£2.6 million wasted on 'care beds' that remained empty in one county of England

[JPG1]

"SURREY County Council has spent more than £2.5million in the past year paying for social care beds for the elderly which have been left empty."

"In the past 12 months empty dementia beds cost taxpayers £440,000."

In one county of England.

http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surre...ey-s-wasted-care-bed-millions-86289-29062695/


Now, what could we do with £2.6 million?????

Please post all suggestions here - I'm sure someone will come up with a few ideas.


PS. I don't like the language used to describe the situation, but I didn't write it - I just posted the link and quotes!

 

[TinaT]

For the past year Ken's care home (Local Authority run) has had a 'cap' on new admissions. Now it has frozen all admissions.

Make what you will of the situation, it strikes me that the Government policy which filters through to the LA's of keeping disabled people in their own homes, very laudable it may be, is a broad brush and misses the finer details such as dementia.

xxTinaT

 

[jimbo 111]

I know it would not be an ideal situation OK I can see the need to have spare accomodation available
But can you imagine the relief it would be for some carers to be able to find a temporary respite for their loved one and not have to pay for it because its already paid by the council ,( and I'm not only thinking of dementia patients)

jimbo 111

 

[lin1]

Its disgusting to waste so much money on empty beds when their is so much wrong with elderly care and people with dementia or other chronic illnesses

Why not use the empty spaces at the homes for additional respite care weeks for people , after all their being paid for so why not use them or am I being silly

 

[TinaT]

There are already within the social care system, 'respite' beds available. These beds are available on a booking system but there are also emergency respite beds available. There may not be enough of such beds, but that is another matter.

In this survey I would think that respite beds are not counted and only the beds which are not occupied for the purpose of permanent care would be counted..

As regards free respite care - wouldn't that be wonderful!! Carers save much more per year than this would cost. But the Government's argument is that if someone is receiving attendance allowance, or carers allowance etc., etc., then payment must be paid for respite. They go on to point out that anyone in hospital over a certain time limit, have their pensions and benefits cut too.

To you and me Jimbo this is unjust because whether in hospital or in respite for a short time, their own home still has bills to be paid. But this falls on deaf ears of course.

xxTinaT

 

[sussexsue]

I am shocked. Well maybe I shouldnt be, but I am. Almost daily on this forum we hear about individuals struggling to manage financially, all monies being taken for care immediately, their finances investigated to the last pennny. However when it comes to Government organisations there seems to be a totally different set of rules.

As an aside a few years ago it was found that the same council were paying £3000 to an external contractor for digging and filling in holes in the road (regardless of size). This had been going on for many years. After an investigation it was agreed that most of these jobs could have been done for well under £500 (eg two men, half a day's work). The Council admitted that this was wrong, but then claimed that they were committed to continuing the contract for another 2 years. There was such a local outcry that eventually it was resolved.

The amount of taxpayers money that gets squandered is truly alarming, and probably the NHS is one of the worst culprits.

 

[JPG1]

I'm pleased to read that I'm not alone in my disgust at this waste of our money. It takes a lot to shock me these days, after everything I've learned about the rotten systems in place. But this story really takes the biscuit!

There is one fact that is not mentioned in that article : both contracts are 20 year contracts. So, another 10 years to run for both companies to reap the benefits. (It puts a whole new meaning on the term 'benefit scrounger' that seems to be used at random by our new government. )

Here's an earlier report, from 6 April 2011:

http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surre...00-000-a-month-on-unused-beds-86289-28470518/


I know that many councils have agreed to 25 year contracts with some care home providers. If those contracts are terminated, for whatever reason, the care home providers 'benefit' even more - because they then 'take the money' without needing to provide the service.

A nice little earner, at the expense of those who need care at an affordable price.

Yours sincerely,
A furious JPG1!