Law Commission recommendations do not go far enough

After years of the current adult social care arrangements’ being left to result in variable experiences of ageing - in what equates to a post code lottery - the Law Commission’s review of adult social care law reads like a breath of fresh air and brings common sense to the world of residential care.

As a long-established operator of care homes across the North and Midlands, it has been an ongoing source of frustration of mine that the experience of being supported to access and experience residential care, is fundamentally affected by where you live.

My care home operating business, Ideal Care Homes, provides high quality personalised residential provision, which enables an equality of access in line with the underpinning ethos of the Law Commission’s review. This is a model I am keen to promote across the sector.

In some ways, I believe that the recommendations of the Law Commission actually do not go far enough to ensure a fair deal for everyone as they age. Not only should legislation “stipulate basic minimum entitlements to services”, but it should also stipulate a national fee rate for care services that reflects the quality of the offering, and reflects a fair price for care provision.

The national disgrace of the current system is not only the disparity between areas, but also that a number of Local Authorities rely on a combination of private fee payers (who pay a higher rate than the Local Authority funded clients) and third party top-ups (often from people who themselves may be existing on a pension alone) to subsidise their inadequate levels of funding.

This is not the case across all of the country as my own company receives Local Authority funding ranging from £370 to £520 per week for the same type of resident based on where they live. No one could argue that this is in any way equitable or enables providers to deliver the same quality of care.

I would like to see a system that enables Local Authorities and private fee payers to pay the same rate, and also one which has a clear system of quality premiums based on the services provided – too many authorities have their fees set at a single level which continues the “Blackpool boarding house” mentality of acceptability. This is not appropriate now and is certainly unacceptable for a future generation. Everyone should expect - as a minimum; en-suite accommodation, high quality living, communal space and exceptional levels of care.

Perhaps the most powerful message behind the legislation is the need for simplification and raised awareness of the processes involved. Local Authorities need to heed this as far too many people are living in sub-standard care settings when they don’t need to be. Care providers can “market” their offer, but the Local Authorities and care Quality Commission also need to step up to the plate to promote settings which can improve the quality of people’s lives – that is an aim we can all sign up to.

Lawrence Tomlinson