Content

9.1

The Service Manager, Citywide Care Alarms was
in attendance to outline a proposal for the introduction of a new
TEC Charging Policy to support the city-wide transition to a TEC
first approach. The proposed policy aimed to make TEC services,
such as Citywide Care Alarms (CWCA), more accessible by means
testing alongside care and support for those eligible for adult
social care, and away from a traded service model.

 

 

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That
Adult Health and Social Care Policy Committee: -
 
a)   
To approve the new TEC Charging Policy, which will see TEC services
means tested alongside care and support for people eligible for
adult social care services
b)   
To note the move to means testing alongside care and support for
those eligible for adult social care moves away from a traded
service model
c)   
To note that further stakeholder engagement will be undertaken
should the recommendation be approved, please refer to the timeline
in section 2

 

 

9.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

9.3.1

TEC enables a range of people to be able to
continue to live independently, safe, and well in their own home
improving quality of life and supports the delivery of the Adult
Health & Social Care Strategy Living the Life you want to Live.
TEC services deliver benefits, including preventing, delaying, and
reducing the need for more intrusive and costly care, demand
management, the optimisation of care packages, supporting early
discharge from hospital, and preventing avoidable admissions.

 

 

9.3.2

The new Charging Policy will ensure that the
TEC services are sustainable and accessible to those people often
in most need helping to address health inequalities. The changes
are aimed at significantly increasing the number of people able to
benefit from both care & support and TEC services which will
also deliver service efficiencies across Health, Housing, and
Social Care.

 

 

9.3.3

The re-branding of the Citywide Care Alarms is
in preparation for the new TEC Service Delivery Model as well as
supporting the wider service redesign.

 

 

 

 

9.4

Alternatives
Considered and Rejected

 

 

9.4.1

Alternative Option 1: TEC is treated as
a choice service and continue to be charged as per the current
model for CWCA. • May discourage uptake among those in receipt
of social care, particularly for most financially excluded (health
inequalities). • Cost higher for people with the highest need
can create digital poverty and health inequalities • Risk
around compliance with care act and complexity of evidencing that
not a part of meeting eligible needs. • Creates a barrier for
the social care practitioners to promote TEC when it is an
additional charge for the service
 

 

 

9.4.2

Alternative Option 2: Have separate
charging for existing City-wide Care Alarms and new TEC cases. This
is inequitable, will require significant administrative support to
manage and will cause confusion and implementation challenges. It
would also decrease uptake of CWCA for financially excluded
individuals.

 

 

9.4.3

Alternative Option 3: Private clients
are considered for a means test as well as care act assessed
individuals. This will have significant costs around administering
this number of assessments and is impractical given resources.

 

 

9.4.4

Alternative Option 4: Providing TEC
free of charge in all circumstances. This was not affordable with
the current financial position of the council.