PAPER B

 

Policy Commission for Care, Health and Housing

 

28 March 2007

 

Briefing on Continuing Health Care

 

1. Introduction

 

1.1       The rulings made by the Health Ombudsman and at judicial review over the past few years regarding continuing care now make it essential for the local authority to take both a strategic and operational position on the issue. Additionally, the emergence of the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare (anticipated from October 2007) will shape and guide practice for both Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Local Authorities (LAs).

 

1.2       Continuing care refers to the care that people need over an extended period of time as a result of disability, accident or illness to meet their physical and/ or mental health needs. The discussion around the question of what is health care (and therefore an NHS responsibility) and what is social care (and therefore a local authority responsibility) has been ongoing since the inception of the NHS in 1948. More recently, the issue has had a great deal of publicity as we have seen rulings emerge in cases from Coughlan (1999) through to Pointon (2004) and Grogan (2006).

2. Issues for Local Authorities regarding lawfulness

 

2.1       The question of entitlement to NHS funded continuing care is now a key part of the social worker/care management role on the Isle of Wight as not only does social work/ care management concern obtaining best outcomes for clients but the Local Authority needs to be certain that all of the work it undertakes is carried out within a legal framework.

 

2.2       It is important to the client that his/her needs are properly identified in that clients are charged (where appropriate) for services provided by Adult Services whereas services provided by the NHS are free at the point of delivery. Many people sell their houses or use their life savings to fund nursing care.  If this care should have been provided free of charge, then an individual may have sold their home and incurred significant financial cost for something which they should have been entitled to without having to have made a financial contribution.

            Similarly, clients make a financial contribution to their Adult Services funded packages of care at home, and if the clients have NHS Continuing Care needs, they should not be charged for their care.    

            It is perfectly possible that an individual (or family member), who has been unlawfully charged for their care seeks reimbursement from the Local Authority if it is proved that they should have been fully funded by the NHS.

 

2.3       We must address three essential areas of concern:

 

                                    I.      That we achieve the best outcomes for our clients. The rights based, person centred, nature of Social Work is concerned with ensuring that we deliver the best outcomes for clients, act as advocates in pursuing their best interests and ensure that clients are aware of their rights regarding all aspects of their lives.

 

                                   II.      That our resources are targeted at those people for whom Adult Services has a responsibility for providing a service.  If we are funding the type of clients whom the Government and the Court have identified as, in fact, being eligible for free care provided by the NHS, not only is the client paying in many cases, but Adult Services are diverting resources from clients with genuine social care needs to those whose needs are primary health needs (and therefore should be funded by the NHS).

 

                                 III.      The third essential concern for Isle of Wight Council is that we act within the powers that are given to us by statute. The Courts have confirmed that a Local Authority only has the power to provide services on a certain level.  If we provide them (i.e. arrange and fund etc) above this level then we are acting ultra vires and therefore unlawfully.

3. How we can tell whether a person’s needs should be met by Adult Services, by the NHS or by a combination of both?

 

3.1       In 1999, the Court of Appeal delivered a Judgment in the case of R – v – North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan.  This is an important case because of the general principles which it established, and also because the Court’s findings in relation to Miss Coughlan give us a practical example of when care should be provided by the NHS.  The case also looked at the responsibilities of NHS bodies under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the responsibilities of Social Services Authorities under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act (NAA) 1948 which is important when we consider what can be provided by the different authorities.

Because the case was only considering s21 NAA, it does not apply to children or to services, which are not provided along with accommodation. Having said that, there has been an Ombudsman’s decision relating to someone being cared for at home and guidance and the eligibility criteria also make it clear that continuing care can be provided at home. 

 

            The key practical point from the Court was that whilst nursing services can be provided by Social Services as part of a social care package, those nursing services are limited to those which can be regarded as being provided in connection with the accommodation which has been provided to the client under Section 21 of the NAA.  This can only be provided within certain limits, both in terms of the scale and type. 


3.2       The Court made it clear that there is no precise legal line to be drawn but as a general indication, nursing services can be provided under Section 21 where

 

·        They are merely incidental or ancillary to the provision of accommodation which the Local Authority is under a duty to provide; and

·        They are of a nature, which it can be expected that an Authority whose primary responsibility is to provide Social Services can be expected to provide.

 

            This is generally regarded as the ‘quantity and quality’ test.  The first point focuses on the overall quantity of the services (for example a large amount of general care).  Whereas the second point focuses on the quality of the services provided (e.g. specialist care).

 

3.3       The Court also made the following observations.

·        Whether the services can be provided by a Local Authority has to be determined by an assessment of the individual.

·        Where a person’s primary need is a health need the responsibility is that of the NHS even when the Local Authority has placed the individual in the home. 

 

·        Eligibility criteria should be careful about relying too heavily on the distinction between general and specialist services.  Such a distinction may provide some guidance but cannot be an exhaustive test.  It does not cater for the situation where the demands for nursing attention are continuous and intense.  This means that where a person’s health needs mean that they need large amounts of general care, the client may qualify for continuing care status albeit that they do not need specialist input.

 

·        Miss Coughlan’s health needs were clearly the responsibility of the NHS.

 

3.4       Adult services can be expected to provide general (not registered) nursing services where they largely involve the provision of personal care or the straightforward supervision or monitoring of a persons condition. Adult Services can be responsible for basic care tasks such as helping with washing, dressing and feeding. The more intense the persons needs, or the more dependent they are, or the greater the degree of skill or training or expertise or experience required to meet the client’s needs, the more likely it is that they should be predominantly health needs and the sole responsibility of the NHS. 

4. The care does not have to be provided by a qualified nurse for Health funding to be involved

4.1       An Ombudsman’s case (the Pointon Case) involved a man who was severely disabled with dementia and unable to look after himself.  His wife cares for him at home.  She took a break one week in five but had to pay more than £400 for the substitute care assistant.   The NHS would not pay because Mrs Pointon was not a qualified nurse (and could not therefore be offering nursing care).  The Ombudsman found that the fact that Mr Pointon was receiving (what was in effect) nursing care from his wife and a Local Authority carer, did not mean that he could not qualify for continuing health care, that the health bodies had failed to take into account his severe psychological problems and the specialist skills it takes to nurse someone with dementia and the fact that Mr Pointon needed care at home (he improved significantly psychologically upon his return home) rather than in a nursing care home was not material to the question of continuing health care responsibility.

5. The practice of the PCT put a time limit on funding for people with terminal illnesses

 

            This is a very common practice but, in fact, the time limits are only given in the guidance as an example of when someone may be regarded as being in the final stages of a terminal illness and “likely to die in the near future”. There is scope on the Isle of Wight for taking the line that a determination ought to be made by the consultant on an individual case by case basis rather than the use of a time specific general formula. “Likely to die in the near future” is a term that should not be applied prescriptively by PCTs. The National Framework is indicating that a general time frame of 12 weeks be used in order to assist clinicians with their prognoses.

6. The National Framework

 

6.1       The production of the National Framework arose out of a promise by the Dept of Health to the House of Commons Health Select Committee in Jan 2005 to end the “postcode lottery” of continuing care entitlement by introducing a national set of eligibility criteria, with national assessment & decision making tools. The DH promise was to ensure that the outcome following a continuing care assessment would be the same irrespective of where you are in the country.

 

6.2       The Dept of Health has taken an approach of constructively involving local authorities in the production of the Framework.  It asked the Local Government Association and Association of Directors of Social Services to be part of the ongoing discussions to formulate the content of the Framework.  The ADSS/LGA set up a national reference group of six local authorities including Bradford, Essex, Durham, Hampshire, London Borough of Richmond and Surrey.  Dorset has now replaced Hampshire on the national group.

 

            The process involved a series of meetings and e-mail correspondence both within the reference group and with the DH over the last year.  This involved a process of drafts being issued, refined, reissued etc until the final version was issued.  The consultation period ended on 22 September 2006 and Local Authorities made a collective submission via the ADSS/LGA who collated all LA responses in England before compiling a final joint response which represents LAs nationally.  

 

            The reference group will continue to engage with the DH post consultation and will seek to work very closely with the DH on the National Decision Support Tool which is currently set at too high a threshold and would certainly exclude Coughlan and Pointon from meeting the Eligibility Criteria for NHS Continuing Care.

 

6.3       Key themes arising out of the Framework

 

The following key themes will shape and influence future practice:

 

·      The abolition of the RNCC banding system.  It will be replaced with a single RNCC payment of £97pw. The financial impact of this for the Local Authority will need to be assessed. 

 

·      LA’s are reminded of their duties to act within the law and to only provide nursing services that are incidental or ancillary to the accommodation or that are of a nature that an LA, whose prime responsibility is to provide social services, can be expected to provide.

 

·      It is stated that commissioning of Continuing Care is a PCT responsibility.

 

·      Ongoing case management of NHS continuing care patients is an NHS responsibility.

 

·      There is a domain based decision support tool to ensure consistent assessment across the country

 

6.4       There are significant financial and other implications arising from the new framework for the council to take on board and action.  The DH estimates that Primary Care Trusts will incur on average an additional cost of £1.5m in the first year from the transfer to them of patients who are currently funded by the local authority. The financial implications for the Council should be favourable, with the release of funds from existing expenditure and the prevention of future expenditure on patients with similar needs.

 

6.5       The guidance that will be issued to accompany the National Framework will influence processes, behaviours and decision-making for both NHS and Local Authority staff from the point of implementation.

 

7. Conclusions and next steps

 

7.1       It is important for the Council that it reviews current practice and processes for continuing care with the PCT.  In the crucial High Court ruling in the case of Mrs M Grogan in January 2006 the judge noted a much clearer role for local authorities than had previously been thought, underlining that local authorities do not possess a ‘mop-up’ duty to fund anyone that the NHS decides not to fund, providing they have had a financial assessment. The local authority has to make a clear judgement about the legality of funding individuals under the powers given to them by Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 which only allows it to fund residential care for a person aged 18 or more ‘who by reasons of age, disability or any other circumstances is in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them’. The Act goes on to say that local authorities are not authorised to take on the responsibilities of the NHS. A review of those joint funding arrangements in particular whereby the costs of care have been split between health and social care as a means of ‘sharing the burden’ is needed and will affect many historical arrangements for people with learning disabilities and enduring mental illness in particular.

 

7.2       In terms of direction of travel for the Local Authority, there are a number of actions required to prepare for the pending changes.

They include:

 

·        To consider the preparation of a business case for dedicating specific resources to Continuing Care in the form of dedicated operational and legal time, to ensure that we are acting within the law and to support operational staff with their practice issues - including making applications and dispute resolution practice;

By May 2007

 

·        To devise and issue to staff Continuing Care Guidance Packs to assist them in their practice and set up briefing sessions for all staff involved in commissioning services for adults;

By June 2007

 

·        To proactively work with our NHS colleagues to ensure that correct processes are in place regarding continuing care entitlement and to assist the understanding of NHS staff where possible;

Ongoing

 

·        To attend and actively influence the newly created ADSS Southern Central Continuing Care Reference Group

Ongoing.