This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY SCRUTINY PANEL ON MONDAY 9th APRIL 2018
The Long-Term Care Scheme (S.R.4/2018)
The Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel is pleased to have concluded its review into the Long-Term Care Scheme. Our adviser considered the scheme to be amongst the best internationally in terms of the balance of responsibility between government and citizens and commented that the States of Jersey was to be congratulated on the foresight, political will and expertise that was brought to bear in the creation of the Scheme. Although there were teething problems and delays at the outset, we found that most of these are now resolved and the care needs of many Islanders are being met through the Scheme.
However the Scheme is complex and not always easy to understand. We have made some recommendations which we hope will assist understanding and simplify administration.
We are grateful to the members of the public and organisations who contributed to our review and we have made various recommendations which we feel would improve the Scheme as it approaches its fifth year of operation. In this statement I would like to highlight two areas of importance which our report commented upon.
Firstly, respite provision must be improved if we are to avoid a crisis in care. Carers make a huge contribution to society by providing unpaid care and support to family members, often at a cost to their own health or wellbeing. They need and deserve adequate respite opportunities to enable them to continue with the care they give. From the evidence we heard, that is a problem, particularly in urgent or unplanned situations.
Secondly, it is clear that the Scheme provides for two distinct groups: on the one hand, older persons needing care due to frailty; on the other hand, those who are born with or develop long-term conditions. The needs of the latter group are different. They wish to live their lives within the community accessing social activities and developing social bonds. Providing a means to pay a carer does not fully answer these needs and we recommend that Ministers should reconsider how the Scheme can best meet the needs of this group.
We were greatly assisted by our two advisers. Professor Malcolm Johnson who has made a lifelong study of the issues around an ageing population and provided Panel members with great insight. Secondly, BWCI, an actuarial consultancy firm, which looked at the financial sustainability of the Scheme. Their reports make for interesting reading and we commend them to members.