Thousands died waiting for NHS funding decision

[Northerner]

More than three thousand people died in England last year awaiting an NHS decision on their eligibility for home care funding.

A charity said it was "tragic and ludicrous" that families learned the outcome after losing their relatives.

One widow told the BBC a nurse came to assess her husband the day after he died.

NHS England said improvements had been made but the process could be "more efficient".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45116453

 

[mikeyB]

As someone who will almost inevitably need more care as I get worse, I find that rather depressing. Not so much that there are delays, but that the decisions are made by the evil CCGs, whose sole function is to spend as little as possible, not as much as is needed.

 

[Amigo]

As someone who will almost inevitably need more care as I get worse, I find that rather depressing. Not so much that there are delays, but that the decisions are made by the evil CCGs, whose sole function is to spend as little as possible, not as much as is needed.

This is of course for Continuing Health Care funding which is different to the NHS paying the nursing care element. Because it assumes total responsibility for the funding and patients can’t be charged a contribution, it’s hard to get except in very specific, assessed circumstances.
The title is somewhat misleading because ‘Home care’ is usually paid for through Social Services budgets.

The only way to circumvent the wait is to be on end of life care which they charmingly call the ‘Amber Care Bundle’. My mother was approved for Continuing Health Care within hours and it’s the only way someone with nursing needs can return from hospital to a residential home...for end of life care.

I knew the system but it’s overly complicated and clunky for those who don’t.

Still doesn’t ease the emotional pain either!

 

[mikeyB]

In Scotland they are the same budget, so it is a little simpler. That’s not to say it’s any better when it works, I’ve no idea.

 

[Amigo]

In Scotland they are the same budget, so it is a little simpler. That’s not to say it’s any better when it works, I’ve no idea.

It’s an ideal system Mike and integration is necessary here too. However, most financial predictors say the Scottish system is financially unsustainable in the long term.

 

[mikeyB]

It’s all the same government money, so those financial predictors are simply saying social care is not sustainable. And if integration isn’t sustainable in Scotland, for sure it isn’t in the rest of the UK.

 

[SadhbhFiadh]

In Scotland there is a big jump (down) when a child with a disability turns 21 or sometimes can be postponed to age 22. The funding sources are not as willing to spend large bundles on support, equipment, and any other resources once one becomes an adult. I began funding my own support/carers in my 40's, and after I retired SDS (Self directed support) became available in our region. I am very fortunate in that, but I'm wondering what will happen once I turn 65 in the next few years. I think there will be less funding available both for my age and funded through the government.

 

[Amigo]

It’s all the same government money, so those financial predictors are simply saying social care is not sustainable. And if integration isn’t sustainable in Scotland, for sure it isn’t in the rest of the UK.

The sustainability relates to free care Mike as you’ll appreciate. It’s means tested here and they can’t/won’t fund it so goodness knows how Scotland will fare.

In terms of sneaking in additional contributions to personal care, when DLA changed to PIP, it allowed the Government to disregard night-time care payments for exclusion in their calculations towards what people pay Social Services.
As a result they’ve just increased my son’s contributions 4 fold and he now has to pay a week what he (we) were paying a month!
We can subsidise it but goodness knows how some single severely disabled people are managing!

 

[mikeyB]

That’s austerity being used to disadvantage, and in some cases kill the disabled. The poor are always affected more than the better off like me and thee, Amigo. And the worse off don’t have a voice, so the government have free rein to continue making the poor poorer, and the disabled helpless.

This has been noticed by UN investigators, but even international opprobrium doesn’t affect this government’s austerity policy.