Joe wonders….what will give as budgets get slashed

Some authorities say they have no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending. The number of councils in England cutting back on free adult social care has increased by 13% this year, a survey has suggested.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41. The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.

The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care. Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.

This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.

Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.

Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.

I was at a Service recently where a third of staff will lose their jobs in the next couple of months. All this with a background of increasing demand means something must give. Do we now look forward to the old days of increasing waiting lists or the year an area present at NAEP on how they saved £250,000 by not issuing bathlifts!

You can read the article connected to this comment from Joe HERE

Angus Long

Joe

You rightly raise an important issue.

If the local authorities cut back, as you illustrate, then what will happen is what always does. Namely the problem and the “cost” are passed onto another department.

For example: If social services cut back on providing help and care for the elderly, disabled and chronically ill in the community, then what tends to happen is the primary care trusts pick up the baton.

Calls to 999, out of hour’s doctors, A&E walk-in centres and district nursing services start to rise. However, these departments are not structured to manage homecare and are less trained in things like moving & handling, the various equipment and services best suited to these patients’ conditions and circumstances. So, invariably, many of them end up being temporarily looked after in the more expensive secondary care system.

It’s not a saving at all; it’s merely passing the buck to a different budget to pick up the tab. While the council makes a short term reduction to their own deficit, the impact on the collective dearth is a negative.

Certainly, it is my view that structured healthcare reform, particularly the relationship with primary and secondary care, is well overdue.

19 May 2011

kate Sheehan

We live in interesting times and with still very little joined up thinking between Health and Social Care, the knee jerk reaction to save money often costs more in the long run.

I am a strong believer in promoting health and well being and the provision of small pieces of assistive technology or a re-enablement program can have a significant affect on an individual's health and well being but more importantly cost less than primary Health input.

We also need to be to remember that the DFG is a mandatory grant and although the monies from central government are not ring fenced there is still a duty to provide a grant to someone who is eligible.

24 May 2011

Posting your comments

We are happy to receive comments on our Blog Team’s views and would encourage debate, but please ensure that any comments you submit are designed to contribute to the discussion and don’t include material that could be considered rude, inflammatory or contain statements that are untrue or are styled as advertisements.

We reserve the right not to publish comments that we believe unsuitable for the Blog area.

Post a Comment

Name:

Email: (optional)

URL: (optional)

Comments: