Health care benefit schemes for senior citizens over 65 years old

1240/5(2056)

QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 2004, BY DEPUTY T.J. LE MAIN OF ST. HELIER

Question

1. Would the President inform the Assembly of the budget relating toeye, foot and dental care expenditure for the over 65sin 2001, 2002 and 2003and will he inform members of thelevelofactual expenditure for these three years andthe balance that remainsring-fenced for the elderly?
2. Would the President give a breakdown of the cost ofthescheme,including the sum paid outto Westfield to administer thescheme?

Answer

1. A sum of £680,000 was inscribed in the 2001 budget to provide financial help for the Elderly. The Jersey 65+ Health Plan began as a two year pilot in September 2001, and for the four months remaining in 2001, actual expenditure was £52,865. In 2002 another sum of £680,000 was inscribed in the budget for the Jersey 65+ Plan and £164,782 was actually spent. In 2003 a figure of £500,000 was inscribed in the budget. The estimated actual cost for 2003 is approximately £443,000. Accounts are currently being finalised. For completeness the budget for 2004 is £479,700.

M  embers may recall that the Jersey 65+ Plan was started in September 2001 as a two year pilot scheme with

a lump sum of £680,000 for two years and as such the Finance and Economics Committee allowed funds to be carried over during the period of the pilot, which covered three financial years. The accumulated underspend on the scheme at the end of 2003 is likely to be £1,199,353.

I n November 2003, the States approved a proposition of the Employment and Social Security Committee to

continue the Jersey 65+ Plan following a review of the pilot scheme which included very positive endorsements of the scheme from individuals and agencies such as Age Concern, the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Parishes. This Act of the States put the scheme on a firm financial footing, replacing the ring fenced lump sum arrangement equivalent to a couple of years expenditure with a long term commitment to future funding through the normal budgeting and cash limit process. Therefore, and in accordance with the Finance (Jersey) Law l967, as amended, and associated Codes of Direction, all unspent monies as at the end of 2003 will be returned to the Treasury.

2. The cost of the scheme consists ofpremiums paid on behalf of individuals and administration costsincurred. The amounts paid to Westfield for administration were £9,777.43 in 2001, £21,421.61 in 2002 and an estimated £55,414.51 in 2003. Thetotal cost of the scheme has been given in part (a) of the questionbut for completenesswas£55,769,£164,782and£443,000fortheyears 2001, 2002 and2003 respectively.