The Bill claiming to bring in the promised free home care for those with critical needs was introduced to parliament yesterday. There is a lengthy ‘impact assessment’ available at the Department of Health website that I don’t have time to trawl through before going to work this morning.
A brief perusal confirmed that the ‘critical’ needs to be included that will lead to the ‘free’ care will be restricted, understandably in light of the name of the legislation to ‘personal care’.
According to the document above, personal care includes
Physical assistance and prompting in relation to
-eating and drinking
-washing or bathing
-care of skin, nails and hair
And to be eligible, as I read it anyway, there would need to be four aspects that would lie within the ‘critical’ band.
This obviously reduces the ‘access’ to the ‘free’ funding. I use inverted commas for the ‘free’ aspect as obviously there will be a payment through taxation and again, some local authorities may be attracting a higher cost than others – I am thinking perhaps of some traditional ‘retirement’ towns that perhaps might have a heavier burden on them than other districts.
The other concern about the legislation is that in an interview with The Times yesterday with Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, who suggested that money to pay for the Personal Care at Home Bill will be diverted from funds for research into cancers and dementia.
This is hardly a popular move and one I can see the government fast back-tracking on but it goes to show how little consideration has been spent on these plans to reduce charges for homecare.
There is also to be a further focus on re-enablement and rehabilitation which, it is hoped, would reduce the ongoing care costs as it would reduce the need for interventions when more access to recovery is envisaged. This is definitely a positive outcome – I have long thought that there has been too little focus on lower level needs that progress into much higher needs if not addressed at the time. I could run off countless ‘scare’ stories about trying to arrange for some kind of rehab input when someone is discharged from hospital but they would probably not be believed. All I can say is that if it is to get better, that is no bad thing.
I still remain sceptical though. It seems like a sticking plaster to a haemorrage of a problem that noone seems to want to think through and that social care is being used as a toy to tempt voters terrified of sacrificing their childrens’ inheritance due to some kind of ‘entitlement’ to ‘things for free’ that has been created.
Whether that is the Tories and their hotchpotch policy of providing ‘insurance’ against the cost of residential care that no sensible person would take up – or the haphazard ‘free personal care for all with 4 or more critical banded needs under FACS’ that Labour are now proposing.
Personally, I can’t see the legislation being passed in the lifetime of this Parliament anyway so it is something of a moot point but if there is to be a more creative focus on re-enablement coming out of the debate, that is definitely A Good Thing.
I hope to spend a little more time reading through the proposals at length to give a slightly more cognisant appraisal over the next few days!
And so it starts. Currently we are still in ‘pilot’ phase of the Individual Budget roll-out – the forefront of the personalisation and self-directed support agenda and if that sentence made little sense to you – you can probably count yourself lucky!
Very basically there is an ideologically welcome move towards more control by users of services around the services they receive which is a very noble and worthy cause. We are trying to work through some of the details and our local authority is trying to put systems together through the pilots that have been running. While I’d like to hide my head in the sand and pretend nothing is changing, not because I don’t think it is a worthy ideal, but rather because of the intense increase in bureaucracy and the time needed to work through the new and somewhat shaky systems being put into place.
I decided that I really needed to be positive and try to actually understand what was to be happening because it isn’t going away and so, in conjunction with a service user and her daughter (main carer) who want to engage with the process and ‘see how it works’, I am doing what I can to work through the systems as they exist.
The main pilots so far have focussed on younger adults with disabilities, people with learning disabilities and older adults with fairly straightforward care packages.
Although at the time, I explained I felt they needed to tackle some of the more complex examples at the time, mental health services were very much left out of the ‘loop’ of information.
Currently, I have assisted in the completion of the self-assessment questionnaires and have validated them. As the service user in question as fairly advanced Alzheimer’s type dementia, there was a significant input from her family and carers and I assisted considerably myself – so the ‘self-assessment’ idea was somewhat lost through that process but I felt it was important to work through the ‘processes’ with a person who has little capacity to engage actively with the assessments and realistically, it will involve many of the users of our service.
I tackled the RAS (Resource Allocation System) although I’m not entirely confident it is ‘correct’ and so my next task is to take the documents to a meeting to discover what the ‘indicative budget’ is and then, assuming all goes well, to return to patient and carer (I am running two different applications side-by-side – one for service user and a different one for carer in her own right).
I might have messed the entire thing up of course, but as I expected to user and carer themselves, the worst thing that could happen at this point is remaining with the status quo while I spend time working things out. The positive outcome would be more flexibility to choose carers and tasks that are more appropriate to their individual circumstances and to have more input into the support packages that provide the best outcomes.
But.. and this is the big but.. so far, getting as far as we have, namely writing up all the documentation and putting the forms, assessments, resource allocations etc has taken me the good part of a couple of days. That’s not including the three specific visits each of at least an hour to work through the actual assessment forms. Which would be fine and dandy if that linked in with the time taken on other work, emergency assessments, people being discharged from hospital, rushing to court to get warrants etc.
Suffice to say the team isn’t overly heartened by the lack of support in implementing these new systems – the local authority has put a lot of support into the Community Care teams with additional workers and weekly support groups but in the bleak and distant mental health teams, we are left increasingly on the periphery and detached further from the general information streams and planning but my thought is that at least by attempting it, we won’t be completely left out and if I make a mess of my attempts, at least I am identifying a genuine training need!
Hopefully, I’ll be able to update the process as I go through it.. .
[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=paperwork&iid=5065548″ src=”5/b/5/9/Young_woman_leaning_5038.jpg?adImageId=7817131&imageId=5065548″ width=”380″ height=”285″ /]
Just a quick post this morning as I had a little and completely non-serious accident involving my thumb and a fast-closing door meeting an an uncomfortably fast speed and thus am finding typing more painful than usual..
But The Times prints a story by Edward Monkton detailing his personal experience with depression. It’s a good piece and helpful to see the ‘male’ perspective. Hopefully more detailed coverage of the experiences of others will assist in the ‘destigmatising’ process.
The government also announced a programme of extending the IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) programme freely available on the NHS to couples facing relationship difficulties.
The idea is that it will tackle potentially much more serious mental health difficulties by ‘nipping them in the bud’.
However the scheme is already short of practitioners and has not met targets set initially so the announcement might be a little overambitious.
Wow, I didn’t realist how much more time it took to type with 9 digits when you are accustomed to touch-typing..
In some unsurprising but still welcome news, Community Care reports that the Social Work Taskforce is proposing a ‘qualifying year’ post degree and pre-registration to all social workers coming into the workforce from university.
It makes perfect sense and it’s amazing that it was not a check that was brought in with the new degrees which placed less emphasis on pre-qualification experience in the social care sector.
It is a useful and necessary check that does not leave the universities as sole arbiters as to whether a student is ‘good enough’ to practice as a qualified social worker.
I will, of course, be interested to see details about how the application process works for these ‘qualifying years’ and how the local authorities engage with the it. Hopefully, it will offer newly trained social workers a chance and opportunity to learn and grow as practitioners in a safer environment than being thrown straight into practice. I know I’d definitely have benefited from it although I was lucky to move straight into a supportive and large team with other newly qualified workers including others from the same university course – perhaps that made it a lot easier to ask questions and learn from each other as we went. I think it might have been more challenging in an environment where asking questions and supervision was not given appropriate time and consideration.
Looking at the people I qualified with (those that I remained in touch with!) – those of us who had the more supportive first employment experiences have certainly stayed ‘in the field’ a lot longer than those who were ‘thrown into the deep end’ regardless of pre-qualification experience. Even without my very random personal experiences, it makes most sense that the better supported newly qualified staff are, the more effective the profession will become over the next few years.
In the meantime I’m looking forward to the publication of the final report from the Taskforce – due early December according to the same Community Care report.
Today the Queen will announce the government’s programme of legislation for the next year. It is widely reported that free home care for those whose needs fall into the ‘critical’ band will be included in the speech.
[picapp src=”7/1/4/4/50.jpg?adImageId=7596123&imageId=1078619″ width=”380″ height=”218″ /]
The idea is that it will be a popular vote-grabber. We will be having a General Election within the year and the polls are indicating an increasingly unpopular government so there is a turn to these kinds of headline dominating policies.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that some of the charging policies in place that I have seen have been enormously detrimental but I’m not convinced that a universally available free access is the answer. Especially in times that budgets are being cut. Perhaps better to target broader needs, namely addressing some of the moderate, substantial as well as critical needs and if that has to be done by more stringent means-testing then so be it.
But free care appeals most to the more prosperous middle classes who suffer the most from the current means-testing approaches. Seeing people with lower incomes receiving care free, we move to the somewhat disingenous ‘why should I pay when if I had frittered away all my life-savings I would have gotten the same for free’.
But it isn’t always a level playing field – just as life isn’t. Low income and no savings doesn’t mean money has been frittered. It may mean that the opportunities to earn have not been so available. Life isn’t fair.
But back to Government’s plan. It has stymied the upcoming Green Paper , Shaping the Future of Care Together – consultation on ways of paying for care for a start.
The consultation was due to finish last week but hardly much of a consultation if the government is already planning legislation to cover the costs of critical needs.
The other thing to bear in mind is that Critical needs that the payment is promised for is a very narrow band in that the headlines of ‘free home care’ will probably strike a disappointing blow for most people whose needs will not fall within that remit. I see a tightening of belts further down the line in order to provide the money for this care and that is why I am so sceptical of the approach.
Ultimately, very little is ‘free’.
It is likely this money may be gleaned from Attendance Allowance. The Daily Mail quotes the Conservative spokesman as saying
‘What is most worrying is that in order to pay for their new National Care Service Labour have promised to scrap disability benefits worth more than £3,000 a year for nearly 2.5million vulnerable pensioners.
‘They also do absolutely nothing for the 100,000 or more people who go into a care home each year. Labour’s plans are all about political point-scoring, not the long-term care of older people .’
There is a point in there but the Conservatives have gone the other way and made a pledge to those going into Care Homes and haven’t provided any idea for those who need care at home and ultimately, more people will be helped by focusing on the needs of those who need help at home, as opposed to those needing residential and nursing care. It’s not right though and it shouldn’t have to be an ‘either/or’ choice.
Ideally, the policies of the main parties should provide a cohesive approach which is equal whether care is needed in the home or in residential care – rather than making one free and the other not.
Just as the Labour plan will encourage more people to stay at home when perhaps residential care may be more appropriate – so the Conservative plan may persuade more people into residential care when staying at home with support would be more appropriate.
What is really needed is a consultation across party lines.. oh wait.. didn’t that just happen?
And the irony is that it’s unlikely much legislation presented today will be enacted if there is a government charge so it is partly political posturing in any case.