Can Care Providers Be Squeezed Anymore? – TonyButcher – Member blogs – Social Work Blog – Carespace from Community Care
December 15, 2010Care Education More Important Than Tuition Fees – TonyButcher – Member blogs – Social Work Blog – Carespace from Community Care
December 7, 2010Pondering on Politicians
November 5, 2010Who will Council Care Home Closures Benefit? – TonyButcher – Member blogs – Social Work Blog – Carespace from Community Care
June 16, 2010Who will Council Care Home Closures Benefit? – TonyButcher – Member blogs – Social Work Blog – Carespace from Community Care
June 16, 2010Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility in Social Care
May 26, 2010Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility were the buzzwords of the first Queens Speech under David Cameron’s Government.
Yet we have little detail, so far, how these ideals will be applied to social care.
We had the promise of a Commission which will look at the structure of social care but will the Commission be given the freedom and responsibility to look at all aspects of the care system and the much of the unfairness that is inherent in the system.
Yes, we know there is the question of the fairness of people having to sell their homes to pay for care but there are many other issues of unfairness to, such as the variation in services across authorities, the level at which people are able to access services, the difference in fees charged by some providers to private or publicly funded users, whether or not Local Authorities pay sufficient care fees etc. There is also the question of whether care workers are treated fairly in being asked to provide intimate services for such low remuneration, is it fair that the carers allowance for those who provide unpaid care for loved ones is just £53.90 per week?
There is also, perhaps, a question of whether the Government will be fair and responsible with social care. Is it responsible to launch another Commission into the funding issue following on the double consultation process undertaken by the last Government. To waste money going over the same ground (and I am sure that many of the submission from charities and lobbying groups will be near identical to those submitted earlier in the year) seems irresponsible, surely it will be much better to focus on the wider issues of social care that impact care users and those who provide support for the vulnerable.
Whether or not the Government gives Social Care fair time in Parliament is another question. According to the 2001 census details more than 6 million people provided unpaid care, add to this the 1.2 million people working in social care in England, the 1.78 million people receiving Local Authority care packages in England (plus those in the Devolved Governments) and you find that over 15% of the population have a stake in care policy, a number that will increase with the rapidly ageing population.
The Government has committed itself to a very full Parliamentary programme of the next 16 months or so and it is difficult to see where social care will find the time to have the debates in Parliament that the demographics and economics suggest it deserves.
There will, of course, be freedom for some as personal and individual budgets are pursued by the Government but the question here is how much Local Authorities will be able to make available to individuals who may not, because of financial restraints, have sufficient budgets to make real choice in their care services.
It is obvious that Social Care will be impacted by the cuts announced so far (and those yet to be announced!) so there needs to be an immediate debate on how those who depend on social care are to be protected from the cuts.
The most vulnerable in society must have fairness and freedom but it needs a responsible Government to achieve this.
Please sign my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/social-care-should-be-a-government-priority.html
Social Care needs Greater Commitment
May 21, 2010I would like you to see a comment left on my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority:
“The commitment to dementia research in the Coalition Agreement is very welcome, but there needs to be a commitment to good social care for dementia as well if it is to be meaningful and the elderly are genuinely going to be supported to live at home for longer.”
I think this sums up many of the real challenges that lay ahead for social care over the coming years which have not been fully covered within the coalition document and we need to hear more from the Government who must touch on further issues.
A commission on funding is welcome but if it only focuses on the level individuals have to pay for their own care then a vast section of those who use care services is excluded, those who cannot pay for their own services. This not only includes many elderly people but also many with disabilities and mental health issues. There needs to be a comprehensive review of the real cost of care services for those with multiple and complex whose funding is wholly reliant on Local Authorities.
There was a commitment within the coalition agreement to extend personal budgets and direct payments but how can these work without a proper assessment of care costs? If a Local Authority can only pay a certain amount in Direct Payments what guarantees are there that this will be sufficient to buy the quality of service an individual may need or will lesser quality services, whose staff training etc may not be at the highest level, be the ones that care users have to use because that is all their personal budget will allow?
There needs to be a greater acknowledgement from the Government of the needs or those with Learning Disabilities, particularly those with profound and complex disabilities, who have, so often, been ignored by policy geared toward the more able.
There also needs to be greater debate around the social care workforce. Social care is about people, those who need care and support services and those who give care and support, yes there have been technological advances in providing care and support but technology cannot give reassurance to a person who is confused, technology cannot support an incontinent person with dignity, technology cannot sit and have a conversation with an individual who wants to talk about their life and needs.
Unfortunately many of those who desire to provide care and support are stifled by the system in doing so. Social Workers are often tied up by paperwork, unable to get out and talk to the people they want to help. Care Workers, themselves classified as vulnerable workers by the last Government and the TUC, are asked to carry out care tasks that many would turn their noses up at and to do so working unsociable hours but they are expected to do this for low pay and little reward from society.
Unfortunately the Department of Health seems reluctant to commit to making social care a priority but British society needs to support and care for the most vulnerable in society and the Government must make those individuals a priority in its Parliamentary work. After all, what sort of society is it that marginalizes its most needy citizens in a time of economic uncertainty when the potential spending cuts will impact directly on the services provided to them. The Government must prove that it is not one that will preside over that sort of society.
Please sign my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/social-care-should-be-a-government-priority.html
Coalition Takes the Daily Mail Option
May 20, 2010We now have fuller details of what the new coalition plans to do on social care.
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/
Unfortunately they seem to have gone for the Daily Mail option and decided to focus on the needs of those who have been required to sell their properties to pay for care services. Whilst this is an important part of the social care debate it is not the whole of the debate and I would hope the proposed commission goes beyond this.
It is not just a question of how these particular people pay for their care but a question of funding social care as a whole. It is necessary to take into consideration the costs of providing social care, even for those who are unable to pay for their own care. There is a need to investigate the difference in costs between publicly funded and privately funded care, there needs to be an enquiry into the cuts in services for care users across the country, there needs to be questions asked about the variation in care costs from region to region.
Beyond the questions of finance there needs to be action on adult protection and clarification on the future of such schemes of the Independent Safeguarding Authority registration.
There also needs to be greater clarity on the roles of the various Quangos associated with social care.
Changes to the system cost in both time and money, most Care Providers are already tied up in rewriting many of their procedures to meet the change from the old National Minimum Standards to the new Care Quality Commission standards of Quality & Safety, further changes to the system need to be clarified as soon as possible.
There needs to be greater clarity in the role of social workers in delivering social care to the vulnerable in society. Will the changes proposed under the last Government still go ahead?
There are a great many issues facing social care and the delivery of care services to the most vulnerable in society, all of equal importance to that of individuals faced with selling their property to pay for care.
The new government must tackle all of these issues to ensure that those most vulnerable in society are not disadvantaged in the attempt to appease ‘Middle England’
Please sign my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/social-care-should-be-a-government-priority.html
The Demonization of Care Homes
May 19, 2010A few years ago I spent 18 months or so working as a Face to Face Charity Fundraiser (or a ‘chugger’ to give it its colloquial term). Since that time there is one conversation that has always stuck with me.
I was fundraising for a dementia research charity when I had a talk with a guy who was wracked by guilt because he had had to make the decision about whether or not to continue to looking after his father, who had Alzheimer’s, at home or whether to place him in residential care. Not only was there the guilt of having to admit that he was no longer able to cope with looking after his father but also the guilt of having to place his father in a ‘care home’.
This has always made me wonder why care homes are seen as such a bad option for vulnerable people whose families are no longer able to cope with the strain of providing care at home for those they love or for those who have no family able to care for them.
This is compounded by sections of the care sector who feel that private care homes (which provide around 80% of all care home provision) are more interested in profit rather than in delivering care.
Whether it is public or private care home provision there seems to an element of demonization present. The reason for so much private care home provision is the desire to move vulnerable people away from the institutionalised long-stay hospitals and campuses etc to a better quality of care. Yet it seems that now this has been, largely, achieved, society has moved its definition of an ‘institution’ to include that of a private care home which have come to represent the ‘bad’ aspect of social care.
This demonization of the private care home has, of course, partly been bought about by media insistence on only publishing stories of when things go horribly wrong. But it should be remembered that, according to the care regulator, that there are more good and excellent care homes than poor and adequate ones. It is also important to remember why so much care home provision has been handed over to the private sector. Local Authorities are unable to match the lower costs that private providers can achieve in delivering care. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable, much of saving in costs comes from the wages paid to care staff, Skills for Care figures indicate that private care homes pay around 8% less than statutory providers, but whether this leads to any decrease in the level of care provided has yet to be established and it must be remembered that the move toward private provision is Government and Local Authority lead rather than something created by the private care sector.
The flip side to the argument, put forward by care home owners and associations, is that care fees, paid by local authorities, have, over that last few years, been raised by less than the rate of inflation and this year, in many cases, no increase has been given at all and with inflation currently its highest for 17 months the lack of increased fees is bound to impact on care delivery.
Both sides have valid concerns but, unfortunately, the only aspect that has reached the national is this demonized impression of care homes that are bad and this is one reason why the Government must make social care an immediate priority.
Only Government commitment and action on social care can reassure those families who are faced with the difficult decision of having to choose residential care for someone they love that it is the right decision and that everyone in the public and private sectors are committed to providing good quality care.
Please sign my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/social-care-should-be-a-government-priority.html
