Staffs County council sending out letters removing current care providers from clients.

[ethan]

Does anybody have any experience with the Care Act because a number of my relatives and their friends have received notification from staffs County Council threatening they are removing their care provider and replacing them with another without giving them a say or choice in the matter. I always thought the Care Act and the law involved with it specifies the significance of the provision of Choice and that it would be illegal to remove it or not include it when providing for a person's care?

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

There's always old care providers going bust and new ones starting up

If one stops doing business there's not much the Council can do but get a new one in

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Could be due to a new contract being let or a care provider either going bust or suffering quality issues.

Speak to your council about direct payments if you're desperate to stay with the same provider, if you argue continuity of care citing the care act that's likely to be what they suggest to you anyway.

If this is a new contract and it sounds likely, they just have to perform some type of consultation. That doesn't need to involve all service users, they could make use of a user led or advocacy organisation or just a handful of service users involved in tender evaluation. Consultation is pretty open to interpretation.

In terms of my experience I run procurement for adult social care so I have a fair idea about this stuff.

 

[ethan]

There's always old care providers going bust and new ones starting up

If one stops doing business there's not much the Council can do but get a new one in

It's the other way round. They are making the regular providers go bust by taking the work from them and upsetting the service users at the same time. I have suggested to the people effected they apply for direct payment instead to protect their choices. The latter which should be protected by the Care Act and Mental capacity Act. The company I work for is set to lose 81 clients by October the 1st if they don' or can't convince their clients to apply for direct payments.

 

[wnb]

Does anybody have any experience with the Care Act because a number of my relatives and their friends have received notification from staffs County Council threatening they are removing their care provider and replacing them with another without giving them a say or choice in the matter. I always thought the Care Act and the law involved with it specifies the significance of the provision of Choice and that it would be illegal to remove it or not include it when providing for a person's care?

Personal Budget
Your personal budget is the actual amount of money allocated by Adult Social Care to pay for services to meet your social care needs identified in your Adult Social Care Assessment. You can use your personal budget to buy your own support independently, using money provided by Adult Social Care as a direct payment or Individual Service Funds (ISFs) , or you can ask Adult Social Care to arrange services on your behalf.

That's info from our local ASC but you should be able to get the same from your local council.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

It's the other way round. They are making the regular providers go bust by taking the work from them and upsetting the service users at the same time. I have suggested to the people effected they apply for direct payment instead to protect their choices. The latter which should be protected by the Care Act and Mental capacity Act. The company I work for is set to lose 81 clients by October the 1st if they don' or can't convince their clients to apply for direct payments.

What's the context? Councils don't just move people for no reason.

 

[ethan]

They are changing existing contracts with the providers on their framework and removing contracts from companies who receive clients from the brokerage. They have not officially told the providers but have sent out letters to all our clients saying our company has to go without the consent and support of the client.They are still sending out sourcing requirements to the companies they are taking clients from? Regardless of the context they are taking away the right of the user to chose which company provides their care which is enshrined in the Care and Mental Capacity Act., protected by the law.

 

[Slam62]

sounds like the council have decided not to do business with your employer anymore, best to find out why that is, maybe ask your employer.

 

[ethan]

sounds like the council have decided not to do business with your employer anymore, best to find out why that is, maybe ask your employer.

It' not just my employer its the other local providers as well. The thing is it is not a decision the council are entitled to make. They are effectively bullying the client in to adopting the change in contravention to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Care Act of 2014. They haven't asked our clients if they want to change but sent them all a letter without consulting us along with other providers, telling them they are changing . The council don't own the service being provided. They just allocate the payments from central government based on eligibility.

 

[wnb]

It' not just my employer its the other local providers as well. The thing is it is not a decision the council are entitled to make. They are effectively bullying the client in to adopting the change in contravention to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Care Act of 2014. They haven't asked our clients if they want to change but sent them all a letter without consulting us along with other providers, telling them they are changing . The council don't own the service being provided. They just allocate the payments from central government based on eligibility.

Bullying is a little strong, in my experience most people who do not pay for their own care will happily except whoever the LA sends to their homes. Providers can be black listed or a new framework can be written and contracted to the cheapest provider, in both cases the LA would just provide a replacement care company from the framework. The service user does have choice but only if they get hold of the budget to purchase\manage their own care.

 

[ethan]

Providers can be black listed or a new framework can be written and contracted to the cheapest provider,

 

[Lil old me]

I'm afraid as others have said the council can commission whoever to provide care to meet eligible needs and there are many reasons this might need to change.

A direct payment would allow you to choose a provider yourself.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the Mental capacity act because they are commissioning the service. If someone lacked the capacity to get a direct payment then it would be a different case and the decision about whether they should have a direct payment, and what service should be provided would all be done in their best interests.

Also in regards to the Care Act, see below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance

"13.5 In many cases, the review and revision of the plan should be intrinsically linked; it should not be possible to decide whether to revise a plan without a thorough review to ascertain if a revision is necessary, and in the best interests of the person. In addition, where a review is being undertaken where a person has a carer, the local authority should consider whether the carer’s support plan requires reviewing, too.

13.6 However, there are occasions when a change to a plan is required but there has been no change in the levels of need (for example, a carer may change the times when they are available to support). In addition, there can be small changes in need, at times temporary, which can be accommodated within the established personal budget."

So any decision ought to be in someone's best interests, but this is pretty easy to skirt around unfortunately and could be justified for a number of reasons, especially if their service is staying at the same level, just with a different provider.

Although even if their budget had been cut, the courts have recently taken the side of the council in the first Care Act related case. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/09/01/disabled-man-loses-appeal-care-package-cut/

 

[ethan]

We are dealing with revisions and changing needs all the time. Even with requests to go to different companies. Sometimes we say we are unable to provide and meet the needs of the client. However, we have never, up until this point seen a service user receive notification from a council that their provider is being replaced without authorisation or consultation with the user themselves. Contrary to what has been suggested many service users will resent being told what to do when they are happy with the company they are with. The only authorisation the council have when delivering care is whether the client is eligible and in genuine financial need and whether the costs regarding the provision of the support the client receives is appropriate or in need of change. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

They are changing existing contracts with the providers on their framework and removing contracts from companies who receive clients from the brokerage. They have not officially told the providers but have sent out letters to all our clients saying our company has to go without the consent and support of the client.They are still sending out sourcing requirements to the companies they are taking clients from? Regardless of the context they are taking away the right of the user to chose which company provides their care which is enshrined in the Care and Mental Capacity Act., protected by the law.

They would argue that the option to exercise choice exists within the direct payment system. Not sure if that approach has been tested In court but that's the general approach taken by councils in these situations.

Whilst service users may resent being asked to move provider if the council are managing their provision it's perfectly acceptable, Again if they wish to stay then dp allows that.

I'd suggest having a chat with your employer. I have no dealings with staffs cc but like I said I've worked in this sphere for a few councils and the don't tend to switch provider for no reason. It's an absolute pain in the backside to do an masse especially without TUPE transfers and from an ethical point of view it tends to upset service users.

I don't feel like we have anywhere near the full picture here.

 

[Lil old me]

We are dealing with revisions and changing needs all the time. Even with requests to go to different companies. Sometimes we say we are unable to provide and meet the needs of the client. However, we have never, up until this point seen a service user receive notification from a council that their provider is being replaced without authorisation or consultation with the user themselves. Contrary to what has been suggested many service users will resent being told what to do when they are happy with the company they are with.

The only authorisation the council have when delivering care is whether the client is eligible and in genuine financial need and whether the costs regarding the provision of the support the client receives is appropriate or in need of change. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point.

I don't think anyone has suggested service users won't be unhappy about being forced to change, but I don't think you are quite right about whether they are authorised to change.

The council have a duty to promote wellbeing. They will do this via assessing needs and providing a service to meet these needs. The level of need will dictate the level of personal budget which will pay for the service. In this case, after the level personal budget was established, they commissioned a service which they now want to change. They are able to do this because the new service will meet the needs within the budget, so does not require additional assessment.

As Fortuitousfluke has said, if the su's want to become "commissioners" of their care then they can do this via a direct payment. It will not change the needs or budget allocation but gives them the power to choose. If the council remains commissioner then they will choose, as has happened in this case.

Short version:

Is it polite or fair? No.

Is it legal? Yes.

Do they have a good reason? We hope so.

 

[ethan]

They would argue that the option to exercise choice exists within the direct payment system. Not sure if that approach has been tested In court but that's the general approach taken by councils in these situations.

Whilst service users may resent being asked to move provider if the council are managing their provision it's perfectly acceptable, Again if they wish to stay then dp allows that.

I'd suggest having a chat with your employer. I have no dealings with staffs cc but like I said I've worked in this sphere for a few councils and the don't tend to switch provider for no reason. It's an absolute pain in the backside to do an masse especially without TUPE transfers and from an ethical point of view it tends to upset service users.

I don't feel like we have anywhere near the full picture here.

All I know at present is they are trying to get away from invoice led providers. Hopefully I'll know more within the next week. They are also changing the terms of the contract with their providers (who are up in arms about it it) on October the first. They expect to complete the transfer of clients to other companies within three months (round about the time bed blocking will reach its peak and they won't have enough providers to take them.)

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

Could you be out of a job Ethan?

I don't know if you've seen it but last year UHNM got rid of about 35 nurses called UHNM@Home who attended about 40 patients at home.
On Friday they announced they need 40 nurses/carers to now go and do the same thing called Home First (I think).

 

[ethan]

Crazy isn't it. We've also been told by an individual on the brokerage that if we tell our clients to request direct payments, which is the only way to protect our income as a business and the rights of the service user to make a choice, the council will sue us? There's not enough care providers in the UK for an ageing population and the council are actively putting care companies out of business.