Weekly Roundup, 27th February 2018

4 Responses

  1. Yvonne Bonifas says:

    Once again here I am on the internet correcting the entirely inaccurate ( but often made in the media) statements about Continuing NHS Funded Care (CHC) vs local authority funded care. It is not the case that you can get CHC funding for a stroke or cancer but not for dementia. The eligibility is based on 1) complexity and 2) unpredictability of care needs. The threshold in all cases is very high and not surprisingly people cannot accept that their relative does not qualify when they see them bed bound and requiring round the clock care but deemed to have “only” social care needs.
    Someone with dementia most certainly can qualify for CHC, but it requires them to have a very high level of needs, usually including very difficult challenging behaviour or other comorbidities making their care needs complex and unpredictable. Hence fewer people with dementia qualify, but the basic premise remains.
    Equally most people having had strokes will not qualify for CHC. It is very unfortunate that the explanation is sometimes given by professionals that you qualify for CHC if you have “medical needs” but not “social” needs. This is misleading.
    Lastly you can qualify for CHC funding on an entirely different basis, i.e. that you have a terminal illness with a very short life expectancy. Again this is easier to predict in say cancer than in end stage dementia. In that case you can qualify under the unfortunately named “fast track” conditions, nothing to do with complexity or unpredictability of need.
    It may all seem very subjective and unfair and indeed it is. I frequently get furious replies to posts on this subject. Please note I am not approving the system, simply explaining it as most journalists totally fail to grasp the detail.

  2. Mike Rawson Mike Rawson says:

    Hi Yvonne,

    You win the (imaginary) prize for longest comment on my blog.

    I have relied on the FT, I admit, but I wouldn’t say that CHC is the core point of the article.

    Funding is not fair, that’s my point. I doubt that it’s possible for things to be fair.

    Once we start paying for third parties, we start to have opinions about who those third parties should be, and how they should have lived to date.

    Life is terribly subjective, I’m afraid.

    I do think that it’s unfair for cancer to be socialised and dementia to be privatised.

    Best,

    Mike

    • Yvonne Bonifas says:

      Sorry for the long post. I tried to be concise but the fact is this subject is complicated. And as I said it’s not actually the case that cancer is socialised and dementia is privatised. Acute treatment is socialised but there’s virtually none for dementia. The social/medical division is highly subjective not helped by the fact that the NHS has drawn it’s criteria ever tighter… but there I go again. The FT article was helpful btw but even that had factual inaccuracy – the first 13 weeks of resi care are not free but subject to assessed contribution.

  3. Mike Rawson Mike Rawson says:

    Yvonne – I think you may be closer to the coal face than I am. In which case you have my sympathies.

    I think the current system is rewarding bad people and penalising good people. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

    I’d like to start again from scratch. I’m paying for a lot of people that I don’t want to.

    People should take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for help.

    Mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Weekly Roundup, 27th February 2018

by Mike Rawson time to read: 8 min
More in News
Weekly Roundup, 20th February 2018
Weekly Roundup, 20th February 2018

We begin today's Weekly Roundup in the FT, with the Chart That Tells A Story. This week it was about...

Close