Sussex care cuts force people to spend less on food and heating

Residents claim they have been forced to reduce the amount of food they buy, cut back on heating their homes and give up their safety alarms because of the cost of changes to their care provision.

The findings were outlined in a report produced by West Sussex Link into the reassessment of care provisions carried out by West Sussex County Council.

In the first year of the reassessments, to March this year, about 3,600 people in West Sussex had had their social care services re-assessed with more than half having their care packages reduced and one in seven having them cut completely.

The council changed the threshold for adults eligible for social care in April last year as part of a bid to make savings of £31 million in adults’ services.

The changes to provisions had been introduced in the face of strong opposition with a consultation survey revealing that more than three in four eligible for the care opposed the changes.

Following the assessments, more than one in 20 residents surveyed said they had a high level of unmet needs.

One in ten said that unless somebody else stepped in to help, their projected quality of life was worse than if they were dead.

Among the recommendations in the report, which was compiled after 74 people who had undergone the reassessment process were interviewed, the council was advised to put people’s needs ahead of financial concerns. More help with appeals to reassessment was also suggested and greater cooperation between the local authority and the NHS recommended.

Those undergoing reassessment complained that the appeal process was complicated and unclear and that life became very difficult living with the uncertainty of not knowing when, or if, their services would be changed.

A spokesman for West Sussex County Council said the authority was confident at the consistency and quality of the reassessment process in the face of “unprecedented economic and demographic challenges”.

He said that a fifth of residents had their care increased following assessment and that the authority was working with a number of charities to develop innovative ways of providing services.

He added: “To alleviate the impact of those assessed as moderate, we developed new preventative services available to all, including My Network, My Network Plus, the Health and Wellbeing Hubs and the Prevention Assessment Teams.

“We helped people to re-budget if they were no longer eligible for funded social care from the county council or received a reduced amount of funding.

“If a person’s condition changes, that person can ask for a review at any time.”

Comments(4)

Lofaplace says...
2:45pm Mon 1 Oct 12

...... One in ten said that unless somebody else stepped in to help, their projected quality of life was worse than if they were dead.......

When you typed that Neil, did you not pause, for a split a second and think, "What a ridiculous comment I had better not write THAT I will be a laughing stock?"'

no pasaran says...
7:25pm Mon 1 Oct 12

no, neil vowles is spot on here. he has read the report. have you? this was academic research conducted bu kent university social researchers, they have a scale from 0-100 to determine quality of life. if you score a negative rating on this you are effectively recording your state of living as 'worse than being dead' which is what some residents of west sussex did. the research is out there if you can be bothered to read it. thanks to neil and the Argus for keeping these issues where the decsion-makers would rather they weren't - in the spotlight.

HJarrs says...
8:09pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Remarkably few comments on this important subject. Had this been non-tory B&H we all know the scorn and mock outrage that would have poured forth.

From the snippets in the Argus, cuts in East and West Sussex have been far worse than in B&H. I really would not want to be poor in those areas.

F in L says...
1:40pm Tue 2 Oct 12

no pasaran wrote:
no, neil vowles is spot on here. he has read the report. have you? this was academic research conducted bu kent university social researchers, they have a scale from 0-100 to determine quality of life. if you score a negative rating on this you are effectively recording your state of living as 'worse than being dead' which is what some residents of west sussex did. the research is out there if you can be bothered to read it. thanks to neil and the Argus for keeping these issues where the decsion-makers would rather they weren't - in the spotlight.
The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is a measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived. It is used in assessing the value for money of a medical intervention. The QALY model requires utility independent, risk neutral, and constant proportional tradeoff behaviour.

The QALY is based on the number of years of life that would be added by the intervention. Each year in perfect health is assigned the value of 1.0 down to a value of 0.0 for death. If the extra years would not be lived in full health, for example if the patient would lose a limb, or be blind or have to use a wheelchair, then the extra life-years are given a value between 0 and 1 to account for this. Under certain methods, such as the EQ-5D, QALY can be negative number.

CERTAINLY NOT TO BE APPLIED IN THESE CASES!
Ridiculous statement

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree