Another shocking example of deceitful behaviour by the Authorities to deny CHC

The following email has been received by the Campaign Team and tells another shocking story of subterfuge by CCGs and Local Authorities to avoid payment of CHC. It is reproduced below with the approval of the author.

'My late father fell ill after a series of falls and he was in hospital for several weeks. He suffered from diabetes, advanced parkinsons, dementia, double incontinence and was completely immobile. The hospital doctors and others produced a series of reports which stated that he suffered severely from all the above and prior to him entering a nursing home, having been diagnosed as needing nursing rather than 'care', I had him assessed for CHC funding. At the assessment, despite my being shouted down several times by representatives of both the CCG and the local authority, it was agreed that my father's needs were severe in more than one category. However, after the meeting, he was marked down and his level of needs reduced prior to the assessment results being published. I fought against this and a review was held. The CCG's own assessor came to see my father at the hursing home and declared his cognition to be Severe. He was then admitted again to hospital and on release to the home was declared to be a palliative patient. In the home his condition deteriorated and the home and my father's GP both begged the CCG to send out a palliative specialist; the CCG refused to do this. Eventually, he was seen by a palliative nurse who happened to be visiting another patient in the home and she decided that my father should be fast tracked. She was in the process of preparing the paperwork but sadly my father died prior to his application being submitted. I fought on to obtain CHC funding. The CCG told me that as he was now 'retrospective' they had no idea when they could reassess him. After I complained to NHS England, a local resolution meeting was held at the CCG. The CCG produced heavily edited evidence intended to minimise his needs and I was verbally attacked by the Chair and the assessor. Following this, I asked NHS England for an IRP assessment. This took place but was deeply flawed and my evidence was ignored, the Chair allowed the CCG to deny they had wrongly assessed my father, despite me producing over 1, 000 pages of evidence in support of our case which proved the CCG was wrong, and the IRP accepted the CCG's claims in full. I recorded this meeting on a voice recorder with the Chair's consent and still have these recordings which show how flawed it was. I then took the matter to a 'desktop review' which again was flawed as the assessor ignored all my evidence. I then placed the matter in the hands of a firm of solicitors, who took the case to the Ombudsman, who refused to consider it in full. That brings us to the present. In heavily editing the evidence they produced in support of their denial of CHC funding to my father, I believe the CCG committed fraud according to the legal definition. My late father's needs exceeded those of Coughlan, the landmark CHC case, and he should not have been denied it. The CCG and its employees have denied my family a substantial amount of money and we have not only lost this but have also incurred loss of interest and additional costs and expenses and losses associated with it all. Everything is itemised in my records. Maybe a judicial review is the only way ahead, but I think there must be another way. The NHS and its component bodies are surely subject to the law as are we all, and I believe that we do have the right to sue them over all this. I have all the evidence, all the documentation and extensive reports. I also have discussed the case with a barristers' chambers and they have informed me that they would be willing to take it on if my solicitors would refer it to them. Kind regards'

74 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All