Hi

Could someone answer this question for me. I am going to start what I know will be a long fight to get our 50% continuing care back again.

The question - do all PCT's have to follow criteria laid down by the government? We had our assessment on 2nd December and the "nurse" who did it had no idea that we had been awarded 50% and stated that we had never had it. She also had to be told that autonomic dysreflexia causes the blood pressure to rise dangerously high and if it is not spotted it can cause death. She thought it was when the BP dropped low. Honestly, where do they get these people from!!! My husband is a C6 tetraplegic.

Hello Geedeedee

All PCTs are supposed to follow DOH guidelines including The National Framework, but of course they dont do this.

Unfortunately the DOH doesnt appear to check them on this either.

They both are playing the "" we dont want to pay up game "" otherwise known as "" we have to save money "".
Except of course when they want to spend money on something not necessary.

Kind regards Ian

HI! There can be absolutely no doubt that your husband and EVERY other tetraplegic is entitled to fully funded NHS care! I will forward all the information needed to compel the NHS to provide ALL the care which he requires. In the meantime look up the 'Coughlan' case. Pam Coughlan also tetraplegic, suffers from autonomic dysreflexia and the high court and the Appeal court ruled ALL her care the sole responsibility of the NHS.
Steve. (Founder, NHS continuing care Campaign)

Hi

Thanks everyone. Wish me luck - the SS have now changed our social worker because they say we don't need health care anymore so my next job is to get her back. This will be the 4th social worker we have had in less than a year!!!

Hi geedeedee

I have tried to send you a private message but for some reason it is sitting in my Outbox (another one from another forumite that I replied to went off to them with no problem.) New here and not up to speed.... I downloaded a very good document that I'd like to send to you but don't know how to do it....

'Geedeedee'As I have recently posted elsewhere:
'Despite the deliberate confusion created by the DoH and the NHS, the position regarding entitlement to NHS care is really very straightforward and is summarised by the declared purpose of this forum as stated in the headline banner above. However the divisive NHS ploy is to claim that the right to receive NHS care is contingent upon and determined by the presence of a 'primary health need'. This is based on the ruling by Lord Woolf in the 'Coughlan' judgement that "Miss. Coughlan's needs were primarily health needs for which the NHS is as a matter of law responsible". There is a subtle difference of meaning between 'primary' and 'primarily' but the NHS claim that if a patient does NOT exhibit a 'primary health need' then they don't have to pay because the patient must have only so-called 'social needs'! They then claim that the patients care and its cost can be shunted over to social services which means that most patients can be forced to pay for their own care! This is of course total humbug! Clearly if a patient is so ill that they require access to 24/7 care services and particularly if they are placed in a care home in order to receive those services, then their primary need is for health care, NOT for 'social care'! The proof of this hypothesis is obvious: If the patient were to recover from their underlying 'health need' then their 'social care' need would vanish! The real problem facing claimants is merely that "there are none so deaf as they who do not wish to hear!".
Your husbands care is no business of social services as he clearly has a primary health need and is thus the sole responsibility of the NHS. As ruled in 'Coughlan' Pam's needs were "beyond the scope of local authority services". Your husbands condition is identical to Miss. Coughlan's and to treat him any differently is blatant discrimination - and therefore unlawful! Social services have no role to play and the NHS must pay for ALL his care. As I state above if his health returned to what it was prior to his stroke then he would not require ANY 'social care'. His PRIMARY need is therefore a 'health need' and any 'social needs' are thus consequential or 'secondary' needs as by definition there cannot be more than ONE 'primary need'. TELL them that they must produce evidence acceptable to a court of law to prove that he does NOT require ANY 'health care' if they contend that he requires ONLY 'social care'. Unless they can do that he cannot be required to pay for his own care. Note that the Appeal Court ruled ALL Pam Coughlan's care to be the sole responsibility of the NHS and that it was 'beyond the scope of Local Authority services'. Steve.