This 2 page opinion explores do we need more personal
budgets for older people in England as is advocated by the
Conservative government led by Prime Minister Theresa
May? What are the implications for frail older people? Does
it really give them more choice of the type of services needed
to address their social care and health needs?
Ironically, it was under former PM Tony Blair that
personalisation services developed in England as a social
policy response to user demands for more tailored and
flexible forms of health and social care support. Further,
this process is also seen as a vehicle for promoting service
user rights through increasing participation, empowerment
and control while also promoting self-restraint by having
(important to note) ‘users’ or their carers manage the costs
of their own health and social care.
Self-assessment is a cornerstone of personalisation that
gives service users the opportunity to assess their own
care and support needs and decide how their Personal
Budgets are spent that is a process transforming social care.
This was piloted around a number of local authorities and
subsequently is advocated by current Prime Minister of
Great Britain, Theresa May as an important policy issue for
every local authority.
The question to ask is: why is Theresa May advocating
personal budgets for personal care for frail older people
to be managed by older people or their carers themselves?
The important point to note, if care needs are not met, or not affordable, or not monitored, then for Cameron,
does not look at the Government. Instead, look at the selfconstructed
‘individual choice or community empowerment’
– a euphemism for individuals and communities to manage
their own affairs. Putting the emphasis onto older people is
a form of ‘buck passing’ which radically changes the British
State’s role as provider as advocated by the architects of the
welfare state in the UK some 72 years ago.
If money is not spent accordingly, then the buck passing
will be framed as an individualised problem by older people
and their carers rather than the policies and destructive lack
of resources taken out of local authorities by the central State.
Equally, questions of accountability are frequently dodged
by Government as the emphasis is put onto frail older people
rather than to elected representatives.
Personal care is important for frail older people but
for the Government the most important aspect is care
policy which “devolves power and budgets” to individuals
and local communities which masks wider questions of
accountability of the State to provide a care system that
is fully funded, addresses safeguarding against potential
financial ‘elder abuse’ by external control of resources and
ultimately provides clear lines of accountability for carers,
local authorities and also the Central State. Frail older people
deserve no less; so that their human rights and opportunities
for personalised self-governance are fully facilitated and
crucially, resourced.
ISSN: 2574 -1241
