Care funding commission must consider all adults

Here we go again. Today sees the launch of the latest Commission on the Funding of Care and Support (catchy title) for adults.

We’ve been here before, most recently with last year’s Big Care Debate. That got as far as a White Paper before the election, but as soon as the government changed the proposals were swiftly dropped. So we’re back to square one. Again.

Nevertheless, the new commission has been detailed to report back within a year. Health secretary Andrew Lansley expects legislation in front of Parliament next year, and it will eventually form part of a larger White Paper that also takes in the Law Commission’s work on creating a single modern statute for social care, and the Government’s vision for social care.

The commission will focus on:

• The best way to meet care and support costs as a partnership between individuals and the state
• How an individual’s assets are protected against the cost of care
• How public funding for the care and support system can be best used to meet needs
• How its preferred option can be delivered, including an indication of the timescale for implementation, and its impact on local government (and the local government finance system), the NHS, and – if appropriate – financial regulation.

The politicians have, as usual, made all the right noises about this; for instance, Lansley said; “we must develop a funding system for adult care and support that offers choice, is fair, provides value for money and is sustainable for the public finances in the long term.”

All regulation political guff and nothing that anybody disagrees with; it’s just that successive ministers have said this for some years, so its hard not to feel cynical.

But reading between the lines, service users should not get their hopes up that reform will improve things too much. As care services minister Paul Burstow said: “Trade offs will have to be made but we are determined to build a funding system that is fair, affordable and sustainable.”

Trade offs? Is that a euphemism? To me, that is a subtle way of saying that to get to a solution, some existing ways of being funded may have to be axed/cut back. However, this is just speculation on my part – I may be reading too much into it.

But the commission does take place against the backdrop of swingeing budget cuts and this will form a major spoke in their thinking, hence why a leading economist, Andrew Dilnot, has been chosen to chair it.

He will be assisted by the CQC’s Dame Jo Williams and Lord Norman Warner, a Labour peer and former director of Kent social services – and also an outspoken critic of Gordon Brown’s free personal care at home policy earlier in the year – who will help to ensure that the commission does not just focus on the numbers.

As with the last commission, a range of funding options will be assessed, including a voluntary insurance scheme, as favoured by the Conservatives, and a partnership of state and individual contributions, the Liberal Democrats’ preferred option. No mentions of a compulsory levy – aka Labour’s “Death Tax” – being considered in the press release however, so we can assume that that won’t be an option.

But if this is to be successful the commission has to look at funding care for all adults. One of the criticisms of Labour’s last attempt was that it focused too much on older people – especially the voter-winning solution to people having to sell their houses to pay for care – with people with disabilities sidelined.

While older people do make up a significant proportion of those receiving care services, those with disabilities are just as important and any solution has to appreciate their needs and circumstances as well.

The solution also must been seen to improve – or at the very least not cut – services, if it is to get widespread acceptance from the public. Again, this will require doing more with less – a neat trick if you can pull it off.

But what the commission must do above all is to come up with a conclusion. The Big Care Debate had 3 options, but no one option was significantly ahead of the others. This commission should look at all the options and consult widely with frontline workers and service users before making a decision – and then sticking to it.

Coming up with a solution to funding adult social care is not going to be easy – otherwise it would have been done years ago – but this time it needs to happen. However, while some tough choices will have to be made – the financial situation is inescapable – the option of doing nothing is even worse for service users.

NHS reform – impact on social care

Andrew Lansley’s much-vaunted white paper on the future of the NHS was published yesterday afternoon, promising widespread reform, including the abolition of PCTs and SHAs and giving commissioning power to GP consortiums. But what will it mean for social care? Here are a few of my initial thoughts.

Firstly, there are concerns that the reforms focus on general services and that people with learning disabilities, mental health problems and dementia have been largely ignored – this came through strongly on Twitter yesterday, from what I saw.

To test this, I did a quick word search of the white paper to gauge how many times certain phrases were mentioned; mental health is mentioned 8 times in the 61-page document, Alzheimers or dementia receives one mention [as @seetheperson pointed out to me], and learning disability – or learning disabilities – never crops up.

To me, this is shocking. Considering that people with learning disabilities, dementia and mental health issues make up a significant chunk of those that use NHS services, the lack of attention given to them is a worrying omission.

Specialist services are often a lifeline or those who use them and an acknowledgement of this – and preferably a commitment to give them at least some degree of protection – would have been reassuring to the many service users who are already distinctly nervous about what government cuts will mean for services.

Hopefully the government is planning for learning disability and mental health services separately…

Also, do GPs, who will now have power over which services are commissioned in their area, have the specialist knowledge that is often required in MH/LD to be able to give an authoritative view on what sorts of services are needed? Mental health charity Mind’s chief executive Paul Farmer has already questioned this and called on them to talk to experts and “tap in to the personal knowledge of patients and mental health charities about what works.” 

There is also cynicism over whether GP commissioning will work from some within the profession. For example, the GP for hire blog gives a distinctly lukewarm reaction to the proposals, saying it will put more pressure on salaried and locum GPs, and could lead to divided interests for those doctors involved on a consortium.

Also, will GP consortiums not exacerbate the postcode lottery, which was supposed to be got rid of? If commissioning a service depends on the decision of the GP consortium – a group of individuals with their own opinions – surely there is the risk that one consortium would approve it, but the one next door would not.

It hardly improves patient choice if they find that their needs are rejected in one area but available in another.

But there were some good points in the white paper. For instance, it talks of promoting the joining-up of health and social care services and promoting preventative action. I can’t argue with that principle – health and social care are closely linked, so that is a no-brainer and could help to reduce duplication of information and bring about efficiencies. Also, preventative action is generally accepted to reduce the need for costlier, more complex services down the line.

The white paper also says that the government’s vision for adult social care will be outlined later this year, and indicate that it will be a continuation of the current personalisation drive towards choice and control for service users. A white paper will follow next year. Nothing new there, but it is good to have the timeline in place.

In conclusion, the government’s reforms are certainly ambitious, but they are also risky. Social policy think-tank Civitas has warned that considerable resources will be needed to enact the restructuring – I’m not sure how that sits with the aim of saving £20 billion by 2014 – and if it is got wrong it could lead to a dip in the NHS’ performance for at least a year.

That will be the acid test of these reforms – will it make services better for service users? I’m sceptical, but only time will tell, as ever with any reforms.

This white paper provides so many points for discussion so it is more than likely that I will blog on aspects of it again later in the week.

Social care needs to be a priority for new government

Since the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition took power earlier in the week and started outlining its policies, one issue seems to have been conspicuous by its absence: social care.

As I have previously blogged, in the general election campaign social care seemed to disappear off the political radar, despite it being touted as a key issue in the run-up to it being called. Now post-election, it continues to be ignored in children’s and adults services; nowhere in the policy outline was social care mentioned.

Indeed, Michael Gove, the new head of the (swiftly renamed) Department for Education, has said in a letter to civil servants that education is the priority for the department, thus seemingly sidelining children’s services, although he added that this area will be strengthened and reformed, but didn’t elaborate on how.

Also, Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, has spoken extensively of the plans for the NHS, while adult social care has garnered barely a mention.

This lack of attention is worrying; ask anyone within adult social care and they will say that reform – especially of the way it is funded – is urgently needed. Children’s services also need to be strengthened and supported. They can’t be left to drift as they have done for the past few years.

Leading social care organisations are also worried. Counsel & Care, a charity working with older people, their families and carers, have called for reform of social care to be made a priority by the new government.

Meanwhile, Carers UK’s director of policy and public affairs, Emily Holzhausen said; “We are deeply disappointed that the programme for Government published in the coalition agreement this week does not establish social care as a political priority.

“Clear plans must be brought forward as a matter of urgency, setting out a sustainable funding model for fair, universal, and transparent care services.”

However, despite the worries, I’m trying not to be too negative. It is still very early days for the government and we shouldn’t be too quick to judge – social care is a complicated issue and it may take more time to put together a policy.

Also, Paul Burstow, a Lib Dem MP with a history of championing issues such as social care funding, dementia and adult protection, has been appointed as a minister for state – the rung below cabinet – in the Department of Health. Having someone with in-depth knowledge of and a passion for the issues involved could ensure that they get the attention they need.

But until the government makes any policy announcements, as with everyone else blogging on this in the sector, everything is speculation and educated guesswork.

A final thought; in among all the speculation, there is one decision on social care that will have to be made soon – whether to pass Labour’s Personal Care at Home Bill. The Tories are against it, as are the Lib Dems, who would prefer to use the money for this to give carers extra short breaks, so I think we know what the result will be there.

Do you agree? Please let me know your thoughts below.

What will new government bring for social care?

After all the courting of the past few days, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have finally decided on a political marriage. But what will this mean for social care?

Now the dust is settling, here is a little of what is known, plus some conjecture and guesswork.

Firstly, it means that Labour’s plans for a National Care Service are dead. The Tories always opposed it, and the Lib Dems also had problems with it, so it’s a definite no-go. This means that social care will go back to square one, waiting again for the reform it so badly needs.

On the upside, it looks likely that plans for a set of national eligibility criteria for social care services, proposed by Labour, will be brought in as the coalition parties also both support it. This should end the ‘postcode lottery’ of unfairness in social care and can only be a good thing.

Now, things become less clear; we know there will be big public sector spending cuts in the Budget, which will probably be in June. Both parties have denied that it will hit frontline services, but councils will have to make some big savings and services could be hit – such as scrapping some services that are not perceived to deliver value for money – and eligibility criteria could be ramped up again.

I suspect that a new White Paper on the future of social care may be commissioned in the near future. The Liberals are in favour of (yet another) commission on reforming care funding, but the Tories aren’t, so action may come relatively quickly – we all know the problems in the sector, they just need to be addressed.

Whether the Conservatives’ stated plan for a voluntary £8,000 insurance scheme to pay for elderly residential care comes to pass remains to be seen.

Both parties were relatively light on detail about reform in their respective manifestos, but there were differing ideas, such as the Lib Dem idea of giving all carers one week of respite, so it is hard so say in which direction the government will go.

Also, remember there were the secret cross-party talks about the future of social care earlier in the year – which Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, scuppered – could anything come out from that?

Hopefully in the coming weeks we will hear something more concrete about what will happen to social care. The sector needs reform quickly, so the coalition needs to work together to find the best solution – whatever that is…

Small print reveals continuing costs of residential care

So, Conservative shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley has pointed out that the government’s plans for funding residential care doesn’t include the ‘hotel’ costs of it.

For those of us that have followed this closely, this is not a revelation. This debate is about paying for care – board and lodging doesn’t come into it. When the green paper on adult social care funding was released last June, some people in social care pointed out that the proposals wouldn’t mark the end of people having to sell their house to pay for care. Interestingly, at the time, this was largely ignored.

Even in Scotland people in residential care have to pay ‘hotel’ costs – something which isn’t pointed out as often as it should be when people in England moan about ‘free’ care north of the border – and older people do still in some cases have to sell their house to pay for it.

But with the government set to shelve plans for the “Death Tax” this week, according to the Guardian, this seems to be the latest attempt to derail plans for reform.

Again, Lansley seems to be at the heart of this. While this smacks of another attempt at cheap political points-scoring ahead of the looming election, it does raise (albeit in a not-too-helpful way) a legitimate point.

One of the aims of any reform of adult social care funding, according to government messages when the green paper came out, is to eliminate people having to sell their homes. The options listed in the paper didn’t seem to do that.

It is still a problem – many voters see the practice as unfair and penalising those who have worked to own their own homes and leave an inheritance – and if it isn’t addressed many will see any white paper as a failure.

However, the green paper was only a consultation, and the white paper – apparently coming this week – may have a solution. We shall wait and see – and expect Labour’s opponents to seize upon it if it doesn’t.

Blown consensus = blown chances?

So near. And yet, so far. 

In my previous blog, I wrote about how any chance of serious debate about social care and how it is funded has gone, since the Conservatives launched its “Death Tax” poster campaign.

But since then, more has emerged about what was happening behind the scenes before that, and it makes for interesting reading.

I’ve blogged before about how consensus is needed on the future direction and funding of social care and for a while it seems as if the health secretaries of the 3 main political parties had had the same idea.

Apparently, Andy Burnham, Andrew Lansley and Norman Lamb had put party politics to one side and begun working together – in secret, without their superiors’ knowledge – for the good of the country in trying to find consensus on the future for adult social care funding, and had made some progress towards this, according to The Times.

It sounded too good to be true and, ultimately, was.

But the fact that they tried has to be applauded. Social care is such a big issue that it will require support from all 3 sides if a solution to a growing problem is to be found.

It is a shame that this progress was, apparently, sacrificed on the election altar. Whether after this breach of trust the parties will come back together again after the election is a question that will need to be asked.