It still predominantly focuses on ACC. And the $95 fee excludes most. And nowhere do I see any mention of the fact that those on ACC are entitled...and those under MOH are not. This is a fundamental issue, and the lack of any entitlement leaves non ACC impaired in an state of constant precariousness.
Would it be too much to hope that when non ACC disabled do get a mention that the paper.... Joint ACC and Health Spinal Cord Impairment Initiative and Implementation Plan
Situation Analysis Paper 24 th February 2013
Christine Howard‐Brown and Jo Esplin
...especially pages 83 - 85 which compare supports for those with spinal impairment between ACC and MOH. Still the best comparison between the two groups and a non -cynic might wonder why on earth it is not widely referred to.
A dismal read, and still very relevant since despite their best efforts there are still some pre - ACC spinal injured still alive and fighting the MOH system which is largely hostile.
Hiya Hilary. Looking at ACC Futures website I'm not seeing anything that indicates a commitment to eliminating the gross disparities in access to supports between ACC claimants and others that has persisted for the past 4 decades.
ACC Futures' focus seems to be on strengthening, expanding and consolidating entitlements for those already under the wing of ACC. Meanwhile, the rest languish... with no entitlement to any supports to manage impairments through MOH and minimal income support through MSD.
I'm very much inclined towards cynicism on this issue and I do not believe there will be anything from ACC Futures that will alleviate the inequities for non-ACC disabled.
The ACC Futures website uses the word "entitled". Those with significant impairments 'supported' by MOH are entitled to nothing. Nada. Until this one basic difference between the two groups is eliminated there will be no hope of anything approaching security for non ACC impaired.
The $95 fee for the event in Wellington will be a barrier for many in this group.
Another update on this from the Misery of Health's website.
They have released this Cabinet Paper dated September 2018.
Also this 51 page tome dated around about when the announcement was made in July.
There's over eighty pages of discussion, and since both Peter and I struggle to read volumes on screen I began to print them out.
Big mistake. Will I ever bloody learn? Not quite as many solid blacked out redactions as the Previous Incumbents' effort that so riled readers here on Public Address back in 2013...but not far off.
Simply not acceptable.
Open and transparent government my arse.
Some might even call it revenge..
Cheap and dirty was how John Forman described it...
“In its announcement the Government makes much of the fact that it consulted with experts to craft this policy. The feedback we provided was ignored, and the result is the Funded Family Care payment is a dog’s breakfast. It’s not nice, it’s not right, and it won’t work,”
I know John was at the Grand Announcement do at Government House the other weekend...I wonder if he's caught up with the fact that they got their costings wrong?
Not that it would be fair to expect him to step up again and battle...he and the Carers Alliance were staunch throughout....unlike the secretariat of Carers NZ.
Now, I'm going to ask that we hop in our time machine and travel back to September 2013 and the Previous Incumbents' announcement of the brand spanking new Funded Family Care.
The Government has been working with people from the disability and carers’ community (blah, blah, usual blah) on key parts of implementing its $92 million policy of paying some family members to care for disabled people, Health Minister Tony Ryall says.
“It enables around 1,600 disabled adults who meet the high and very high needs eligibility criteria to pay resident family members to care for them at home for up to 40 hours a week – if that’s their choice. This policy does not apply to spouses or partners, or children under 18.”
“The Government will invest $92 million over the next four years to pay for this support package at an estimated cost of $23 million a year.
It turns out that for the first four years of Funded Family Care the total spend was $22.5 million. That is just shy of a quarter of the much publicised generous allocation of $92 million allocated in 2013.
Leaving $73.5 million of unused funds specifically earmarked for paying family carers ostensibly (according to the response I received today from DSS) returned to the Government coffers.
So, ok, Current Mob....you stuffed up with your premature announcement the other day by failing to check to see if the allocated funding was going to be sufficient to fulfill your promises....here's a bloody lifeline.
There's $73.5 million already allocated that you can surely draw upon to do this work properly. Taking the yearly funding from a mere $8million to a workable $26 million.
I would hope that
Natrad engaged quite rightly with Brian Easton...
Economist Brian Easton said there were going to be some very disappointed people.
"The new people are going to get paid for far fewer hours than the existing people, perhaps about a quarter to a third number of hours that the existing people get," Dr Easton said.
"So it's an extension of the scheme but it doesn't cover all the needs of those people who have been excluded and particularly are concerned about full-time care."
Finally it has been recognised that the funding allocated for this is not going to be enough.
Some numpty didn't do their sums did they?
I would like to think that this will not be used as a (convenient) excuse to sideline this...but I am not even going to hope.
No wonder Julie Anne Genter has handed the whole disability thing over to Jenny Salesa.
Even the expert experts struggled...
Both experts pointed to the fluidity of definitions of art and the wide range of activity, material and outcome that can be recognised as constituting art, in a curatorial view. Neither felt it would be possible to provide a firm set of guidelines for confirming an objects status as a genuine art objects.
(p12 of the 50 page decision. )
However,credit where credit is due, Kaihu Kauri do a hell of a lot more than simply titivating big logs.....there's some really nice stuff.
The Miserly has updated its page and it seems that Funded Family Care is here to stay as a separate entity.
Yes they will allow payment of spouses and yes they will pay parents of under 18 year olds and yes the pay rate will increase according to "comparable pay scale, service and qualification levels ' .
But it looks very much like Funded Family Care is going to continue to exist as a method whereby family members can be paid to provide allocated supports.
Which, if it is not already blindingly obvious, still fucking treating family carers differently.