Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal and financial issues' started by stanleypj, Sep 22, 2015.
We had the initial checklist assessment this morning. It went well and my dad has been referred for the full assessment.
Good to hear this.
Depends what you mean by full assessment, but do bear in mind that that alone may not mean you will be awarded CHC funding.
My mother has twice been 'referred to panel' and twice refused as her needs, although 'unpredictable' are not 'complex'.
I have just been refused funding although I qualify for nursing care. This despite Peter being incontinent, violent (he's on an antipsychotic drug and sedative), unable to communicate and generally uncooperative.
So sorry to hear about your bad experiences Liz and lemonjuice. It's true that the initial checklist is merely the first hurdle.
I hope that lhtl will have a look through this thread and see how people have prepared for the full DST meeting.
I'm certainly under no illusions that anything is guaranteed. After reading as much as I could I was glad that even this stage was fairly straightforward.
I've read this entire thread (and others) several times, I know how difficult it can be even when assessors are doing their job properly and not trying to essentially cheat someone out of entitled funding.
6 year wait then panel in 10 days
My mum died in September 2010. Shortly after she died we initiated a claim for retrospective CHC for the period from November 2004 until her death.
We have waited until now for any meaningful response. We received a letter dated 16th August. This stated that the period from November 2004 (when she first went into a home), until June 2009 was not being looked at as it 'was a previously assessed period'.
The period from June 2009 to September 2010 is being considered and is going to panel soon.
We have been given until 26th August to send any comments in, if we want them to be considered by the panel.
I phoned them and asked for an extension to this deadline and was told it wasn't possible. I pointed out that we had waited 6 years and were now expected to respond within 10 days, which is blatantly unfair, but to no avail.
Luckily we applied for relevant documentation from the hospital, GP, care homes etc when we first initiated a claim, otherwise we would have had a hopeless task.
I am going to the library today to print off the Decision Support Tool, in order to work through it and provide supplementary evidence to the panel.
Has anyone else had to work to such a short deadline and/or can anyone offer any advice around this?
We may well decide to appeal against the earlier years, but addressing the period the panel will be looking at is the priority at the moment.
I live in Merseyside - if I'm allowed to say that - so it would also be good to hear from anyone with any experience locally.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Before you print the DST off check if they are working to the 2009 version or the current one.
2009 version attached.
You can download other superseded documents relating to the process by searching on
Good point. Having trouble downloading your attachment as I can presently only access the internet on my phone.
Do you know if the current one differs greatly from the 2009 one?
I've just phoned and been told that they will be using the 2016 checklist unless we specifically request that the 2009 one be used.
I was told there was very little difference and it was unlikely to affect the outcome so I have agreed they can use the 2016 checklist. If we lose and decide to appeal then I will look at it in more detail.
It's ludicrous that we have only been given 10 days to send in supporting comments. If my sister had gone on holiday we would have known nothing about it until it was all over.
This is inexcusable. I would do all you can to get it across to them that if they do not offer an extended deadline you will formally complain about it and get maximum publicity.
They have said it is because their department is being wound up at the end of the month and all the outstanding cases have been given this deadline. I have also been told that panels are being held daily.
My sister said she wanted it out of the way as soon as possible, as it has dragged on long enough. I agree to an extent but don't want to have waited this long and come away with nothing.
I bet they want it out of the way! Some other body will be taking on thr responsibility surely?
Yes, it's being moved elsewhere.
The other problem that we have is that they have sent negative checklists for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and have enclosed 2 pre 2008 negative checklists. They have said there were negative checklists in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The checklist on 23rd June 2009 'triggered in', allegedly went forward for a full assessment and then failed at that stage.
They have said they are unable to provide copies of the negative checklists for 2006/2007/2008 and the positive checklist and negative assessment for June 2009 without a SARS request, which can take up to 40 days.
They have this paperwork but it wasn't produced by them so they have to have permission to release it.
Given that an assessment was allegedly done on 23rd June 2009 and they are now looking at the period from 24th June 2009 onwards, it appears that her condition would have to have changed overnight in order to pass the assessment.
"Do you know if the current one differs greatly from the 2009 one?"
No personal experience.
This >>>briefing<<< outlines the differences between 2009 and 2012 and tabulates relevant sections.
It may be worthwhile sitting down with somebody and doing a detailed comparison of the current and archived documents.
I think you should push for an extension sufficient to allow you to summit a SARS and study any documents you may receive. A complication is that prior to 2009 there was not a national framework meaning that early 2009 reviews could have been made without a complete understanding of changes that may have been introduced in any particular area.
I don't think there's any chance of getting an extension. I think we will just have to submit whatever we can and appeal if it's turned down.
I'm not feeling very well today but will have to go through the paperwork and see what I can put together, concentrating on the period they are assessing.
Concentrate on the domains that can be assessed as priority or severe, not saying ignore other domains.
Backing up a single severe with lower scores from other domains can be difficult.
I'm just looking at it now. The decision support tool in 2009 rated her as severe for cognition and high for cognition, so they can't move any higher. She was rated at moderate for mobility and continence and low/no needs in all the other domains - although it doesn't say which are low and which are no.
Should the current DST show ratings for the domains, because it doesnt appear to?
I've just realised that what they've sent me isn't a Decision Support Tool, it's a Needs Portrayal Document. At what stage and by whom would a Decision Support Tool be compiled?
Sorry for all the questions but I'm operating to a ridiculously tight timescale. I'm very grateful for all the help and hopefully I will be able to help others in the future.