Agenda item

The Department of Health (DH) has undertaken public consultation on major reforms to adult social care contained within the Care Bill 2013-14.  The consultation, which closed in October 2013 covered:

·  How to manage the large increase in demand from people who pay for their own care and support; and

·  Major changes to social care practices and systems, including assessment and charging.

The consultation focused on how practical details of the changes to social care should be managed. The Government is still analysing the feedback from the consultation and is yet to publish its response.  The Care Bill was debated by the House of Commons on 16th December 2013 and has now proceeded to Committee stage.

The proposed reforms have significant implications for the Council and also, for some key partners.  The direct impact will be on the assessment of eligibility for care and support and on financial assessment but there will be knock-on effects including on market management, information and integration.  This report summarises the key issues and implications for social care, which are contained in Part 1 of the Care Bill.  Bath and North East Somerset’s position and any associated specific issues are summarised in section 4 of the report.

The Panel is asked to:

1)  Note the key proposals in the Care Bill and early analysis of the implications for Bath and North East Somerset Council and other key partners;

2)  Receive a further update prior to enactment of the Bill or if any substantive changes are made to the Bill as it proceeds through the House of Commons.

The Chairman invited Jane Shayler to introduce the report.

The Panel made the following points:

The Chairman asked about pressures that Sirona Care & Health would face in regards of care and support assessments arising from the Care Bill; particularly in light of the additional savings target in the Council’s Medium Service & Resource Plan 2013-14 to 2015/16 against the Sirona contract.  The Chairman also asked about a Deferred Payment Scheme.

Jane Shayler confirmed that there was, indeed, an additional savings target against Sirona’s contract for the next financial year.  Part of the modelling of financial implications would be on what additional funding would be needed to undertake statutory care and support assessments.  The Council would be required to make an assessment of individual’s needs, including the needs of informal carer (those who are not paid to care).  So, the Council would have to calculate what additional funding they would need to consider to ensure its statutory responsibilities to undertake an assessment of need.

Jane Shayler also responded about the Deferred Payment Scheme.  The Council had recently agreed a local Deferred Payment Scheme (DPS) that complies with the national guidance for the DPS.  The way the DPS would be working: if somebody was placed in the residential care home to meet their eligible personal care needs, and if they own property, then they could elect to set any costs/contribution towards the cost of care against the property they own.  The DPS would enable individuals not to sell their family homes, for example, to finance the cost of care, and instead any such financial contribution could come from individual’s estate after they have died.  There would be a cap on the level of contribution.  That would mean that the Council would be funding the cost of the residential care for that individual.  The Council would be able to recoup that money after that individual had died and contribution recovered from the estate after the adequate process.

Jane Shayler also commented that there might be a few inconsistencies in the paper.  A reason for that is partly because of the complexity of the paper and also because Local Authorities, other organisations and Central Government started to do their own analysis, which is why there was a level of inconstancy between various assessments of the financial impacts and implementations of implementing the Care Bill once it becomes law.

Councillor Jackson commented that some people were concerned that they would have to sell their homes to fund residential care.  Councillor Jackson also said that the Bill did not take into account what would happen if an individual was in residential care and their partner stays at home.

It was RESOLVED to:

1)  Note the key proposals in the Care Bill and early analysis of the implications for Bath and North East Somerset Council and other key partners with great concern because of the financial implication of this policy;

2)  Receive a further update prior to enactment of the Bill or if any substantive changes are made to the Bill as it proceeds through the House of Commons; and

3)  Write to local Members of the Parliament (Rt Hon Don Foster MP and Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP) expressing Panel’s concerns on the financial implications of the policy.