Getting down to the thorny issues: where should new cash for care be prioritised?
24 September 2007 | Website team, Caring ChoicesSome choices about paying for care are simple. Others are highly complex. The Caring Choices events have produced a remarkably consistent pattern of opinion about the simple choices. But the design of more detailed features of a funding system has provoked a multiplicity of views, and considerable division of opinion.
At the fourth Caring Choices day in Leeds on 13 September, views on the basic questions followed a familiar pattern.
Almost nobody thought the present system of paying for care is adequate. Nine in ten participants thought the cost of care is very likely to rise (and the rest agreed that this was ‘possible’). Most believed the government needed to play a key role in providing the necessary extra resources; almost nobody thought the state should stay out of paying for care. As at previous events, a majority felt that the government should not be paying for everything, with ‘co-payments’ from individuals and families playing a role – but a significant minority thought that all personal care should be provided free of charge. There was widespread agreement that the quality of care should be improved, and a strong accord that unpaid carers are undervalued and need to be better supported.
However, discussions around the design of a new system revealed a wide mix of opinion. The two aspects that caused greatest controversy were the position of personal care in the support system and the role of publicly supported partnerships to unlock private money.
Many participants supported the idea of channelling public support into a universal entitlement to personal care, potentially with a private co-payment. But there were differences in views about how costs can be shared, and considerable debate about what kind of care should be supported. Some participants were nervous of a system prioritising personal care over other care needs such as preventive services and services that improve quality of life. ‘Why distort resources towards personal care costs?’ they asked.
Many liked the idea of public–private partnerships to help unlock money for care, but others in Leeds feared that doing so would favour already well-off people unreasonably. Another cause of anxiety in this part of the debate related to mistrust of financial institutions, alongside uncertainty about whether the public sector can deliver believable guarantees.
Both these points seemed to suggest a need for flexibility, under which a basic guarantee from the state could be used in different ways by different people. In this sense, the Scottish system of focusing support on personal care packages may not necessarily be the best model; there was interest in exploring other countries’ models where a wider range of options may be available, particularly those where standardised needs-based assessments are the rationale for distribution of resources.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
If any members here would like to know more about what many people face on a daily basis please take a look at Carers UK online forum,http://www.carersuk.org/Forums/index.php. Here you will find carers of all ages, spread round the country share their experiences and relate how much the lack of services affect their lives.They even have a section where you can ask questions, “Consultations and requests for carers opinions”
In your report you state…”Nine in ten participants thought the cost of care is very likely to rise (and the rest agreed that this was ‘possible’)”.Ask that same question online and my bet is 10 out of 10 will tell you that is a DEFINITE. If we take Lambeth as an example, where charges have risen by 132% now with a further 14% increase due next year.
Eligibility criteria is being tightened, so its now a post code lottery too, of how much services you will be assessed as needing and how much actually provided.
This government knows the problems,.its been getting reports,facts and figures given for so long now.What is needed is ACTION not more words.
You asked the question, ‘where should new cash for care be prioritised?
I ask the question, ‘ When will the care needs of the most vulnerable be placed ahead of monetary budgets’.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
The cost of caring will keep going up and carers will subsidise the money grabbing government will not do anything they say carers allowance isn’t an income replacement but CARING is a job replacement. Carers save the government £87 billion a year so those 650 MPs can give themselves large wages and pensions and make themselves look good to other countries offering billions in aid that should be used for those at home first. The day all carers say you look after the disabled person I am going to make myself available for work and let you explain the millions of extra unemployed will be the day the government can find however many billions are needed to care for those that need it.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
ALSO if you prefer to see an unsanitized view of caring where no restriction is put on people’s views then try looking at http://www.ukcarers.org.uk.
Unlike the charity site it actually IS run by Carers for Carers, we don’t hide the frustrations and anger at how Carers are treated by heavy-handed moderation.
If Caring is to be ‘improved’ then Carers themselves need to be at the heart of EVERY consultation body/exercise, at present they are excluded or actively blocked from taking part. It’s time ‘professionals’ started listening to the people that provide the majority of ‘care’ because WE have so much experience that is being overlooked in favour of people without any ‘actual’ knowledge of caring
September 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
There are quite a few online forums where caring experiences are shared and each and every one of them is as important as the next.It does not matter which forum a carer belongs to.What matters is that a place is provided where those seeking help can come to and receive both support and advice.It is purely a personal choice where a person registers.
All carer forums are filled with daily stories of frustrations and anger,of carers campaigning,of carers trying to raise awareness more of the situation faced by many.
There can only be one target here, and that is the Government ( which ever party is in power ).
September 26th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Perhaps some of the
“SECRET NI FUND” which stands at £38.4bn ”
. [Printed in the East Anglian Daily Times n 23,June 07) (copy available0
could be used towards funding. The article ws writeen by a member of the Pensioners Association. The writer was “indebtedThe National Pensioner’s Convention (NPC)
September 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
What I want to know is – why did Gordon Brown as Chancellor, and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, ignore the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission Report, ‘With Respect to Old Age’, produced in 1999? (The Sutherland Report)?
Following extensive consultation, research and costing, this comprehensive Report looked at various options for funding and finally recommended:
‘The costs of long-term care should be split between living costs, housing costs and personal care. Personal care should be available, after assessment, according to need and paid for from general taxation: the rest should be subject to co-payment according to means.’
The recommendations were implemented in Scotland where care is, in effect, subsidised by tax payers in the south of England.
After the Government’s failure to act, the Royal Commission issued a further Statement in 2003 which included:
‘There are no overwhelming resource implications to the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendation. If Government believes that long-term care funding is an important issue – and presumably it does, otherwise the Royal Commission would not have been set up – it can find the necessary resources both now and in the future. More important, the limited changes to the care funding system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have not addressed the deep-seated issue of inequity, hardship and the need for a principled approach across the United Kingdom. The system in these countries is unstable. If not dealt with in the near future, it will implode.’
Eight years on and we’re still debating it!!!
Both the full Report and the Statement are available on-line. Easiest to ’google’ for them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I want to know WHY Carers aren’t involved in Caring Choices, the Standing Commission, DSC forum or ANY consultation body.
What gives Caring Choices and the other places mentioned the right to exclude Carers from taking part?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Caring Choices does not exclude carers in any way. Carers are involved in the Caring Choices debate by taking part in our regional events (reports of which are available on this site in the ‘About Caring Choices’ section) and by contributing their comments on this website. A full report next year will take carers’ contributions into account.
October 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
When “official” bodies (aka do-gooders) talk about “informal carers” it belittles the considerable, prolonged and meticulous efforts of us Official, Full Time Experienced Carers.
The fact that none of these ‘gooders will speak up on our behalf for proper pay and conditions (parity with Foster Carers) proves that they are merely leeches, seeking to further line various already well lined back pockets.
This is a huge multi-million pound business now, with many private limited companies, local authorities and PCTs competing for a slice of the (very considerable billions) cake.
Most are just sucking money out of this budget that is supposed to come direct to Carers. An example is our LA who had £1m allocated for Carers benefit, but they took over £300k n admin costs and commandeered the rest for Care for the Elderly whose budget was over subscribed.
The money should be paid directly to Carers, cutting out all these “middle men” and ‘gooders.
We do not need these legions of self styled “experts” and committees and advisory panels and charities all with plush offices in London’s expensive docklands.
Its my estimate that the £200bn saved by paying Carers directly would more than pay the £140bn yearly bill, thus saving the government £60bn per year.
Of course nobody within these ivory towers would dare to suggest such a thing, it would kill the goose that lays the golden egg, wouldn’t it?
So go away and count your money, because the days of these type of organisation are numbered, we have one of the most ruthless and vociferous PMs and ex chancellors this country has ever know, its not for a joke he’s known as “Iron man” with an iron fist….he’s coming to audit some books near you soon…
ian
October 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Last week I should have taken part in a carers’ consultation run by the DoH. I was unable to attend because Social Services refused to supply a day’s respite cover for my mother. Therefore my voice as a lone carer was lost to an official consultation.
For the same reasons, I am not able to attend any ‘Caring Choices’ debates, and my previous message on this board has not drawn a single reply from ‘Caring Choices’.
When it comes to the partners listed in ‘Caring Choices’, I am starky aware that two of them are reseach organisations, five are charities(excluding Carers UK who should be ‘the Voice’ fighting for carers but who seem to be hedging their political bets), and seven have a financial profit-making/money-saving interest in keeping the cost of care within the family!!!
Is it any wonder that carers are cynical about the government’s intentions and their methods of collecting information?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Caring Choices doesn’t claim to represent the views of any particular group; rather we are a partnership of organisations who, between us, represent all the different aspects of the long term care system. The one goal that unites us is that we want to gather the views of as many people as possible with experience of long term care on options for the future. We completely understand the difficulties for many carers – and indeed many service users – in attending consultation events. Some of our partner organisations have been able to help individuals attend events through appropriate practical and financial support, though this is limited by our own budgets. In this way, we have been able to keep the balance of older people and carers roughly equal to service commissioners and providers attending our consultation events. And we are also working hard to encourage individuals to contribute views online – via the questionnaire and this comment facility. In addition, we are sending out hard copy questionnaires – for example, to a number of care homes. The final Caring Choices report will take account of all these comments and views and, we believe, will have a significant impact on policy makers nationally and locally.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
My mother has moved from a Care Home to Nursing Home. She has visual problems,deafness, bowel problems,new hip replacement Jan:2008.The Care Home refused to have her back after the fractured hip was replaced. Her nursing care costs up £42,000.00 a year. £5000.00 may be paid by the PCT.
Cost of nursing which is health care should not be paid by anyone.Hotel costs ,accomodation,food heating ect is not that unreasonable but health care obscene. The NHS is from cradle to grave and is not free. We all pay for it.My mother has paid from 1948.