- There is scope for making small improvements within the current system, and this approach would recognise the great difficulty successive governments have faced in achieving major reform. However, it would not address many of the fundamental problems with the current system, including the downward trend in the numbers receiving publicly funded care. Nor would it protect people against ‘catastrophic’ care costs.
- The Conservative Party’s proposals would have, for some, resulted in a more generous system than the one currently in place. However, there are real concerns around implementing and operating such a complex system. There is also a question as to whether this would be the best use of additional funding for social care.
- Whilst a joint health and social care budget might support progress towards more integrated care, it will not in itself address the differences in eligibility between the two systems, or generate additional revenue for health or care.
- Free personal care would mean increasing the government’s ‘offer’ on social care. However, given this would require an increase in public spending, there is a question as to whether this would be the best use of additional funding for social care.
- A hypothecated tax may help gain public support for raising additional funding for social care. However, this would represent a significant shift from the existing system, and could exacerbate the lack of alignment between the health and social care.
Why not ask how other countries manage the issue?
Is it not relevant to ask why other countries fund healthcare and social care differently and more adequately?
Other countries impose more burdens on the family, why is it in England that families can dump their aged relatives whereas in Europe they cannot? (reversing the intergenerational transfer of assets)
Why not consider an output based commercial contract providing incentives to providers to fashion a "solution" i.e. encouraging nature to take its course ....?(I'm joking)
Why is it and family care for their loved elderly, the Government and local Council could not care less and family get no support. My mother lived 250 miles away and looking after her was extremely expensive and difficult. Mum went into hospital only for intermittent chest pain and harsh cough. Only for this to be ignored together with and the hospital, in secret, invent their own reason. I believe deliberate losing of mum's precious teeth so she could not eat properly. Mum dead in 3 days. I know nothing of mum's last hours. The York Trust refuse to tell me, despite my pleading with the Chief Executive. The Coroner was not given the truth by the hospital. I found from Freedom of Information, the lengths they went to to coverup and stlll I have not got the truth, now nearly 6 years of desperately trying for it. They could not care about mun when alive, nor in death. Pamela Ellis
Quite simply more money needs to be allocated every year to social care. Other countries seemingly can afford social care free at the point of use - so why can't the 6th richest country in the world afford this? If the goal of the successful integration of healthcare services and social care services is ever to be realised, these services must be managed and delivered through a single business model. A National Care Service suggests itself in which care homes/nursing homes and domiciliary care agencies are brought back into public ownership. Dropping the commissioner/service supplier arrangements for all forms of care will save us many £100millions each year.
Hello Pam, I'm sorry to hear about your mother's poor experience of care and the circumstances leading up to her death. Unfortunately we're not best place to provide support on this but we would suggest that you speak to the Patients Association who specialise in patient advice. We hope that they're able to help you.
this is one of the clearest and best-written reports on this, or any NHS-related, subject I have read for a very long time. it is entirely comprehensible to a non-specialist and jargon-free - unlike almost every other recent report that seems couched in the secret code of existing interest groups. well done whoever wrote and edited it.
I'm puzzled by the report's assertion that those with assets below £14,250 aren't required to contribute to their care costs; this is true of care at home but not of care in homes, where all the resident's income less a small amount of 'spending money' goes towards the fees. This can have a serious effect on any dependants, of course, which shouldn't be ignored.