Just preparing for meeting on Thursday and have remembered something that came up in the meeting last week - I said that I wondered why the checklist meeting had to take place at all as surely under the Coughlan ruling my mum would be eligible for CHC. The guy from the PCT stated that the law had changed and that Coughlan would no longer be eligible herself.

I challenged him, stating that the law had not changed. He then stated that the interpretation had now that people were mote educated!

Any thoughts on how I can state my argument would be appreciated.

I believe Pamela Coughlan has said herslf that she would no longer qualify using the National Framework.

However as she is still recieving funding it is obvious to me that as she went to the High Court for her ruling, and the NHS has not challanged that, that the law itself has not changed - just the way it is "interpreted" via the national framework, which in itself is widely interpereted in different way by various PCT's/SHA's.

Ask for their proof that the law has changed.

Saying all that, it seems to be useless in most cases to use Pamela Coughlan as an example, as they just ignore you

jonsmum wrote:Just preparing for meeting on Thursday and have remembered something that came up in the meeting last week - I said that I wondered why the checklist meeting had to take place at all as surely under the Coughlan ruling my mum would be eligible for CHC. The guy from the PCT stated that the law had changed and that Coughlan would no longer be eligible herself.

I challenged him, stating that the law had not changed. He then stated that the interpretation had now that people were mote educated!

Any thoughts on how I can state my argument would be appreciated.

This is the same old rubbish that I think everyone has heard for years and years and years...... The law has NOT changed, and Coughlan would still win ( I hope so, as I believe the proposed class action will largely be based on this).

It all comes from the seat of government, and is purely to reach one conclusion - that you get no money for fully funded care. The checklist is all part of the con trick, and if you ever watch such programmes as "Hustle" and "The Real Hustle" professional conmen and women prepare their end of the business very very carefully, including all the (apparent() paperwork. It is intended to blind you with words - especially medical words.

Unfortunately you have to go through this process, but when they start sending you from one committee to another, then that is the time to pull out and go to the next level, which is the entirely useless Health Ombudsman.

it is a long process I'm afraid, but you will hear the PCT argument again and again in the future, but close your ears, it just isn't true, and you are not the first to hear this type of thing.

Good Luck

Hello Johnsmum

Finn Mickey is right the law hasnt changed and the Coughlan ruling still stands and the proof of that is to be found in The National Framework itself. In the North Yorkshire case the Care Cordinater for North Yorkshire and York PCT, Cathy Eades ( who I think most of you realise by now is not one of my respected people ), had to admit that Coughlan had to be observed and followed ( even though she didnt do that ). She also admitted that by the National Framework criteria of today she ( Coughlan ) wouldnt have received funding.

This again proves that the judges ruling still stands. It is the interpretation of the assesors that is out of line with the law if they disregard the Coughlan ruling. The criteria also if it is over-restrictive is also contrary to Coughlan.

To say that the interpretation had becuase people were now more educated. To me shows proof of their intention to deceive. In scientific research a interpretation of a proven fact does not change if the proven fact remains constant; it will only do so if that is not the case.
The National Framework criteria and Coughlan are the proven facts so to make any interpretations that fail to fall in line with either is distorting the assessment process to fit in with their desired object to fail the claimant.

I would be tempted if that had been said to be to have replied "" so by that remark I am lead to no other conclusion that you are saying that people make up claims for CHC falsly and thereby you are calling me a liar and unless you retract I shall have to consider the appropriate remedy""

Ask them to produce evidence that Coughlan is no longer law and that they are supposed to use the National Framework as the basis for assessment and not make up their own criteria as they go along.

Remember you have a right to a full CHC assessment.

Kind regards Ian

Yep,I agree with Ian, ask for a specific citation. The original phrase uttered about people being more educated says it all really!!! This is a shifting goalpost attempt of the most patronising variety.

In the alternative, it is just possible that they do believe Coughlan is no longer law; from their perspective if they constantly hear the chants of "Primary health need" "Social Need", "Personal Care" and are trained to whizz everything across to SS as soon as the NF guidelines demonstrate no eligibility (!!) whatever they may know about Coughlan cannot possibly seem like current law. This creation of a parallel reality is at the nub of the issue here and is what needs to be challenged big time.

It does suggest that this assessor graduated from the same school of smarm as Shaz's one. Give them both the same response; state your authority please.

I have just received continuing nhs health care...framework for implementation in Wales 2004....I am claiming CHC from 2008....the 2004 frame work was still in use in 2011 in Wales...Having read through it I can state with confidence that all that you have stated sillysally in the above post is written in the text of this document created by the welsh assembly and further corrupted by another document the LHB sent me named continuing NHS health care and continuing health and social care operational policy....NOTHING to do with continuing nhs healthcare...actually I have just noticed Healthcare is two words in Wales...I wondered where I got it from!!!!! Excuse no capitals but I am so disgusted with the documents they do not deserve capital letters....

There are three levels of need only...low...medium...high....e.g. The first Domain.
Health care intervention

Low..Does not need regular medical supervision or care other than by GP or Community nurse...e.g. diabetic injection!!!!!! simple wound dressing.

Medium
Treament (inculding equipment)by carer that requires supervision or input by nurse.
Treatment requiring a nurse e.g.pressure sores, open wounds.
Planned hospitalisation with little risk of readmission.

High
Need for frequent not easily predictable interventions. Requires frequent medical review.
Advanced technical care e.g. tracheostomy, suction frequently to maintain airway, complex catheter care.
Continual supervision of equipment use by health professionals, and need of easy access to wider M/D team.
Considerable risk of multiple unpredictable readmission.

I questioned this domain ..with the LHB and asked in a case of severe neurological damage caused by dementia or B12 deficiency which of these three levels would be most appropriate? The answer I was given was as unintelligible as "diabetic injection" UNBELIEVABLE...but I am going to challenge the criteria and make it known that the criteria is a completely amateur attempt at obfuscation ....what is COMPLEX about catheter care????????? These descriptions are for the benefit of the social workers (I hope!!)the direction of questions make it clear what is going to be the outcome of an MDT!!!! Residential with RGN input (district nurse) or Not...means test!!!!

The other domains do not get any better...I must include this one....Medication use & ability to self medicate:

HIGH: Supervision by qualified staff required, or by individual with specialist skill!!!!!!!!!?????????

AMAZING
MG

mergymraeg100 wrote:I have just received continuing nhs health care...framework for implementation in Wales 2004....I am claiming CHC from 2008....the 2004 frame work was still in use in 2011 in Wales...Having read through it I can state with confidence that all that you have stated sillysally in the above post is written in the text of this document created by the welsh assembly and further corrupted by another document the LHB sent me named continuing NHS health care and continuing health and social care operational policy....NOTHING to do with continuing nhs healthcare...actually I have just noticed Healthcare is two words in Wales...I wondered where I got it from!!!!! Excuse no capitals but I am so disgusted with the documents they do not deserve capital letters....

There are three levels of need only...low...medium...high....e.g. The first Domain.
Health care intervention

Low..Does not need regular medical supervision or care other than by GP or Community nurse...e.g. diabetic injection!!!!!! simple wound dressing.

Medium



Treament (inculding equipment)by carer that requires supervision or input by nurse.
Treatment requiring a nurse e.g.pressure sores, open wounds.
Planned hospitalisation with little risk of readmission.

High
Need for frequent not easily predictable interventions. Requires frequent medical review.
Advanced technical care e.g. tracheostomy, suction frequently to maintain airway, complex catheter care.
Continual supervision of equipment use by health professionals, and need of easy access to wider M/D team.
Considerable risk of multiple unpredictable readmission.

I questioned this domain ..with the LHB and asked in a case of severe neurological damage caused by dementia or B12 deficiency which of these three levels would be most appropriate? The answer I was given was as unintelligible as "diabetic injection" UNBELIEVABLE...but I am going to challenge the criteria and make it known that the criteria is a completely amateur attempt at obfuscation ....what is COMPLEX about catheter care????????? These descriptions are for the benefit of the social workers (I hope!!)the direction of questions make it clear what is going to be the outcome of an MDT!!!! Residential with RGN input (district nurse) or Not...means test!!!!

The other domains do not get any better...I must include this one....Medication use & ability to self medicate:

HIGH: Supervision by qualified staff required, or by individual with specialist skill!!!!!!!!!?????????

AMAZING
MG

Nothing has really changed over the years. This is the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA/BANDING con trick dressed up in new clothes, but the language sadly is only too familiar. (And possibly putting it in Welsh does not make it better).

AND it adds up to the same thing - you are not getting any cash, so there.

Being educated as the PCT person put it, is one extra layer of armour against this sort of thing - and thank goodness for it. Unfortunately the rest of the country - including the highly educated - will swallow all this hook, line and sinker.