Wednesday - August 19, 2009

Family told by NHS: Alzheimer’s is not a ‘health condition’ Nah … it’s a stroll in the park

How’s that for bizarre? 

Longer I am here, the scareder I get. I can’t think of anything to say and so I’ll simply share this loony tune while my computer is still running. For now.

Hey, anybody know what a puter is telling us when we get a blue screen with white lettering and a statement saying that if this is the first time you’ve seen this restart or if it’s happened before ,,, and a whole bunch of instructions I can’t follow and am doing nothing about. But I can hear my fan at times. Like now.

Family told by NHS: Alzheimer’s is not a ‘health condition’
A family has won £130,000 from an NHS trust after it refused to pay for their mother’s care fees, claiming her Alzheimer’s was not a health issue.

By Nick Britten

NHS Worcestershire ruled that Judith Roe, 74, did not qualify for NHS funding because her condition was a “social” rather than “health” problem, even though she was so ill she could not make a cup of tea and regularly left the stove on.

She was forced to sell her £200,000 home to pay her £600-a-week nursing home fees, which would have been funded if she had been categorised correctly.

Mrs Roe’s family appealed to the Health Service Ombudsman, which ruled that Mrs Roe’s assessment had been incorrect and her treatment should have been funded by the NHS. NHS Worcestershire has now reimbursed them for six years of care.

Her son, Richard, 40, urged other families in a similar situation to fight for the care they are entitled to.

He said: “The way the health trust behaved was scandalous. It has been very stressful.

“All the time we were told we were wrong while believing we were right.

“They told me I should count myself lucky because there are people that are more ill than my mother, which was an outrageous thing to say.

“I want anyone else going through a similar experience to know they may be entitled to care. Even if they’re being told they’re not entitled, they should fight for it.

“With us, they made a mistake. They did not carry out their duties properly.”

Mrs Roe, a retired church warden and school teacher, was diagnosed in 2002 with severe Alzheimer’s and Parkinsons.

Under English law, elderly people must pay for their own residential care unless their needs are deemed health-related.

She was assessed but her needs were regarded to be social rather than health, meaning she did not qualify for funding.

In August 2003 her family paid for a social worker to visit her twice a day and in 2004 she moved into a nursing home because she was too ill to stay at home.

In 2007 she was moved into another home because her condition had deteriorated.

Despite being bedridden and requiring round-the-clock care, NHS Worcestershire PCT refused to pay a penny towards her fees.

Throughout this time Mr Roe wrote dozens of letters to the PCT asking them to re-assess his mother.

He said: “I wanted to know just how ill my mother had to be before her condition was deemed a health issue.

“The NHS doesn’t want to admit elderly people have health issues because then it falls to them to pay for their care.”

He added: “We made the difficult decision to sell her home because we were under the assumption that older people sell their houses to pay for care.

“It was only when we started to look at funding and ask the PCT what funding was available that we realised that she shouldn’t have had to self-fund.”

Finally, in May 2008, on the recommendation of the Ombudsman, two social workers from the PCT assessed Judith and agreed she qualified for continuing care and paid for her fees at the home until she died in October.

However, the Health Services Ombudsman said she should have had continuing care from 2002 and NHS Worcestershire agreed to pay.

He said: “It should never have got to the point where I had to write to the Ombudsman.

“The PCT did not follow the correct procedures and as a result we had to sell the family home and use her savings for care which should have been funded by the NHS.

“We became very angry because the primary care trust was very arrogant and unhelpful.”

Paul Bates, chief executive of NHS Worcestershire, said: “Decisions around eligibility for continuing NHS care are extremely complex and difficult even though we have national guidance to assist us.

“The line between the need for healthcare and social care is a very thin one indeed, but the impact for the individual is the difference between free care and care which is means tested.

“We would not wish to see Mr Roe’s experience repeated and there are clearly lessons for us to learn.”

Each NHS trust has its own criteria for interpreting the Government’s guidelines on who qualifies for free nursing care.

Andrew Harrop, Head of Policy for Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: “The system for deciding where the line is drawn between free NHS Continuing Care, and paid for social care has been a mess for years.

“We are still very concerned that older people may wrongly be forced to pay for their care when it should be free.

“We strongly encourage anyone who believes they are unfairly missing out on NHS support to fight for their rights.”

The Health Service Ombudsman concluded 53 cases of continuing care last year having investigated them. 75 per cent of cases were either fully upheld or partly upheld.

A spokesman refused to comment on the case, other than to say its role is to assess whether the strategic health authority’s decision was based on following correct procedure, rather than the need of the patient.

In 2006, a government review revealed that one in five elderly people were being wrongfully denied free care.

SOURCE

UPDATE

Three families looking after relatives with Alzheimer’s have been awarded more than £300,000 after the NHS refused to pay for their care costs.

REVU PLUS UPDATE

Posted by peiper     on 08/19/2009 at 09:27 AM   
Filed Under: • Health-Medicine • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner