Watchdog tells councils to reduce care home spending
Share
Councils should reduce the amount they spend on residential care for older people so it is below government targets, the public spending watchdog has recommended.
A report published by the Audit Commission today says councils should aim to spend less than 40 per cent of their older people’s care budget on care homes.
Instead the report says they should tailor services to individuals, redesign services to help older people stay at home for longer, and make greater use of technology, such as telecare.
It says public funding for care will reduce in the future as the population ages. But it adds that most councils do not know enough about the costs of their ageing population and may miss out on savings from preventive services and better work with other organisations.
The study, Under Pressure, says councils should work with the NHS, voluntary groups and older people on local approaches which integrate prevention, early intervention, and care services.
It says councils should update their sustainable community and service strategies and medium-term financial plans to prepare for an ageing population.
Audit Commission chairman Michael O’Higgins said: ‘Most older people live at home, not in care homes. And the longer they do, the happier they are and the less they cost the taxpayer. Innovative, personalised services mean older people stay independent longer, saving public money.
‘There are huge financial pressures on councils in the years ahead, but redesigning services and exploiting technology can make them better, more efficient and more personal. Some councils are showing the way, tackling the causes of ill-health and social isolation, reducing the need for expensive social care and helping people live well in later life.’
The Chartered Institute of Housing welcomed the report’s recognition of the role housing plays in preventing more expensive health care, and the emphasis on helping older people to support themselves.
Chief executive Sarah Webb said: ‘Without a focus on the links between good housing and good health, governments will never achieve good quality of life, sustainable communities, or economic inclusion.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
people deserve support | 18/02/2010 9:34 am
Redesign services? Do you mean redesign services in the format and manner that the inspection reports and associated key lines of enquiry dictate will score organizations lots of stars at inspection time? Or does the Audit Commission mean that they are dropping their ineffective, arbitrary and poor management approach to allow organizations to become innovative? No of course not, they have set a new target 40% and another stick with which to beat the sector.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 18/02/2010 9:56 am
I'm tired of reading about the Audit Commissions abitrary decisions to cut costs. Cutting costs isn't indicative of excellent performance - happy residents is...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 18/02/2010 11:07 am
People go into care homes because they are older people who cannot stay independent any more and need care. Hence, why they are called care homes! It is ridiculous for Michael to think most housing professionals aren't aware of the advantages of older residents remaining in their own homes and its benefits (incidentally,its nothing to do with financial costs).
Many care homes that are run privately are often sub-standard, overpriced and the quality is often just gloss. Perhaps he should audit them and find out why are they charging such extorted prices.
Nevertheless, I only have only referred cases when they become absolutely necessary. Uprooting an independent and able senior person from their home is an absolute no, no!
Where did he get this 40% figure from? Perhaps, the private sector?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 18/02/2010 12:02 pm
The Supporting People programme (SP) was heralded and sold as a preventative one by central government and the example they used was if support was given to older people it PREVENTED older persons moving into redidential care. Residential care costing so much more and also disempowering for the individual being the key drivers.
So, given that at end of the first 3 years of SP 110,000 fewer older persons were being supported than at is inception anyone see the link here!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 18/02/2010 5:13 pm
At the risk of being a pedant, the title of this article is wrong. The AC are asking (directing?) local councils not to spend less on registered care provision but to get their percentage spending on it down below 40%. I see this as not reducing the cost per RCH place but on increasing the percentage of their budget on supported living and sheltered housing - the latter being the preventative model that reduces the need for care or at least delays the need for it.
On the surface thats very logical and consistently for the AC (see their report on SP for example) they have berated local councils for seeking short-term savings that lead to higher longer term costs such as SP that has this rationale.
Unfortunately and conveniently for AC they fail to similarly berate central government for reducing SP funding to local councils year on year in real and actual terms - but then who funds the AC?
Perhaps the AC should simply advise central government to keep giving local 5 loaves and 2 fishes as believing they will have the b***s to criticise where it is due is as likely as then reducing the 5000 they charge local government for about 3 consultants for a day!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Henigan | 23/02/2010 12:16 pm
I read Chloë Stothart’s recent article (‘Watchdog tells councils to reduce care home spending’, Inside Housing, 18th February) with great interest and also want to share my support for providing older people with independent living provisions. However, the Audit Commission’s proposal to spend less than 40 per cent of their older people’s care budget on care homes has the disastrous potential of putting cost cutting ahead of the safety and welfare of older people.
Although there are many benefits of supporting independent living, it cannot be substitute for the personal care and social support that older people receive whilst in care homes. In my view, Local Authorities should be looking how they can make their care homes more cost efficient rather than proceeding with what could be seen as a blatant cost cutting exercise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment