Do the “portability” provisions balance correctly the intention to empower the citizen to move between areas with the processes which are necessary to make the system fair and workable?
This questions relates to clauses 31-33
Answer questions by topic
I think the draft bill puts too much emphasis on the authorities sending or receving in that the receiving authority has to grant permission to carry on with the individuals care plan i do worry what would happen if a receiving authority refused to carry on providing the care what then would happen to the individual requiring the care would they have to fund the care themselves or would the individual be able to set up a new care plan.Would the care plan follow them and what happens where payment for care has been defered by one authority would this apply if they move and will this be covered in the final bill. At the end of the day people when old or disabled will worry about these things if and when they move locality.
Will the individual or the authority be responsible for facilitating ‘port’? I’d like to see some exemplar case studies of how this will work for members of vulnerable groups. So if your family members are not literate, as is often the case with Gypsy or Irish Traveller people is the ‘system’ going to facilitate port or are families going to need support from advocacy agencies (usually third sector)? In which case who will pay for extra support required or will the govt once again require third sector to do this vital support work for nothing?
This mobility is especially important when main family support for the caree has to move for work purposes. At the moment we can not move because we would have to go through the CHC assessment process all over again.
Reviewing existing legislation, as the Law Commission has done, and to bring these together within one bill has to be good. The provision of more information and advice is always welcome. Integrating services will make it far better for the customer and the inclusion of prevention will again provide opportunities for RECHG in developing these types of low-level support services e.g. assistive technology. The national eligibility criteria should help reduce the postcode lottery for care services and bring consistency with regard to charging and financial assessments. In addition, people can move without losing their support package.
NFOP welcomes the introduction of “national criteria”. However, there is no requirement for the receiving authority to provide a transitional period once it has undertaken its own assessment allowing the recipient a period of adjustment.
The portability of care will ensure that citizens can move between areas with the knowledge that the care will continue until new arrangements are made with the receiving local authority. We welcome these proposals and believe they make the system fair and workable.
The principle has to be supported, however the implementation of this will be very diffucult. Services and eligibility criteria differ and will continue to differ between localities and the fact that someone is moving may have an impact on assessed need. (For example accomodation may be more, or less suitable, people may be more or less isolated). This isn’t going to be a panacea, but at least it establishes some principles in law
The “portability” provisions balance correctly the intention to empower the citizen to move between areas. This will enable Service Users to and their families to move as and when necessary. However, it does not guarantee that they will receive the same package of care when they move. For a really “portability of provision” it needs to be clear to all Local and Health authorities that they have to continue with the existing package of care to provide a transitional period of care until it has undertaken its own assessment allowing the recipient a period of adjustment or a change if circumstances triggers an assessment .
These comments are from Preston Learning Disabilities Forum comprising service users, carers and provider reps as well as some specific local authority post-holders
This isn’t portable care if the person has to be reassessed – surely if the threshold is the same for accessing social care and the assessr is a qualified professional then the person should expect to have their care package/direct payment carried over until their usual annual review – unless they trigger changed needs themselves?