A space to discuss the #Dilnot report

Tomorrow sees the publication of the Dilnot Commission’s report into the funding of care and support – a significant policy development for anyone interested in social care for people of all ages.

Discussion on Twitter has used the #dilnot hashtag for people’s thoughts and to share links/information regarding the Commission. I’ve also been using the dilnot tag for my (hopefully) comprehensive list of links relating to Dilnot on delicious.

This post aims to provide people with a space to discuss in more than 140 characters their thoughts, feelings and perspectives on the Dilnot report.

Of course, there will be plenty of debate in many different places, so there’s no particular reason why you should use just this post. Hopefully, though, it’s a useful place to start and you’ll join the debate.

I’ll update this page with responses from as many organisations and blogs as they are published – let me know any you think should be included.

By way of background, an excellent overview of the challenges Dilnot is seeking to address was written by Emma Stone at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. A great overview of what social care is has been written by my good friend George Julian, and the King’s Fund’s social care pages are also fab.

Please do get stuck in!

Advertisements

Published by

rich_w

Man of letters & numbers; also occasionally of action. Husband to NTW. Dad of three. Friendly geek.

12 thoughts on “A space to discuss the #Dilnot report”

  1. My thoughts before Dilnot published Rich. You’ll never guess what they focus on 😉

    Déjà vu…or why most people don’t know who #Dilnot is and don’t care! – you can read more here http://georgeblogs.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/deja-vu-or-why-most-people-dont-know-who-dilnot-is-and-dont-care/

    Waiting for #Dilnot – what is care and support? – read that one here http://georgeblogs.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/waiting-for-dilnot-what-is-care-and-support/

    I think Dilnot is a great opportunity to raise the profile and public awareness of social care, then it’s a win-win even if the politicians/society don’t choose to fully engage with the actual recommendations.

  2. Still not had time to read the report at length, only skimmed over it. A few queries though….

    1. portable assessments but not care packages. – if families that are living in different parts of the country want to provide more care for family members, they need know that there would be a continuity of care.

    2. Insurance – I understand how important funding of social care is but this worries me. With private companies there is no guarantee that they will still exist by time a claim is made.

    how much would premiums differ between companies

    their priority would be to share holders not the person needing care

    would premiums be ‘loaded’ dependiong on family medical history

    there is no certainity that care is going to be needed. Would refunds be available?

    3. In the conclusion it states….. “”the extra resources will need to come from the state, from individuals and from carers, but we believe our proposals better balance the relationship between the three. “”

    More specific details are needed as to their proposals.

    As important as social care is it is also about the provision of care, not just the funding. With govts intention of more people being enabled to remain in their own homes, we must address fully the needs of family carers, both financially and with resources. This constant failure by all govts, past and present, cannot be allowed to continue.

  3. Hi Rosemary,

    In response and as I understand it:

    1) Yes – Dilnot recommends portability of assessments only within the context of a nationwide system (to get consistency of assessment and eligibility) combined with localism and locally defined services and local decisions about how much resource the local authority would allocate to meet needs at that level. In line with the balancing act between ‘national’ and ‘local’ – this means you take your assessment with you, there is an expectation that you get the same level of resource if you move to another local authority *until* your new local authority does it’s assessment and makes it’s decisions about how much resource to allocate for your package.

    So – this stops short of what Jane Campbell’s private members bill proposes (which wld be portability of the care package) – although it is one (too small?) step in the right direction.

    Where the two might come together in future is if the new national assessment framework gives sufficient recognitions of *outcomes* rather than narrow assessment of *need*.

    The sticking point is about central govt respecting the powers and rights of local authorities to make local decisions about how to allocate resources – balanced with the rights of people with established care/support needs to have the reassurance that they can take a package of support with them wherever they live.

    2. Insurance

    I think you are absolutely right to raise all these concerns. I am setting some hopes on the recommendation (which I really hope the government accepts) to bring together three working groups — one of which would be on financial products and markets, to look at how to develop the right kinds of products and market and regulation. Dilnot says third sector groups should be part of this – and I think that is vital. Insurers will want to get products rights – and I do not think that many have good direct links with carers or disability or other groups. Vital to get those links made. Some links have begun to form.

    Insurance products are just one way people might meet their contribution – and they may prove less attractive than other options (saving more into a pension, or aiming to pay off your mortgage – if you own your home – by the time you retire so you can draw on your housing asset. I would have liked to see employers having a role – and this may come on the back of the planned auto-enrolment of employees earning over £15k into a pension scheme – NEST.

    3. Absolutely agree that Dilnot only takes us so far – funding is important but only one part of a much bigger jigsaw. Links between funding and provision and quality are complex as you’ll know … as a good friend put it – if you put more money into a problematic system, then it is like pouring water through leaky plumbing.

    This is why the next few months are going to be so important in influencing the White Paper and the details that sir behind all this. Knitting together funding, vision for social care which is about achieving quality outcomes and person-centred support, safeguarding, Law

  4. Hi, Rich

    With reference to a Peter Beresford Community Care blog item about the Dilnot commission membership and terms of reference:
    http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-the-big-picture/2011/07/question-marks-surround-dilnot-commission-proposals.html the section about Dilnot’s leanings toward a supposed political census
    regarding the taboo matter of taxation, and the counterbalancing point about sustainability will be of great interest to the Green Party that has always argued in terms of social and environmental sustainability as the bedrock of its policy outlook.

    [Dilnot’s] constant refrain as chair, that the proposals of the commission must accord with what political parties will accept, raises concerns. This is first because of the continuing lack of consensus between the three major political parties over health and social care – even within the coalition. But more importantly, perhaps, there can be little hope that
    the short-term political and economic considerations now given high policy priority will be consistent with proposals that offer a sustainable and workable social care funding system for the next generation.

    Regarding Dilnot Commission member Lord Norman Warner, Peter Beresford wrote:

    Lord Norman Warner has always made his position on social care clear and has continued to do so during the course of the commission. Dismissive of paying for social care through general taxation, as director of social services in Kent, he was closely associated with the original community care reforms which have brought social care to the impasse it
    now faces. Adviser to PA Consulting group on Middle Eastern issues, he has had strong links with the private sector.

    I note that that seems to be the Lord Warner who used to be a Health Minister who in 2004 created tabloid headlines detrimental to the reputation of DLA claimants, and then realised when the damage was done that there had been an ‘administrative error’ not only of vast proportions regarding DLA claimants [and thus their ‘drain on the economy’ factor] but also the qualitative attributions of Disability Living Allowance claimants.

    A Community Care magazine archive piece, Minister cuts the fat from figures dated Thursday 26 February states:

    The government has apologised after massively overstating the
    number of obese people claiming benefits.

    Earlier this month, health minister Lord Warner said that 900,000 claimants of incapacity benefits were obese, prompting headlines in the national media.

    The Department of Health now says that the actual figure is 900 and that this only relates to people who receive incapacity benefit as a result of obesity. It blamed an “administrative error” for the blunder.

    It added that the total amount paid to this group a week is £70,965 rather than the £70.9m figure initially used.

    Given that a Health Minister should realise that many people become obese through no fault of their own but as a result of side-effects to prescribed medicines, that sort of track record would not endear me to Lord Warner’s selection as a future of social care-funding commission member.

    Best Wishes

    Alan Wheatley

  5. from Malcom Payne

    As I’m working my way through these reports, I’m coming to fairly discrete bits of them, and posting a comment on these. This is about what the Dilnot report on social care funding says about carers funding and services. Not too hopeful, I’m afraid.

    Dilnot on funding for carers
    One aspect of the Dilnot proposals is a better funding system for carers (informal caregivers in the medical jargon for you international readers). The argument is that they are trying to rebalance the system between state privately funded and unpaid, informal care. This makes an extremely important point: if you are going to try to have a clear system of provision, you also have to be clear about what informal carers are expected to do. Three things are needed, according to the carers and their organisations that Dilnot spoke to: better funding for carers, better assessment, and more support and information.

    see in full here

    http://blogs.stchristophers.org.uk/one/2011/07/08/dilnot-on-carers-advocacy-for-carers-needed/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s