Any information at all from TP members would be helpful - I'm up against a dreadful time limit.
Would very much appreciate plse info on how various councils and hospitals have interpreted the "right to family life" requirements laid down by the Human Rights Act. I'm going to a local CCG / STP meeting this Tuesday (morning) at which this subject will come up.
The CCG plans to cut CHC funding by 40% in spite of recognising the numbers of people needing CHC will increase significantly because of the ageing population (no explanation given on how they achieve that miracle!). Several of the money-saving CCG /STP plans impact on article 8 Human Rights Act "right to a family life".
The CCG /STP proposes CHC will only be offered as residential care (ie not care at home with nursing & other support as stanleypj and others used to have for their loved ones) if the cost of care at home amounts to 10% more than the cost of residential care. The current rules are that care at home will be funded if the cost is no more than 25% greater than the cost of care at home.
I find the documentation difficult to interpret so I'm not sure whether the CCG plans to apply the new cost restrictions above to "end of life" situations.
The CCG will restrict CHC funding to services provided via organisations which have contracts with them. User experience with NHS /social care partnership contracted organisations to date has been often horrendous - the contracted organisations haven't had enough staff or management capability to meet their obligations.
CHC funding won't be available for anyone who needs 24 hour support at home from a qualified nurse. There are a number of patient groups who'd be affected by that ruling according to the briefing I've seen ... but I don't know which. The Spinal Injuries and Motor Neurone groups are particularly irate about what's proposed by the CCG - perhaps people with these conditions will be affected?
Generally, however, the "right to family life" will be most harmed by the insistence on residential care instead of care at home for an increased proportion of people awarded CHC funding. In our locality, these plans mean families may have to travel long distances to reach their loved ones. Public transport is bad and being reduced. Many family members won't be physically fit enough to travel by public transport (a one-way 4 mile journey can involve 1.5 hours travel, walking and standing at unsheltered bus stops with nowhere to sit). Many family members won't be able to afford to visit more than on an occasional basis.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is a qualified right.
Please TP members tell me how CCGs and councils known to you have interpreted this "right to a family life" for cared ones whose:-
- health needs are challenging, making it more difficult for local services to meet those needs
- whose families are dependent on public transport and /or suffer mobility, sensory or other health impairments making travel more difficult.
When service users have warned the CCGs about specific problems in provision (eg services aren't at the right level for the cared for person; or place is bad quality; or unreachable) have their local CCGs listened and come to mutually satisfactory decisions on changing service provision?
If they haven't, what has it been possible for TP members or others to do to make these bodies change their minds? Have they involved AS, press, solicitors, MPs etc to back them up?
Does the right to family life in TP members' experience mean in practice the right of family members to visit fairly often, once a week or what?
I'd appreciate any help TP members can offer to guide what I ask at the meeting.
Yours hopefully ....
Would very much appreciate plse info on how various councils and hospitals have interpreted the "right to family life" requirements laid down by the Human Rights Act. I'm going to a local CCG / STP meeting this Tuesday (morning) at which this subject will come up.
The CCG plans to cut CHC funding by 40% in spite of recognising the numbers of people needing CHC will increase significantly because of the ageing population (no explanation given on how they achieve that miracle!). Several of the money-saving CCG /STP plans impact on article 8 Human Rights Act "right to a family life".
The CCG /STP proposes CHC will only be offered as residential care (ie not care at home with nursing & other support as stanleypj and others used to have for their loved ones) if the cost of care at home amounts to 10% more than the cost of residential care. The current rules are that care at home will be funded if the cost is no more than 25% greater than the cost of care at home.
I find the documentation difficult to interpret so I'm not sure whether the CCG plans to apply the new cost restrictions above to "end of life" situations.
The CCG will restrict CHC funding to services provided via organisations which have contracts with them. User experience with NHS /social care partnership contracted organisations to date has been often horrendous - the contracted organisations haven't had enough staff or management capability to meet their obligations.
CHC funding won't be available for anyone who needs 24 hour support at home from a qualified nurse. There are a number of patient groups who'd be affected by that ruling according to the briefing I've seen ... but I don't know which. The Spinal Injuries and Motor Neurone groups are particularly irate about what's proposed by the CCG - perhaps people with these conditions will be affected?
Generally, however, the "right to family life" will be most harmed by the insistence on residential care instead of care at home for an increased proportion of people awarded CHC funding. In our locality, these plans mean families may have to travel long distances to reach their loved ones. Public transport is bad and being reduced. Many family members won't be physically fit enough to travel by public transport (a one-way 4 mile journey can involve 1.5 hours travel, walking and standing at unsheltered bus stops with nowhere to sit). Many family members won't be able to afford to visit more than on an occasional basis.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is a qualified right.
Please TP members tell me how CCGs and councils known to you have interpreted this "right to a family life" for cared ones whose:-
- health needs are challenging, making it more difficult for local services to meet those needs
- whose families are dependent on public transport and /or suffer mobility, sensory or other health impairments making travel more difficult.
When service users have warned the CCGs about specific problems in provision (eg services aren't at the right level for the cared for person; or place is bad quality; or unreachable) have their local CCGs listened and come to mutually satisfactory decisions on changing service provision?
If they haven't, what has it been possible for TP members or others to do to make these bodies change their minds? Have they involved AS, press, solicitors, MPs etc to back them up?
Does the right to family life in TP members' experience mean in practice the right of family members to visit fairly often, once a week or what?
I'd appreciate any help TP members can offer to guide what I ask at the meeting.
Yours hopefully ....
Last edited:
