a little further down the line when perhaps you may have any number of health problems and not view it as you feel now. That is the point I am trying to make, as we age we become more vunerable in many ways. We may think that we are always going to be as capable as we are now but sadly that is not always the case.

EdInvestor

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2224965,00.html

With the freedom of personal budgets, people have chosen to employ their own care assistants, join local clubs rather than attend day centres and go to hotels or on package breaks, rather than to residential homes, for respite care.

Ministers are braced for controversy over some such choices as the scheme expands.

Clearly they are not wrong.:D Of course there is the possibility that quite a bit of this money will be spent on providers outside the "care industry".So no doubt people in the industry will oppose the move as it might affect profits, jobs etc.

But one gets the impression the plan is to run a 2 tier system so that those who want or need it can still have the social worker set things up and manage the care, while those who are able to manage independently can DIY.

If it brings down the costs and encourages more competition, that will help a lot: why should simple personal care cost 15 pounds an hour? For that matter why should self funders pay so much more in care homes than the council?The economics of the current system are very distorted, because there is no direct connection between the supplier and the consumer.

Perhaps some of you saw the story in the newspapers recently of the elderly lady released from hospital, sent home in a taxi and the taxi driver abandoned her outside of her sheltered housing as he wasn't "allowed" to go into her home with her. She was found by her daughter 2 hours later!!

I did notice that., but I rather thought she had been "abandoned" in the lobby of the block,rather than in the street. Had she perhaps lost her keys? In any case, if she was being brought home from hospital (rather than a day out) one might perhaps wonder why the daughter had not arrived a bit earlier..

Farway

I'm with those who think this scheme is nothing new, and will result in many cases of neglect, due to the vulnerable just not understanding implications or ability to find someone to care for them

It may also depend where you live on the choice you have, no doubt large urban areas will be OK, but those in rural areas will have additional fees on top for privatsied care, like mileage & travel times.

In my mother's case her local authority had to pay for petrol & mileage for a 40 mile round trip twice a day, when this care package reached £700 per week even they baulked at it. [She was means tested & on full funding]

When they mentioned it to me regarding this cost I did suggest, somewhat tongue in cheek, why they did not provide a taxi to take her to local pub for meals, it certainly would have been cheaper

Does any one seriously think that sort of money would be paid to an individual to arrange care for themselves?

Before any one wonders why we were not there doing this, we live 70 miles away

seven-day-weekend

Biggles wrote: »

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.

But they might chose to spend their money on some other form of care.

Isn't the money for them to spend (or not) on what they consider important for their own quality of life?

If they are too frail/demented to look after themselves properly, then social services can step in as they always have done. Otherwise, why should they not spend it on pub lunches rather than day centres, or a live-in companion rather than care assistants? Or keep it and live on cheese sandwiches?

Providing they are not left abandoned I think it is a good idea.

balmaiden

Ed, my point on the story re- the elderly lady and the taxi driver, was not whether the daughter was there or not or whether the lady had lost her keys, it was that some elderly people are not capable of getting around using taxis.

I think anyone who has worked with the elderly or has elderly family in the "system" will know where I am coming from on this, as in the posts from Farway and Monkeyspanner.

EdInvestor

Farway wrote: »

In my mother's case her local authority had to pay for petrol & mileage for a 40 mile round trip twice a day, when this care package reached £700 per week even they baulked at it. [She was means tested & on full funding]

When they mentioned it to me regarding this cost I did suggest, somewhat tongue in cheek, why they did not provide a taxi to take her to local pub for meals, it certainly would have been cheaper...

To me this example makes the point very eloquently that the current system is completely crazy and ripe for reform.

Biggles

balmaiden wrote: »

I think anyone who has worked with the elderly or has elderly family in the "system" will know where I am coming from on this, as in the posts from Farway and Monkeyspanner.

I think this is the key. Anyone who has looked after elderly, infirm parents, and at a distance, like Farway, of around 70 miles, will know that it is a dangerous assumption that these vulnerable people 'know what is best' for themselves and can make these choices themselves.

Well, they don't. And relatives don't know either. We don't have the knowledge or experience. Social Services, for all their faults, do. I would regard it as a massive and unwelcome responsibility to just be given the funds and be told to 'get on with it'.

It is another exercise in this government's ploy of 'we're giving you choice, so you can't complain', despite the overwhelming evidence that people would rather have attention given to improving their local hospitals than be given the choice of going to one miles away.

EdInvestor

Hi Biggles.I think you're missing the point,

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2224965,00.html

The idea is that you can EITHER take the money as cash and spend it yourself on your care OR the council can keep it and use it to provide the services, as now..

Thus for those who are already happy with current arrangements, nothing will change.But those who prefer to manage their own care independently will be able to do so without having to get involved with social services bureaucracy..I'd see it as a win win.

In situations like this a cookie cutter 'one size fits all solution' is never appropriate.