wmcha

By Debbie le Quesne

Posts Tagged ‘care fundings

New PM downgrades care minister’s role

leave a comment »

Theresa May has an unenviable challenge. We have the Brexit issue, the unstable British economy, welfare issues, immigration problems . . . and social care all clamoring for her attention.

What’s going on, I ask. The minister of Care responsibilities have been downgraded and are now the remit of a parliamentary under-secretary. It’s the first time in eight years this has happened and I’m hugely disappointed.

The news appears to have caught the imagination of only a few journalists, but not surprisingly, the ones at the Guardian.

“This downgrade comes at a time when there is acceptance that social care is in crisis and there is unprecedented demand on care services,” I read in the paper’s online columns.

And the article points out the obvious. As we live longer and have more complex needs in later life, it is crucial that social care remains high on the political agenda.

The downgrading appears to suggest otherwise – this is now a post on the bottom rung of the ministerial ladder. I was hoping that things would be so much better with Mrs May.

According to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, to maintain care at the same level as last year would require more than an extra £1.1bn. But the National Audit Office, says the Guardian, has previously reported that councils increasingly pay less than the actual cost of the care provided.

Here we beat the same old drum: It is not a financially viable a situation.

Additional pressure on care provider budgets comes with the Living Wage and the fact that demand for care is only going to increase.

Jane Ashcroft is chief executive of Anchor, England’s largest not-for-profit provider of care and housing for older people, writes: “With a rising population and longer life expectancy, the number of people over 65 is set to rise by more than 40 per cent in the next 17 years.

“This will take the number of older people in the UK from 11.4 million to more than 16 million. This demographic change is welcome; it signals improving living conditions and advances in medicine. But if the funding of services is not updated for these new demands, we are undoubtedly heading towards an age of suffering and loneliness for older people.”

Rightly so she calls for a minister of state role – “someone with the power to make real change.”

I fully understand that good social care reduces the financial burden on NHS care. It cuts hospital admissions and heads off expensive health troubles with our vulnerable and elderly. Critically, it can also cut hospital bed blocking.

According to Ashcroft these combined woes cost the taxpayer £820m a year.

Can we have our minister back please. I think we need one, urgently. The downgrading of this portfolio is a huge step in the wrong direction.

 

Advertisements

Still waiting for the Care Act to deliver

leave a comment »

I was reminded that it’s been more than a year since the Care Act was implemented. Last month saw the milestone pass by quietly . . . except for a report by industry big-player accountants KPMG, who offer advisory analytics to the care sector.

The paper, entitled “Reimagine Local Government – Time for the Care Act to Deliver, pulls no punches and is a timely wake-up call.

KPMG Director, Andrew Webster, outlined the promise of a better future in a Guardian article. He wrote: “It is now more than 12 months since the implementation of the Care Act, a legislative success many years in the making.

“The act spoke of fair and equal access to support services, vibrant and diverse care provider markets and of people having information about how and when to access services. It was to be a fundamental change in the foundations of social care.

In the run up to its implementation, local councils focused on what the act would mean for them. Directors and professional leaders sought to ensure their colleagues understood how services would need to change and momentum built behind the changes.”

But something seems to have gone wrong. In his words there is a “real risk this momentum has stalled.”

Significantly, he writes: “Instead of surveying a diverse care market, we read headlines about providers considering an exit from the sector.

“Council websites are filled with pages about getting recycling bins or parking permits, but little about how to have a grab rail installed so you can stay in your home safely. For now, the vision of the Care Act largely feels just that: a vision rather than a reality.”

He adds: ”The idea of councils as responsive organisations, guiding people to the best care, is the correct one. It is not only right for the wellbeing of our population, it is right in today’s financially constrained public sector.

“Fewer resources are forcing councils to consider making more radical changes to care, in the same way as they have already changed other services.”

He advises: “Councils should strike a new deal with local people, making it clear both sides have a responsibility to maintain independence and wellbeing. That means everyone acting quickly when long-term care starts to be needed. People have to raise the issue before reaching the point where they need care at home, and councils need to respond with accurate advice about local services.”

With a call that councils should raise their digital game to get simple, but still put comprehensive information ‘out there’ on social care, he acknowledges “all of this costs money.”

Added into his mix is a suggestion that all major local care providers should be brought together into one room; “not to drive prices even lower but to work out how to help providers thrive, support new services coming to market and create a digital platform offering access to these new services.”

These initiatives would then be supported by councils investing in training for specific staff groups, building investment in health technology into their economic growth plan, or working with schools to develop better ways to keep young people healthy.

The possible “foundation of the new era promised by the Care Act?”

Great ideas, but I suspect currently out of reach for too many people. One of the major problems we have as an Association is persuading people outside of our membership to talk to us and each other.

What a difference that would make. Not perfect, but a start . . .

Written by debbielq

July 4, 2016 at 11:54 am

Osborne’s social care cash ‘used to balance books’

leave a comment »

 

 

In any other scenario, you’d expect legal exchanges and the Press to be shouting ‘scandal’ from front pages.

But this is the care sector – often unde-gunned and always under-funded.

It’s incredulous, but has been claimed by reliable sources, that funds being raised by Dudley Council to shore up the costs of social care are to be used to help balance the books on the previous year’s overspend.

Under Chancellor George Osborne’s plan to fund care sector needs, he sanctioned a two per cent hike in council taxes during the Spending Review last November.

But it emerged at an emergency members’ meeting of the West Midlands Care Association, which represents private and charitable care providers, the new monies will have no impact on the current industry crisis that has seen 1,000 social care beds lost across the country since January.

Neither will there be any new monies generated for social care from Mr Osborne’s 2016 Budget proposals.

Hopes that he would heed calls by the Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) to bring forward £700m of social care funding never materialised.

Sadly, the outlook can only get worse as care providers struggle to make ends meet.

The West Midlands Care Association understands 50 per cent of the public in Dudley agree with the Chancellor’s precept of two per cent in the belief that it will help adults requiring social care packages to continue to receive them in a sustainable way.

But the truth is that the two per cent is just not enough and is being directed towards last year’s accounts shortfall.

How can they get away with this?

There are no provision margins from such funding for the current financial year.

A packed meeting at the Quality Hotel, Dudley, delegates from across the Midlands, heard the next three to four years would be “critical to the survival of social care as we know it.”

For the last nine years fees have fallen below the viable cost of running a care home.

Figures from Industry analysts LaingBuisson reveal English councils pay on average £91 a week less than what is needed to provide fully compliant care.

I’m sure the survival rate will tumble very soon as the living wage outlays start to hit home and the number of private funders, who shore up the shortfalls on the cost of care being paid for by local authorities, remain static.

At best, I believe, we have three to four years before the landscape of care changes beyond recognition and there will be no way back to the required bed levels our ageing population needs to provide some kind of fluid service to hospital discharge managers wanting to avoid bed blocking.

In a desperate attempt to secure a funding lifeline to the industry, MPs, councillors, local authority officers and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have been asked to meet with us to discuss ring-fenced funding for social care. It’s the only way we’ll ever see any monies decanted from Government.

The vast majority of Black Country care businesses rely on placements paid for by councils as a primary income generator. More than 26,300 people across the region are receiving residential care. A similar number have care at home.

In September last year my association revealed Dudley Social services had given rises totalling 8.9 per cent over a five year period while, the Consumer Prices Index was at 11.6 per cent, the Retail Price Index at 15 per cent and wage rises hitting 12.3 per cent.

I’m wholly persuaded our local authorities understand the dilemma, but are working under a Government that is hopelessly adrift of reality.

 

 

GPs’ NO vote on care home calls – the national scene

leave a comment »

A landmark decision by GPs affecting their commitment to residential care homes and nursing homes is another crippling blow to the care sector. In this blog I want to look at the national scene and then post a second piece on the local picture.

Recently the BBC announced that the plight of care home residents “has pretty much slipped below the radar in recent years.”

It noted while there is “close scrutiny of everything from A&E waiting times to access to the latest cancer drugs, the support – or rather lack of it – care home residents receive from the NHS has gone almost unnoticed.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

  • Now for a few facts to set the scene of the latest bombshell to drop on the private care sector:
  • There are 16,500 care homes in England, looking after more than 300,000 residents
  • If nursing homes are included, the number of residents exceeds 400,000 (500,000 across the whole UK)
  • Nursing homes have to have a registered nurse on staff
  • Both care homes and nursing homes work with local GPs, hospital doctors and district nurses

Given the figures, it is obvious any major shift in the way NHS primary care is delivered into this clinically need-laden sector, would have major repercussions.

Announced by the Daily Mail on its front page, I discovered at the beginning of the month “GPs vote to axe care home visits”.

Up to 300 GPs’ representatives from powerful regional bodies voted at a crisis summit to end being responsible for care homes. Simply put: They want to ditch this responsibility.

The British Medical Association union may now lobby the Government to remove the responsibility of looking after residents from the GP contract.

The implications are huge to both service providers and users.

Historically, the care sector has had patchy service from GP practices.

In 2012 the Care Quality Commission reported 81 care homes looked at were not receiving regular visits from GPs. But now that frail commitment is going – or at least going in the way we have come to expect.

These patients are among the frailest, most vulnerable members of society. Many are living with a complex range of conditions, including dementia, heart disease and diabetes, with residents, according to the BBC, on an average of nine medications each.

Like many problems not given the media attention they deserve, the issue has been developing gradually over time.

What concerns me greatly is how quickly this news has dropped out of media interest. Anyone seen anything in the last couple of weeks?

It’s a ‘given’, isn’t it, that many of the people who decant into care and nursing homes are there because of clinical needs.

Doubtless, before that move, these people would probably have been among a GP’s most frequent visitors.

West Midlands Care Association has been flagging up the problem for years along with other representative bodies such as Care England and Age UK.

The bottom line, as with most problems in social care and the NHS, is money and the problem is two-fold, adding unbearable weight to care providers’ responsibility and costs and potentially subtracting essential care from our elderly.

I’ve seen reports of care homeowners paying GP retainer fees of £20,000 a year to provide regular doctor visits for residents. These figures are prohibitive to most providers within my region, but about a third of homes are in expensive surgery retainer agreements.

My fear is that again it’s our most vulnerable who get the worst of deals by default as our GPs push for the right to opt out of being responsible for frail, vulnerable and highly dependent people.

Issues like continuity of care immediately spring to mind and doubtless the cost of bringing in private providers will be loaded. But we have a legal responsibility to register every resident with a GP, and what’s more, my members want to care for their residents properly.

There’s a trend of moving seriously ill patients out of hospitals into care homes and nursing homes, what will happen to them?

Who are their advocates? Increasingly, it’s our care homes who are taking up their causes, but there must be a limit on just how much fighting we can do . . . Fighting to stay open, fighting to pay bills, fighting to fund the living wage, fighting to change a broken system, fighting . . . fighting . . . fighting. Sometimes I just get tired.

 

 

 

Let us work together to secure the future of care

leave a comment »

Like countless others in the care sector I have joined the chorus in the West Midlands calling on councils to  pay a viable rate for care beds purchased from the private, charity and voluntary sectors.

The care landscape is bleak and my WMCA has warned closures are imminent and there is little regional capacity to take up those frail and needy residents who may be displaced. To this end we are desperate to work with local authorities to find mechanisms that will secure the future care of the most vulnerable and the survival of local businesses.

At an emergency meeting of the association, members heard George Osborne’s living wage directives could “be the final nail in the coffin for care as we know it.”

In an attempt to secure a funding lifeline to the industry, we are calling on MPs, councillors, local authority officers and Clinical Commissioning Groups to meet with us to discuss future ring-fenced funding for social care.

The vast majority of Black Country care businesses rely on placements paid for by councils as a primary income generator and more than 26,300 people across the region receive residential care. A similar number have care at home.

In recent weeks, five care home corporates with 1,200 properties between them have written to the Chancellor warning of impending disaster following his Budget reforms on the living wage.

The big five – Four Seasons Health Care, Bupa UK, HC-One, Care UK and Barchester – look after 75,000 frail, old people. They claim a major provider is likely to close within a year to 24 months unless the Government releases its purse strings. The response: Silence.

The national picture is indeed gloomy, but in our region it’s much, much worse and Osborne’s announcement has caused shockwaves across the region. So many are already in crisis . . . and now this.

The legislation impacts massively on all streams of care as indeed it must doe with many other businesses.

A WMCA impact analysis suggests the Osborne wages regulation will add £23 per week to the care cost of every Midlands person in a residential care setting. But we need to add to that figure a further £50, the current average weekly operational deficit on council-funded places.

If the corporates – HC-One is one of our members – are predicting at best only a two-year survival rate under current economies, what chance have my other members, who have much smaller homes and much-depleted resources?”

As for thepromised autumn Government Spending Review . . . I fear too little, too late.

Residential care occupancy levels throughout the Midlands are averaging 97 per cent and there’s not not a member in the association who is not anxious about the future wellbeing of those requiring care.

For those who think we do not want to pay the living wage, think again, please. All of my members would happily apply the living wage, but there is no financial sleeve left in their business models to do so. Care home companies are not just crying wolf. Care is a minimum wage industry and profit margins are extremely tight, especially where council referrals are the main income.

Do you know that for the last nine years fees have fallen below the viable cost of running a care home?

Over the last five years, for example, Dudley Social services has given rises totalling 8.9 per cent while the Consumer Prices Index is at 11.6 per cent, the Retail Price Index at 15 per cent and wage rises are hitting 12.3 per cent. The rises don’t track cost and we clearly need some Government benevolence to help both councils and care providers.

Recently Sandwell Council’s cabinet met to respond to a WMCA call for a fees increase of 16 per cent – residential care from £378 per week to £438.46; dementia care from £428 per week to 496.48; and residential nursing care from £490 per week to £568.00.

What do we get? A 1.5 per cent rise for residential care and a 2.5 per cent rise for nursing.

Latest figures from Industry analysts LaingBuisson reveal English councils pay £91 a week less than what is needed for fully compliant care.

In 2013 Birmingham City Council commissioned accountants and analysts KPMG LLP to establish the true cost of care through the Open Book initiative where care providers were asked to submit their accounts.

Some 380 homes were targeted and the results showed to meet escalating costs commissioners would need to pay £460 per week.

Two years on, and not including the implications of the living wage, It would take an l increase of six per cent to bring homes to the minimum figures used by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care (ADASS) as the threshold for safe care announced this spring. An extra three per cent would allow homes to cover increases in operational costs.

Sadly, if a major employer were to make this kind of warning there would be huge interest over the potential loss to the economy. What we have here is a bunch of businesses across the region that create about 125,00 carer jobs for adult social care (figures from Skills for Care).

“That dwarfs the employment stats of say Jaguar LandRover and it’s deeply worrying that few of these jobs are secure under present funding models.

Listen, councils do have choices what to do with funds and government austerity can no longer be an excuse for not addressing the finances of care.

I would call upon our local councilors to make decisions of conscience on funding that will directly impact on the most vulnerable people in the electorate they serve.

It is a fact that a dog walker can earn more than we can pay our carers. There is something radically wrong.

Adult social care a human necessity

leave a comment »

Has anyone noticed that it’s gone spookily quiet on issues relating to the ‘single pot’ budget response to the NHS and social care?

Before the election there appeared to be good display of headlines and news bulletins on this initiative, but now: Silence.

Perhaps I have selective deafness, but if I have the condition is share by Zoe Williams writing in The Guardian.

She too, has picked up the vibes of change, observing that although the care sector was “beset with injustices, and the NHS was often having to fill cracks at vast and unnecessary expense, and services would have to be joined up if they were ever to work,” the tone for public consumption is different now.

Andrea Sutcliffe, the chief inspector of adult social care, has described a sector “under stress and strain” in which an ageing population with increasingly complex needs was “only half the story.” Really!

Regulators receive more than 150 allegations of abuse of the elderly every day, Williams reports. Quoting the response from a department of health spokesperson . . . “Treating somebody with dignity and compassion doesn’t cost anything.” But it does, a point Williams also makes.

The language of compassion, she writes, involves funding care and wages and conditions and so on.

As much as £4.6bn has been cut from social care budgets over the past five years, I read. I’d hoped that the current shortfall might be made good with a single NHS/social care fund, despite misgivings over its administration.

Where has news on the single fund gone? Adult social care is not a bolt-on option. It is a human necessity.

In February Greater Manchester and the NHS announced plans around the future of health and social care with a signed memorandum agreeing to bring together health and social care budgets – a combined sum of £6bn.

The scheme saw NHS England, 12 NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, 15 NHS providers and 10 local authorities agree a framework for health and social care.

My question: After such a trailblazing start to the initiative, what is happening in the rest of UK, and of course, more specifically, the Midlands?

Care capping delay – U-turn costing us up to £100m

leave a comment »

After all the spin over the capping of care costs, we now find it’s been delayed until 2020. But the hold-up on the £72,000 cap, originally due to come into force in April 2016, is set to cost up to £100m – and we, the public are footing the bill.

It was delayed after councils wrote to the Department of Health asking for the launch to be deferred, due to funding pressures faced by local authorities – and they have plenty of it.

Care England’s Prof Martin Green tweeted: “Care cap postponed. We need extra money to fund new living wage and a long term approach to funding the true cost of care NOW.”

Indeed, we do!

We could argue all day whether the delay is justifiable. Personally, with the additional costs looming driven by the Living Wage, I believe the strain on introduction would have been intolerable for the LAs.

But I’m baffled by a Government policy on social care funding that appears to be deliberately undermined by Budget legislation.

I’m all for strong, decisive leadership as we map the future of care, but with such an ambitious agenda on pay it almost appears that the real consequences of such action were just not thought through. That could never be . . .could it?