<![CDATA[Elderly home care forum - All Forums]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/ Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:19:53 -0400 MyBB <![CDATA[Palliative care]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=15 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:39:40 -0400 NicolaDaly http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=15 Can any one tell me what are the processes included to get palliative care services?
Only few people know about the palliative care so start sharing your thoughts and your experience about palliative care so that if someone wants any info about it, can get it from this post.]]> Can any one tell me what are the processes included to get palliative care services?
Only few people know about the palliative care so start sharing your thoughts and your experience about palliative care so that if someone wants any info about it, can get it from this post.]]> <![CDATA[Care of the elderly takes centre stage for the election]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=13 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:34:18 -0500 Careathome http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=13 Funding for Britain's increasingly elderly population looks set to become a central issue for the General Election.

It is one of the most painful dilemmas for any family. This week, the private deliberations of millions of households burst into public view as a looming crisis in care of the elderly – and crucially, how to pay for it – became the stuff of political high drama.

News of secret talks between the three main parties, attempting to find consensus, emerged only as the truce was blown apart.

Britons could pay £12,000 'inheritance levy' in return for free elderly careSoon after the Conservatives unveiled a tombstone poster campaign accusing Labour of planning a £20,000 "death tax", Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, accused the Tories of "driving a wrecking ball" through constructive debate.

As the question of how to fund the care of Britain's increasingly elderly population looks set to become an issue for the General Election, we examine the options.

Grace Young had lived for more than 50 years in the terraced house her husband Edward had worked hard to provide. Her only son, John, was brought up in the three-bedroomed home in Carshalton, south London; the couple intended the house to become his inheritance.

Last year, that dream was shattered. When Mrs Young, now widowed, and 87, became increasingly confused as the result of a rare syndrome, her son realised that she would need to move into a care home.

Under the current rules of "means-testing" that meant one thing: selling their much-loved family home to pay the fees.

Mrs Young, a former factory worker, is among 48,000 pensioners now living in residential care who were forced to sell their homes to pay their bills.

For many, that statistic lays bare the scale of Labour's betrayal.

It is 13 years since Tony Blair said he did not want children brought up in a country "where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home".

The political rows which broke out this week centre on rival proposals drawn up by Labour and the Conservatives to tackle an emerging £6 billion black hole in funding for care of the elderly, in a country which is rapidly ageing.

Thirteen years since Blair's pledge, the Government is finally preparing to publish a white paper on how to provide and pay for care for the elderly, whether they need help in their own homes or in residential settings.

It has already consulted on several proposals, without saying which one it will favour, while experts say the lack of detail about how any of them would work made it hard to choose between them.

This week, following an attack by the Tories, attention has focused on one Labour option; a "death tax" which would mean all care was funded by the state, paid for via a universal tax on all estates.

A flat rate duty would cost each household around £20,000. But this week Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said he did not believe a flat rate levy was "the right way to go".

It can disclosed that the Government is carrying out polls to establish whether a percentage rate on duty, taking the largest sums from those with the greatest assets, would be more publicly palatable.

A 10 per cent rate under discussion would mean a £24,000 duty on the cost of the average home, with far higher sums taken from those with larger properties.

For many within Government, the death tax is seen as the "least worst" way to provide people with a guarantee of care, when compared with meeting the costs via lump sum on retirement, or throughout a lifetime.

Alternatively, its proposals include a "partnership" model would provide everyone with a basic package of care, which they could top up.

The idea is preferred by several think tanks and charities, but with few details on how it would be funded, many experts say it is impossible to compare the schemes. Nor has a third proposal for a voluntary insurance scheme been ruled out.

Next month, just weeks from a likely election, the Government is expected to finally publish its recommendations.

This week's clashes were triggered by what many see as Gordon Brown's attempt to head off those who accuse Labour of 13 years of dithering on care of the elderly.

Last September, to the surprise of many in the Department of Health, he announced a new plan to provide free care at home to those in the most need.

In the past week, councils have complained that the plans are massively undercosted and will either increase council tax or deprive other vulnerable groups of funds.

Meanwhile, policy experts say the instant policy undermines Labour's claims to be developing a comprehensive plan for all elderly care, and the bill, now in the Lords, has come under attack from peers from all parties.

But many experts are even less impressed by what the Conservatives have revealed of their own plans.

Charities say a £8,000 voluntary insurance scheme, which would provide a free care home place if it was needed, could in fact force many elderly people unnecessarily into care – because they have already spent the savings which could have paid for vital help to keep them in the home they love.

They also are not convinced that the sums stack up, given that the cost of an insurance scheme relies on the size of those taking part in the pool.

This week the parties went to war, picking apart each others policies. At first it seemed like business as usual.

But as Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, attacked Labour's "death tax" it emerged that the swipe followed the breakdown of secret talks initiated by Lansley with his Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts, who had been attempting to build a consensus position – without the knowledge of David Cameron.

So great was the crisis in elderly care, that party politics should be put aside, they had considered, before the lure of old-fashioned tactics became too great.

The charity Age Concern and Help the Aged is angry that the plight of Britain's vulnerable elderly has been ignored for too long – only to become a "political football".

Its experts are impatient with the Government, for failing to keep a promise to provide the detail they need to judge the different options.

Michelle Mitchell, the charity's director, said: "We need to know what the deal is. The problem is that at the moment both parties are putting forward micro elements of their offers instead of saying here's the overall package."

While going into a home, and meeting the costs, are among the greatest fears of many elderly people and their relatives, families should not be forced to take a gamble about their future, says Mrs Mitchell.

Any package should provide care wherever it is needed.

Anna Dixon, chief executive of The Kings Fund think tank agrees: "The problem with the ideas currently under the spotlight – and this applies to the Conservative proposal for a one-off charge of £8,000 to insure against the costs of residential care, and to Labour's plans to provide free home care for people with the highest needs – is that they are piecemeal responses that do not address the need for comprehensive reform."

Such a system would provide everyone with a basic level of care, but retain an incentive for people to save for old age, she says. The principle is backed by Age Concern.

Such schemes would not come cheap, however.

If the state paid just one third of the costs of care – one of the ideas in the Government's green paper – many families would still be left paying bills of more than £20,000.

Counsel and Care, a charity for the elderly, was one of the first advocates of a "death tax" as a way to pay bills which few could manage easily during their lifetime.

Stephen Burke, its chief executive, believes that what he calls a "care duty" is the fairest way to close an estimated £6 billion funding gap in meeting the costs of elderly care in 20 years.

However, he proposes a far lower levy of 2.5 per cent, with the first £25,000 of assets protected. He believes this would be sufficient to close the funding gap, if current government spending kept pace with inflation.

Mr Burke is among many who say whichever system is chosen, it is vital that the iniquity of means-testing – which currently means all those with assets worth more than £23,000 have to pay towards care – is brought to an end.

"We need a system which is fairer, but we also need to simplify the process, so that we strip out all the money that is currently wasted in complex charging regimes," he says.

For Mrs Young, now living in a care home, near Alton, in Hampshire, any changes will come too late.

The family home that her husband, a carpenter and odd-job man, worked all his life to provide is sold.

Full article Times Online By Laura Donnelly and Patrick Sawer]]> Funding for Britain's increasingly elderly population looks set to become a central issue for the General Election.

It is one of the most painful dilemmas for any family. This week, the private deliberations of millions of households burst into public view as a looming crisis in care of the elderly – and crucially, how to pay for it – became the stuff of political high drama.

News of secret talks between the three main parties, attempting to find consensus, emerged only as the truce was blown apart.

Britons could pay £12,000 'inheritance levy' in return for free elderly careSoon after the Conservatives unveiled a tombstone poster campaign accusing Labour of planning a £20,000 "death tax", Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, accused the Tories of "driving a wrecking ball" through constructive debate.

As the question of how to fund the care of Britain's increasingly elderly population looks set to become an issue for the General Election, we examine the options.

Grace Young had lived for more than 50 years in the terraced house her husband Edward had worked hard to provide. Her only son, John, was brought up in the three-bedroomed home in Carshalton, south London; the couple intended the house to become his inheritance.

Last year, that dream was shattered. When Mrs Young, now widowed, and 87, became increasingly confused as the result of a rare syndrome, her son realised that she would need to move into a care home.

Under the current rules of "means-testing" that meant one thing: selling their much-loved family home to pay the fees.

Mrs Young, a former factory worker, is among 48,000 pensioners now living in residential care who were forced to sell their homes to pay their bills.

For many, that statistic lays bare the scale of Labour's betrayal.

It is 13 years since Tony Blair said he did not want children brought up in a country "where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home".

The political rows which broke out this week centre on rival proposals drawn up by Labour and the Conservatives to tackle an emerging £6 billion black hole in funding for care of the elderly, in a country which is rapidly ageing.

Thirteen years since Blair's pledge, the Government is finally preparing to publish a white paper on how to provide and pay for care for the elderly, whether they need help in their own homes or in residential settings.

It has already consulted on several proposals, without saying which one it will favour, while experts say the lack of detail about how any of them would work made it hard to choose between them.

This week, following an attack by the Tories, attention has focused on one Labour option; a "death tax" which would mean all care was funded by the state, paid for via a universal tax on all estates.

A flat rate duty would cost each household around £20,000. But this week Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said he did not believe a flat rate levy was "the right way to go".

It can disclosed that the Government is carrying out polls to establish whether a percentage rate on duty, taking the largest sums from those with the greatest assets, would be more publicly palatable.

A 10 per cent rate under discussion would mean a £24,000 duty on the cost of the average home, with far higher sums taken from those with larger properties.

For many within Government, the death tax is seen as the "least worst" way to provide people with a guarantee of care, when compared with meeting the costs via lump sum on retirement, or throughout a lifetime.

Alternatively, its proposals include a "partnership" model would provide everyone with a basic package of care, which they could top up.

The idea is preferred by several think tanks and charities, but with few details on how it would be funded, many experts say it is impossible to compare the schemes. Nor has a third proposal for a voluntary insurance scheme been ruled out.

Next month, just weeks from a likely election, the Government is expected to finally publish its recommendations.

This week's clashes were triggered by what many see as Gordon Brown's attempt to head off those who accuse Labour of 13 years of dithering on care of the elderly.

Last September, to the surprise of many in the Department of Health, he announced a new plan to provide free care at home to those in the most need.

In the past week, councils have complained that the plans are massively undercosted and will either increase council tax or deprive other vulnerable groups of funds.

Meanwhile, policy experts say the instant policy undermines Labour's claims to be developing a comprehensive plan for all elderly care, and the bill, now in the Lords, has come under attack from peers from all parties.

But many experts are even less impressed by what the Conservatives have revealed of their own plans.

Charities say a £8,000 voluntary insurance scheme, which would provide a free care home place if it was needed, could in fact force many elderly people unnecessarily into care – because they have already spent the savings which could have paid for vital help to keep them in the home they love.

They also are not convinced that the sums stack up, given that the cost of an insurance scheme relies on the size of those taking part in the pool.

This week the parties went to war, picking apart each others policies. At first it seemed like business as usual.

But as Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, attacked Labour's "death tax" it emerged that the swipe followed the breakdown of secret talks initiated by Lansley with his Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts, who had been attempting to build a consensus position – without the knowledge of David Cameron.

So great was the crisis in elderly care, that party politics should be put aside, they had considered, before the lure of old-fashioned tactics became too great.

The charity Age Concern and Help the Aged is angry that the plight of Britain's vulnerable elderly has been ignored for too long – only to become a "political football".

Its experts are impatient with the Government, for failing to keep a promise to provide the detail they need to judge the different options.

Michelle Mitchell, the charity's director, said: "We need to know what the deal is. The problem is that at the moment both parties are putting forward micro elements of their offers instead of saying here's the overall package."

While going into a home, and meeting the costs, are among the greatest fears of many elderly people and their relatives, families should not be forced to take a gamble about their future, says Mrs Mitchell.

Any package should provide care wherever it is needed.

Anna Dixon, chief executive of The Kings Fund think tank agrees: "The problem with the ideas currently under the spotlight – and this applies to the Conservative proposal for a one-off charge of £8,000 to insure against the costs of residential care, and to Labour's plans to provide free home care for people with the highest needs – is that they are piecemeal responses that do not address the need for comprehensive reform."

Such a system would provide everyone with a basic level of care, but retain an incentive for people to save for old age, she says. The principle is backed by Age Concern.

Such schemes would not come cheap, however.

If the state paid just one third of the costs of care – one of the ideas in the Government's green paper – many families would still be left paying bills of more than £20,000.

Counsel and Care, a charity for the elderly, was one of the first advocates of a "death tax" as a way to pay bills which few could manage easily during their lifetime.

Stephen Burke, its chief executive, believes that what he calls a "care duty" is the fairest way to close an estimated £6 billion funding gap in meeting the costs of elderly care in 20 years.

However, he proposes a far lower levy of 2.5 per cent, with the first £25,000 of assets protected. He believes this would be sufficient to close the funding gap, if current government spending kept pace with inflation.

Mr Burke is among many who say whichever system is chosen, it is vital that the iniquity of means-testing – which currently means all those with assets worth more than £23,000 have to pay towards care – is brought to an end.

"We need a system which is fairer, but we also need to simplify the process, so that we strip out all the money that is currently wasted in complex charging regimes," he says.

For Mrs Young, now living in a care home, near Alton, in Hampshire, any changes will come too late.

The family home that her husband, a carpenter and odd-job man, worked all his life to provide is sold.

Full article Times Online By Laura Donnelly and Patrick Sawer]]> <![CDATA[Care at Home Bill could cost £20m a year extra, council leaders warn]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=12 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:31:17 -0500 Careathome http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=12 Some local authorities could be hit by extra care costs of more than £20 million a year because of the Personal Care at Home Bill, council leaders say.

Authorities in areas with large numbers of residents who currently pay for care, but who will want to take up the Government’s free care pledge, may be forced to make cuts to services.

The more affluent Home Counties are widely expected to be worst affected because they currently have the highest number of “self-funders” who will want to apply for free care. Henry Smith, chairman of South East Strategic Leaders (SESL), a local authority collective covering nine million residents in counties from Oxfordshire to Essex, said that the extra annual personal care costs in their area could amount to at least £100 million.

“We think the principle is worthy, but the concern is how it’s going to be paid for,” said Mr Smith, the leader of West Sussex County Council. “I expect the Department of Health is pretty concerned as well. This was an announcement by the Prime Minister and now Whitehall and local government are desperately trying to work out how it can be funded.”

The Government has calculated that 270,000 people with “critical needs” will take advantage of full free care, with a further 130,000 receiving “re-ablement” — such as adaptations to their homes and training in self-care.

Of the full claimants, 166,000 already get means-tested care free as part of their benefits, leaving just over 100,000 who will be new recipients of free care, the Government predicts. These must include all applicants who currently pay for their own care or make a contribution or receive informal care. It would also include those who may return to their own homes from a nursing home, or who have unmet needs.

Mr Smith said that concerns about who would be eligible, and how they would be assessed, were equally worrying. At present, assessment falls to local authorities, who will need to find extra staff to vet applicants. Any person who requires significant help with four key daily tasks — washing, dressing, eating or using the lavatory — would qualify under the proposals.

The £100 million cost is based on estimates by all SESL members. Kent County Council said that it thought free personal care would cost between £9 million and £22 million a year if government support was maintained beyond 2011. Without this, it believes the bill would increase to £34 million — the equivalent of 5 per cent on council tax bills.

Research by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services across 61 councils indicated the cost would be more than £1 billion — not the £670 million suggested by ministers.

In Scotland, which introduced free personal care in 2003, annual costs had more than doubled by 2008, far above initial estimates. The number of claimants went up by more than a third over the same period. Research by the University of Strathclyde shows that over the same period, lesser needs services — such as cleaning and help with groceries — had dropped by 24 per cent, despite the growing number of elderly people.

Mr Smith said that the number of signatories to a letter to The Times — the largest addition so far to growing criticism of the measure — had come as no surprise. He said that his member councils were resigned to the possibility that other frontline services would be affected.

Of the 78 who signed, three quarters were on Conservative-led councils, with 14 Liberal Democrats and five Labour, although three of these asked yesterday evening for their names to be removed.

Full article Times Online Sam Lister, Health Editor]]> Some local authorities could be hit by extra care costs of more than £20 million a year because of the Personal Care at Home Bill, council leaders say.

Authorities in areas with large numbers of residents who currently pay for care, but who will want to take up the Government’s free care pledge, may be forced to make cuts to services.

The more affluent Home Counties are widely expected to be worst affected because they currently have the highest number of “self-funders” who will want to apply for free care. Henry Smith, chairman of South East Strategic Leaders (SESL), a local authority collective covering nine million residents in counties from Oxfordshire to Essex, said that the extra annual personal care costs in their area could amount to at least £100 million.

“We think the principle is worthy, but the concern is how it’s going to be paid for,” said Mr Smith, the leader of West Sussex County Council. “I expect the Department of Health is pretty concerned as well. This was an announcement by the Prime Minister and now Whitehall and local government are desperately trying to work out how it can be funded.”

The Government has calculated that 270,000 people with “critical needs” will take advantage of full free care, with a further 130,000 receiving “re-ablement” — such as adaptations to their homes and training in self-care.

Of the full claimants, 166,000 already get means-tested care free as part of their benefits, leaving just over 100,000 who will be new recipients of free care, the Government predicts. These must include all applicants who currently pay for their own care or make a contribution or receive informal care. It would also include those who may return to their own homes from a nursing home, or who have unmet needs.

Mr Smith said that concerns about who would be eligible, and how they would be assessed, were equally worrying. At present, assessment falls to local authorities, who will need to find extra staff to vet applicants. Any person who requires significant help with four key daily tasks — washing, dressing, eating or using the lavatory — would qualify under the proposals.

The £100 million cost is based on estimates by all SESL members. Kent County Council said that it thought free personal care would cost between £9 million and £22 million a year if government support was maintained beyond 2011. Without this, it believes the bill would increase to £34 million — the equivalent of 5 per cent on council tax bills.

Research by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services across 61 councils indicated the cost would be more than £1 billion — not the £670 million suggested by ministers.

In Scotland, which introduced free personal care in 2003, annual costs had more than doubled by 2008, far above initial estimates. The number of claimants went up by more than a third over the same period. Research by the University of Strathclyde shows that over the same period, lesser needs services — such as cleaning and help with groceries — had dropped by 24 per cent, despite the growing number of elderly people.

Mr Smith said that the number of signatories to a letter to The Times — the largest addition so far to growing criticism of the measure — had come as no surprise. He said that his member councils were resigned to the possibility that other frontline services would be affected.

Of the 78 who signed, three quarters were on Conservative-led councils, with 14 Liberal Democrats and five Labour, although three of these asked yesterday evening for their names to be removed.

Full article Times Online Sam Lister, Health Editor]]> <![CDATA[Health Secretary Andy Burnham urges new talks on care]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=11 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:46:08 -0500 Careathome http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=11 Health Secretary Andy Burnham has challenged the Conservatives to join cross-party talks on free care at home for elderly people in England.

Mr Burnham has called a conference to discuss how to fund the care, promising to invite the main political parties.

But he stipulated that they suspend "negative campaigning" on the issue.

The Conservatives say they will only attend the conference if Mr Burnham rules out a compulsory levy or so-called "death tax".

The parties have been involved in bitter clashes over the issue after attempts to reach a consensus broke down, with Labour accusing the Tories of "wrecking" the talks.

But Shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove claimed it was Labour that had broken the consensus, accusing Labour of "spreading propaganda" about Tory proposals, in leaflets, even while cross-party talks were ongoing.

He told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme: "People in glass houses should not throw stones," adding that Mr Burnham was a "young politician, idealistic, but he has a lot to learn."

Mr Burnham has said he would be holding a conference involving charities and local authorities this week, to which the other parties would be invited.

'No point'

He said: "I will extend an invitation to the main political parties to put aside partisan campaigns and put the national interest first.

"I hope they will accept it and engage seriously in this debate that the country needs to have.

"If we fail to act, we will fail many vulnerable and elderly people who will continue to have to dig deep into their bank accounts to pay for care.

"In return, I ask that any negative campaigning is suspended. It is not right to use scare stories on an issue that affects so many vulnerable people."

A spokesman for the Conservatives said the Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley would only attend the talks "if the government rules out a compulsory levy."

He added: "There's no point going to this conference if there isn't a basic consensus on that issue."

The Tories have proposed a voluntary levy instead, which would guarantee free personal care.

'Desperate'

It emerged last week that the health spokesmen of the three main parties had privately discussed the issue and even agreed some shared principles on it.

Send us your comments But attempts at a consensus broke down and the Tories accused Labour of planning a £20,000 "death tax" to pay for social care.

A Conservative campaign poster featuring a gravestone with the slogan "RIP off" was denounced by Mr Burnham as "grubby and desperate".

And Lord Mandelson accused Conservative leader David Cameron of "wrecking" the talks after claims - denied by the Tories - that he ordered Mr Lansley to pull out of them.

But the Conservatives have stepped up their criticism of the government after it emerged pollsters had been employed to test the idea of a 10% tax on estates to fund elderly care.

Eighteen charities including Carers UK, the National Care Forum, Age Concern, Help the Aged, Alzheimer's Society and Macmillan Cancer Support urged the political parties not to reduce the issue to "election soundbites" and "poster slogans".

Full article BBC News]]> Health Secretary Andy Burnham has challenged the Conservatives to join cross-party talks on free care at home for elderly people in England.

Mr Burnham has called a conference to discuss how to fund the care, promising to invite the main political parties.

But he stipulated that they suspend "negative campaigning" on the issue.

The Conservatives say they will only attend the conference if Mr Burnham rules out a compulsory levy or so-called "death tax".

The parties have been involved in bitter clashes over the issue after attempts to reach a consensus broke down, with Labour accusing the Tories of "wrecking" the talks.

But Shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove claimed it was Labour that had broken the consensus, accusing Labour of "spreading propaganda" about Tory proposals, in leaflets, even while cross-party talks were ongoing.

He told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme: "People in glass houses should not throw stones," adding that Mr Burnham was a "young politician, idealistic, but he has a lot to learn."

Mr Burnham has said he would be holding a conference involving charities and local authorities this week, to which the other parties would be invited.

'No point'

He said: "I will extend an invitation to the main political parties to put aside partisan campaigns and put the national interest first.

"I hope they will accept it and engage seriously in this debate that the country needs to have.

"If we fail to act, we will fail many vulnerable and elderly people who will continue to have to dig deep into their bank accounts to pay for care.

"In return, I ask that any negative campaigning is suspended. It is not right to use scare stories on an issue that affects so many vulnerable people."

A spokesman for the Conservatives said the Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley would only attend the talks "if the government rules out a compulsory levy."

He added: "There's no point going to this conference if there isn't a basic consensus on that issue."

The Tories have proposed a voluntary levy instead, which would guarantee free personal care.

'Desperate'

It emerged last week that the health spokesmen of the three main parties had privately discussed the issue and even agreed some shared principles on it.

Send us your comments But attempts at a consensus broke down and the Tories accused Labour of planning a £20,000 "death tax" to pay for social care.

A Conservative campaign poster featuring a gravestone with the slogan "RIP off" was denounced by Mr Burnham as "grubby and desperate".

And Lord Mandelson accused Conservative leader David Cameron of "wrecking" the talks after claims - denied by the Tories - that he ordered Mr Lansley to pull out of them.

But the Conservatives have stepped up their criticism of the government after it emerged pollsters had been employed to test the idea of a 10% tax on estates to fund elderly care.

Eighteen charities including Carers UK, the National Care Forum, Age Concern, Help the Aged, Alzheimer's Society and Macmillan Cancer Support urged the political parties not to reduce the issue to "election soundbites" and "poster slogans".

Full article BBC News]]> <![CDATA[NHS continuing care funding for the elderly]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=10 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0500 Careathome http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=10 NHS continuing care has prompted a large response and a huge number of questions, so we thought it would be a good idea to post the article here on the forum to provide a better medium for discussion. The are article was as follows:

Quote:"Continuing care is defined as, professional care given to meet the physical or mental health needs of adults with a disability, injury or illness over an extended period of time.

NHS continuing healthcare means a package of care that is arranged and funded by the NHS and is free of charge to the person receiving the care, be it in a care home or in their own home and is usually referred to as “fully funded NHS care”.

As one in three women in Britain, and one in five men, will eventually need long term care, the funding of such care is an issue that is likely to touch most people’s lives in one way or another. So over the last few years, the Government has attempted to make clear in law the type of healthcare needs that qualify for NHS continuing healthcare.

A national framework has been developed to provide guidance to the NHS about this and to try to ensure that consistent decisions are made across the country.

NHS continuing healthcare assessments

Primary care trusts (who manage local health services) are required to carry out an assessment for NHS continuing healthcare where health services might be needed for elderly home care.

The assessment should be carried out for Continuing Care when a patient is discharged from hospital before referring the person to social services for help with social care needs. Also, an assessment should be requested if the physical or mental health of the person you are looking after deteriorates significantly. Some people who need an urgent decision, such as those who are terminally ill, should be fast-tracked to receive NHS continuing healthcare immediately.

Where is NHS continuing healthcare offered?

NHS continuing healthcare can be provided by the NHS in any setting, which includes a care home, hospice, hospital or the home of the person being looked after. Where NHS continuing care is provided in the home of the person being looked after, it will cover personal care and healthcare costs.

Responsibilities of social services

If NHS continuing healthcare is provided for care in the home, then the local social services may still have responsibilities to provide some services in addition to the home care. It is possible to receive ‘mixed’ packages of care, where some services come from the NHS and some from social services. Where local social services provides the care services, it will usually do a financial assessment to decide whether the person you look after must make any financial contribution.

The NHS team will consider each of the healthcare needs of the person looking for continuing care funding, which are:

– behaviour,
– cognition (understanding),
– communication,
– psychological/emotional needs,
– mobility,
– nutrition (food and drink),
– continence,
– skin (including wounds and ulcers),
– breathing,
– symptom control through drug therapies and medication, and
– altered states of consciousness.

An example of the type of care that might warrant continuing care funding is “Fred has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. His Alzheimer’s has reached an advanced stage and because he lives at home he needs assistance with all of his personal care tasks. In particular Fred needs help with his washing and eating and he also has both bowel and urinary incontinence, and needs constant supervision to ensure his safety.”

The value of Continuing Care may exceed £1,000 per week, but You do not receive the cash directly yourself, but instead the NHS spends it on your behalf in accordance with the needs and aims stated within a Care Needs Assessment. The health authority (Primary Care Trusts in England, Health Boards in Scotland and Wales) are obliged to take the wishes of the client into account though. So if you want, for example, to have a live-in carer provide you with the care you need at home you should make this clear to the NHS, as early as possible during the care needs review."
]]> NHS continuing care has prompted a large response and a huge number of questions, so we thought it would be a good idea to post the article here on the forum to provide a better medium for discussion. The are article was as follows:

Quote:"Continuing care is defined as, professional care given to meet the physical or mental health needs of adults with a disability, injury or illness over an extended period of time.

NHS continuing healthcare means a package of care that is arranged and funded by the NHS and is free of charge to the person receiving the care, be it in a care home or in their own home and is usually referred to as “fully funded NHS care”.

As one in three women in Britain, and one in five men, will eventually need long term care, the funding of such care is an issue that is likely to touch most people’s lives in one way or another. So over the last few years, the Government has attempted to make clear in law the type of healthcare needs that qualify for NHS continuing healthcare.

A national framework has been developed to provide guidance to the NHS about this and to try to ensure that consistent decisions are made across the country.

NHS continuing healthcare assessments

Primary care trusts (who manage local health services) are required to carry out an assessment for NHS continuing healthcare where health services might be needed for elderly home care.

The assessment should be carried out for Continuing Care when a patient is discharged from hospital before referring the person to social services for help with social care needs. Also, an assessment should be requested if the physical or mental health of the person you are looking after deteriorates significantly. Some people who need an urgent decision, such as those who are terminally ill, should be fast-tracked to receive NHS continuing healthcare immediately.

Where is NHS continuing healthcare offered?

NHS continuing healthcare can be provided by the NHS in any setting, which includes a care home, hospice, hospital or the home of the person being looked after. Where NHS continuing care is provided in the home of the person being looked after, it will cover personal care and healthcare costs.

Responsibilities of social services

If NHS continuing healthcare is provided for care in the home, then the local social services may still have responsibilities to provide some services in addition to the home care. It is possible to receive ‘mixed’ packages of care, where some services come from the NHS and some from social services. Where local social services provides the care services, it will usually do a financial assessment to decide whether the person you look after must make any financial contribution.

The NHS team will consider each of the healthcare needs of the person looking for continuing care funding, which are:

– behaviour,
– cognition (understanding),
– communication,
– psychological/emotional needs,
– mobility,
– nutrition (food and drink),
– continence,
– skin (including wounds and ulcers),
– breathing,
– symptom control through drug therapies and medication, and
– altered states of consciousness.

An example of the type of care that might warrant continuing care funding is “Fred has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. His Alzheimer’s has reached an advanced stage and because he lives at home he needs assistance with all of his personal care tasks. In particular Fred needs help with his washing and eating and he also has both bowel and urinary incontinence, and needs constant supervision to ensure his safety.”

The value of Continuing Care may exceed £1,000 per week, but You do not receive the cash directly yourself, but instead the NHS spends it on your behalf in accordance with the needs and aims stated within a Care Needs Assessment. The health authority (Primary Care Trusts in England, Health Boards in Scotland and Wales) are obliged to take the wishes of the client into account though. So if you want, for example, to have a live-in carer provide you with the care you need at home you should make this clear to the NHS, as early as possible during the care needs review."
]]> <![CDATA[Eldely Care...!]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=8 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:07:27 -0400 hock.jem http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=8 Eldery care]]> Eldery care]]> <![CDATA[The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) has changed]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=7 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:23:06 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=7
This new organisation has wider powers across more health care sectors within the UK.]]>
This new organisation has wider powers across more health care sectors within the UK.]]> <![CDATA[Increasing the take up of direct payments]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=6 Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:40:29 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=6
There are wide variations in uptake, both between local council schemes and across the different groups of individuals across the UK and we would like to hear from you with your experience in your own county.

Care at Home can also help you with your Direct Payments if you are having problems.]]>
There are wide variations in uptake, both between local council schemes and across the different groups of individuals across the UK and we would like to hear from you with your experience in your own county.

Care at Home can also help you with your Direct Payments if you are having problems.]]> <![CDATA[Elderly care forum rules - please read these first before posting]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=5 Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:31:02 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=5 1. No "spamming" of other care industry boards with the intent of stealing elderly care Forum members. Linking to another CARE BUSINESS boards in an attempt to steal members from Care at Home will be grounds for immediate banning. There will be no warnings given for this!

It will be under the discretion of the moderators to determine what is regarded as "spamming." Abuse will not be tolerated, so please think about your posts before you submit, as spammers will be fund out and WILL be BANNED!

2. Signature rules. Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of default size and colour. NO more than one link to be included in your signature. If we find a signature with more than one link you will be warned. If you don't change this you will be banned.

3. All "elderly care" related posts are welcome and we will leave that to you to decide what constitutes "elderly care", but if your posts are reported and you are warned you might face banning. Do not post people's personal information, or attack peoples personal lives or families, stick to the issues and the threads already posted. ANY WHOIS information is considered public information; it is not considered personal information. So do not complain to us if you put your home address as your personal information on WHOIS.

4. Do not post links to illegal or adult related sites, if you do you will be banned immediately.

5) Posting images of death, dismemberment, or animal cruelty will not be permitted and will be removed.

6) Once registered, if you see any posts that do not conform to the above board rules please report them to us at info@careathome.org, thank you.]]> 1. No "spamming" of other care industry boards with the intent of stealing elderly care Forum members. Linking to another CARE BUSINESS boards in an attempt to steal members from Care at Home will be grounds for immediate banning. There will be no warnings given for this!

It will be under the discretion of the moderators to determine what is regarded as "spamming." Abuse will not be tolerated, so please think about your posts before you submit, as spammers will be fund out and WILL be BANNED!

2. Signature rules. Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of default size and colour. NO more than one link to be included in your signature. If we find a signature with more than one link you will be warned. If you don't change this you will be banned.

3. All "elderly care" related posts are welcome and we will leave that to you to decide what constitutes "elderly care", but if your posts are reported and you are warned you might face banning. Do not post people's personal information, or attack peoples personal lives or families, stick to the issues and the threads already posted. ANY WHOIS information is considered public information; it is not considered personal information. So do not complain to us if you put your home address as your personal information on WHOIS.

4. Do not post links to illegal or adult related sites, if you do you will be banned immediately.

5) Posting images of death, dismemberment, or animal cruelty will not be permitted and will be removed.

6) Once registered, if you see any posts that do not conform to the above board rules please report them to us at info@careathome.org, thank you.]]> <![CDATA[Do the elderly become institutionalised if they are cared for in a care home?]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=4 Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:19:35 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=4
To be institutionalised it is to become accustomed to life in an institution so that it is difficult to resume normal life after leaving. It is unusual, but not uncommon, for people who have gone into a care home to want to come out and go back home.

So is it that the elderly are institutionalised in a care home or nursing home? Is that okay or not?]]>
To be institutionalised it is to become accustomed to life in an institution so that it is difficult to resume normal life after leaving. It is unusual, but not uncommon, for people who have gone into a care home to want to come out and go back home.

So is it that the elderly are institutionalised in a care home or nursing home? Is that okay or not?]]> <![CDATA[Elderly home care]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=3 Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:20:40 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=3
I would say that they majority of people would prefer to remain in their own home and be cared for there by a home carer. The reason for this is that there is little disruption and you remain in familiar surroundings.

Not only that with care in your own home you get one on one personal care, whereas in a "Care Home" or in a "Nursing Home" you are a number and you have to share the carers with other residents.

I would like to hear your views on this subject and where you have had direct experience where you are the person in receipt of the care or if you are a family member or friend of the person requiring care.]]>
I would say that they majority of people would prefer to remain in their own home and be cared for there by a home carer. The reason for this is that there is little disruption and you remain in familiar surroundings.

Not only that with care in your own home you get one on one personal care, whereas in a "Care Home" or in a "Nursing Home" you are a number and you have to share the carers with other residents.

I would like to hear your views on this subject and where you have had direct experience where you are the person in receipt of the care or if you are a family member or friend of the person requiring care.]]> <![CDATA[Britain's Homecare Scandal]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=2 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:42:25 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=2
Has anyone been subjected to this type of care, as we would like to hear from you and your views.]]>
Has anyone been subjected to this type of care, as we would like to hear from you and your views.]]> <![CDATA[How much does care in the home cost]]> http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=1 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:11:20 -0400 Careathome-1 http://www.careathome.org/homecareforum/showthread.php?tid=1
Care at Home does have a minimium fee of £650 per week for care for the elderly and then this price goes up depending upon the level of care required. For example, a client that is looking purely for a bit of companionship would likely pay the minimum £650 charge, whereas a client that is confined to a bed or "Bed Bound" and requiring a lot more care, then this charge would reflect the extra work involved in this case.

If you are reading this elderly care forum and have a question please feel free to ask it here and we will be happy to help.]]>
Care at Home does have a minimium fee of £650 per week for care for the elderly and then this price goes up depending upon the level of care required. For example, a client that is looking purely for a bit of companionship would likely pay the minimum £650 charge, whereas a client that is confined to a bed or "Bed Bound" and requiring a lot more care, then this charge would reflect the extra work involved in this case.

If you are reading this elderly care forum and have a question please feel free to ask it here and we will be happy to help.]]>