Skip to content

Decent Proposal

November 27, 2013

Right – it’s done. As I wrote in the previous blog, I was going to make a formal proposal to the council that they meet the whole cost of Steven’s care package through direct payments, thus cutting out the middle man nad those 52% profits they are currently making. This morning, I submitted the proposal and now I sit back and wait for the shit to hit the fan.

In my introduction, I wrote the following:

“I wish to point out that my sole aim in making this proposal is to try and secure Steven’s care package in its present form. For some time, Steven is the calmest and less anxious that I can ever remember. I put that down to three things (Obviously that is down to Steven being able to manage his anxiety so much better for the purpose of this proposal I am focusing on the external sources): Firstly, he has quickly settled in his new home and is enjoying increased contact with his extended family that I know means a lot to him. Secondly, he has a team of support workers working with him who understand him and relate well to him and have become experts at spotting signs of anxiety and know how to work with this. Thirdly, Steven is doing things in his life that he enjoys and give him a quality and meaning and sense of fulfilment to his life. I do not want to jeopardise any of those things – hence this report.”

It has struck me that what I am proposing is the very essence of Personalisation and yet in doing so, it has led me into very murky waters. I’ve had dire warnings since the “Personalisation vs Profits” post. Warnings that the companies might sue me for loss of business, for stealing their staff. Also warnings that the council might not be too chuffed with my proposal because they will lose their commissioning fees and bonuses. More examples really that there are many people with their fingers in the care pie. And whilst all these people take their huge slices of the pie, Steven gets blamed for having a large pie.

It’s also struck me that isn’t just a Steven Neary story. I can’t just present it as a Steven Neary story because it will just look like that moaning Dad again. Surely this must affect every person receiving a care budget that consists of commissioned services from external companies. Please contact me if you have similar examples of companies providing your family member’s support and making massive profits out of them. I do believe this is a national scandal and I’d like the story to have more traction but I need some more input before taking this further.

I wonder if the people who designed Personalisation realised that so many people would be pissed off if it was carried out in its purest form. To really have choice – to really have control – that means people giving up control and losing big pots of money in the process.

Anyways, I’ll keep you posted. I’m sure I’m going to get a lot of resistance to my proposal but nobody can really argue with the basic premise – how to secure a vulnerable person’s care and support and give them real choice and independence, in the most cost efficient way. Let’s see if the powers that be can put their money where their personalisation mouth is. If they can, wouldn’t that be absolutely fantastic?

Advertisements

From → Social Care

4 Comments
  1. Shirley Buckley permalink

    My son anonymous is in a care home anonymous which is privately owned (in Wales!!!!) under a mental capacity order that he has to stay there. my son has £78 taken away from him to pay towards his his fees 50% care 50% health (£2,400 a week) the home has cut down on all their services for Martin, including food. There is a credit warning out against t this firm.

  2. I wish you every success in your forthcoming battles with the businesses and bureaucrats who all seem to think it is right to profit from another persons illness ANYTHING I can do to make sure that sense prevails over profit please let me know.

    I have started recently to post your blog on the notice board of my little Micropub, people are gobsmacked at your tenacity and the brickwalls that the alleged experts want to put in the way of you giving your son a decent life.

    Keep on going friend.

    Nigel

  3. Weary Mother permalink

    The issue of whether to accept direct payments or to leave the commissioning of support for our sons and daughters to the LA, is not a simple one, as we all know. If parents are young and/or capable, and their son or daughter is ‘a child’. there can be very real benefits to accepting payments directly.. i know of some young parents of disabled children who employ each other and it works very well.. Older parents can find the whole issue of buying and retaining good care, particularly if they are looking into the future, more worrying. .Also there are all the issues of how to deal with abusive or neglectful support workers, where the responsibility is all yours to sort out. Costs can go up. Pleading for more funds (far less new more appropriate assessments) from the LA can burn up life and energy. Good support workers are like gold dust. Experienced and good ‘supporters’ are diamonds and we will do anything to hang on to them.. All of which all we parents recognise. Then, if we choose that the LA’s commission support,in the hope that,the LA will stand by their Statutory Duty Of Care when we are no longer there, there is no guarantee that this will happen.

    LA’s can be very poor at monitoring home care and support agencies, and they have huge clout as the big purse holder. For individual purchasers, without this power, monitoring can be nearly impossible. Equally, we individuals can find that complaints do not make for improved relationships with care agencies. And then, cheapest care is very attractive to cash strapped commissioners so the impulse can be to ignore concerns from families and/or dismiss them without investigation. Complaints always eat up our energy and lives, too often without useful outcome.. Hey Ho!

    I wish you so very well with this Mark. It is bonkers and a scandal, when so many vulnerable people and their families are becoming ill from lack of support, that careless commissioning dribbles desperately our needed care money drown the drain..

  4. Sally permalink

    The very best of luck.
    It is very clear that Steven could get exactly what he has but in a way which costs far less and puts you in control. As you said its a case of the phrases used to mask cutbacks actually being used in the right way.
    Today Boris Johnson was quoted as describing those of IQ’s less than 85-gee, that’s most people with LD- as “the cornflakes which don’t get to the top of the pack when you shake it.” Those who did-who had IQs over 135 and therefore (follow this argument!) had very high paid jobs, were needed-greed causes us all to aspire., ha, ha. I am not making this up.
    There we have it Mark-our offspring are dud cornflakes who belong at the bottom of the box. The money should go to the top layer. Does go to the top layer.They deserve it and so by implication., LD people don’t.
    No matter how often I go over Boris’ argument-delivered oh so charmingly-I am still left shaking with rage.Mark I very much want you to get a reasonable answer based on your perfectly practical and sound, rational goals. I am just afraid for us all with Mr Johnson in charge with beliefs like that..

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

%d bloggers like this: