News

Campaigners for people with serious long-term conditions have welcomed the decision by health minister Stephen Ladyman to commission a national framework for the assessment of fully funded NHS continuing care.

The government has previously resisted the move, despite complaints from patients, charities, the health ombudsman and MPs about the considerable variation in criteria for continuing health care between strategic health authorities (SHAs).

But last week Ladyman announced that he had commissioned a national framework for assessing eligibility.

"Learning from good practice, supported by the findings of our independent review, we will produce a national approach to continuing care to improve consistency and ease of understanding," he said.

Continuing care is a package of care arranged and funded solely by the NHS for people who need it because of disability, accident or illness. It can be provided in hospitals, care homes and patients' homes.

The review of nine unnamed SHAs, published last week and commissioned by the government, finds
evidence of inconsistent criteria for continuing care.

Despite reporting greater understanding of continuing care at a local level in most areas over the past three years, it adds that there remains a widespread desire to see national criteria.

"It was still remarked that there remained problems with variability between SHAs and issues therefore rise about equity for patients in different SHAs," it states.

Ladyman's announcement pre-empts a key recommendation of the latest report from the health ombudsman on the subject of funding for long-term care, due to be published later this week.

The report by Ann Abraham, who has previously made decisions in cases about funding individuals' care, will recommend national minimum eligibility criteria understandable to health professionals, patients and carers. She will also call for accredited assessment tools, training, and improved record keeping.

Charities Help the Aged, Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Society said a national framework assessing eligibility would be a major improvement but called for involvement in its development and implementation to ensure it was consistent, clear and fair.