Older people are being left housebound and disabled by a lack of NHS foot-care services in England, Age Concern says.
It cites Office of National Statistics figures from 2001 suggesting a third of over-65s cannot cut their own toe-nails and struggle to access NHS services.
Some are even trying to cut their nails with gardening shears, the charity said as it launched a campaign on the issue.
The Department of Health said they expected the NHS to provide good chiropody services for the elderly.
People may need to see a chiropodist because of problems with poor circulation, ulcers or overlapping toes.
Older people may also need help with basic foot care such as nail cutting and foot hygiene because they can no longer reach their own toe-nails.
Launching their Feet for Purpose campaign, Age Concern said older people were being put on long waiting lists forcing them to pay privately or rely on services provided by the charity.
It said an NHS report showed that between 1996 and 2005, there was a 20% drop in new episodes of care in NHS chiropody.
In some areas people have no access to foot-care services on the NHS, Age Concern said.
Lack of even the most basic foot care puts the elderly at risk of complications that lead to dangerous falls, severe restrictions on mobility and social isolation.
Age Concern director general Gordon Lishman said as well as cases of people cutting their nails with gardening shears, people had also resorted to kicking solid walls in their bare feet to break their nails.
"Foot-care services should be free and universally available to those who need them - yet increasingly in many parts of England they are being restricted or withdrawn."
He called for the Department of Health to include chiropody in the NHS maximum waiting time target of 18 weeks.
Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists chairman Janet McInnes said if older people were able to stay physically active they placed less of a burden on other parts of the health service.
"The SCP, along with other organisations, has highlighted again and again the impact of a lack of investment in foot health treatment for older people," she said.
"The importance of good foot health in maintaining older people's independence, mobility and social contact cannot be overstated."
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Rail fares to rise as Treasury cuts subsidies
Train passengers are facing another set of fare increases after the Government intensified its financial squeeze on the rail industry, reports the Daily Telegraph.
Weeks after ministers said that passengers would pick up a still bigger share of the bill for improvements to the network, the keys to the profitable East Coast Main Line were handed over to National Express.
Its bid will see unregulated fares – such as walk on off peak tickets – rise by 2.1% above inflation over the period of the franchise up until March 2015.
According to Passenger Focus, the consumer watchdog group, this could see fares increase by 45% over the next eight years with, for example, a York to London open return rising from £179 to £259.
"We are extremely concerned about this," said Anthony Smith, the group's chief executive.
"The fact is that this figure is just an average and they will play around with fares to manage capacity. I think there will be some eye-watering rises on walk on fares."
Underpinning passenger fears is the willingness of National Express to pay £1.4 billion to the Treasury over the next eight years – compared to the £1.3 billion GNER, which was forced to surrender the franchise, was prepared to pay over a decade.
The bid reflected a recent trend in franchises where the Government has been keen to cut subsidies to the industry.
In some cases grants to operators are gradually being replaced by premiums which have to be handed over to the Treasury.
This has already led to some startling fare rises under the new batch of franchises, with South West Trains hiking up some tickets by around 20% and Arriva imposing increases of 30% on some of its cheapest fares.
According to the Department for Transport the new franchise will include provision for new services such as a train every half an hour to Leeds.
Other enhancements outlined by the Government included 14,000 extra carriages from 2010.
But Mr Smith questioned whether this was a firm commitment or merely an "aspiration".
Gerry Doherty, general secretary of the white collar rail union, TSSA, questioned how the new company could raise the cash.
"This is the economics of the madhouse and it seems to us that passengers are being fleeced for the duel purpose of filling the coffers of the government and lining the pockets of shareholders.
"Are they really saying that companies have the right to charge what they like, how will that get people out of their cars and off planes?"
Weeks after ministers said that passengers would pick up a still bigger share of the bill for improvements to the network, the keys to the profitable East Coast Main Line were handed over to National Express.
Its bid will see unregulated fares – such as walk on off peak tickets – rise by 2.1% above inflation over the period of the franchise up until March 2015.
According to Passenger Focus, the consumer watchdog group, this could see fares increase by 45% over the next eight years with, for example, a York to London open return rising from £179 to £259.
"We are extremely concerned about this," said Anthony Smith, the group's chief executive.
"The fact is that this figure is just an average and they will play around with fares to manage capacity. I think there will be some eye-watering rises on walk on fares."
Underpinning passenger fears is the willingness of National Express to pay £1.4 billion to the Treasury over the next eight years – compared to the £1.3 billion GNER, which was forced to surrender the franchise, was prepared to pay over a decade.
The bid reflected a recent trend in franchises where the Government has been keen to cut subsidies to the industry.
In some cases grants to operators are gradually being replaced by premiums which have to be handed over to the Treasury.
This has already led to some startling fare rises under the new batch of franchises, with South West Trains hiking up some tickets by around 20% and Arriva imposing increases of 30% on some of its cheapest fares.
According to the Department for Transport the new franchise will include provision for new services such as a train every half an hour to Leeds.
Other enhancements outlined by the Government included 14,000 extra carriages from 2010.
But Mr Smith questioned whether this was a firm commitment or merely an "aspiration".
Gerry Doherty, general secretary of the white collar rail union, TSSA, questioned how the new company could raise the cash.
"This is the economics of the madhouse and it seems to us that passengers are being fleeced for the duel purpose of filling the coffers of the government and lining the pockets of shareholders.
"Are they really saying that companies have the right to charge what they like, how will that get people out of their cars and off planes?"
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Lewisham: Plea over service cuts for old folk
Community groups are campaigning to raise awareness of potential cuts to elderly and disabled people's services - reports the South London Press.
Lewisham council could slash adult social care services for people assessed as having substantial needs.
A consultation period for the changes has been extended by a month to September 15.
Lewisham Mencap and Age Concern Lewisham are pleading with people to make their views known.
Both charities believe if the cuts go ahead their clients' conditions may worsen, and that many people probably don't know what is being considered by the council.
Nick O'Shea, of Lewisham Mencap, said: "We have been rallying parents, holding meetings and getting people to fill out the consultation forms.
Lewisham council is considering three options, including only providing non-residential adult social care to those with "critical" and "greater substantial" needs.
It is believed if the cuts go ahead it will affect 580 people and save the council around £1.6million.
Chris Lunn, of Age Concern Lewisham, said: "We recognise the council has to make decisions but we want to present the case for older people as strongly as possible.
"We are asking people to really consider how this will impact on themselves, their family and those who already need these services.
"There is a lot of evidence that shows people in these circumstances get worse quickly without help and end up needing intensive and very expensive services instead."
Lewisham council could slash adult social care services for people assessed as having substantial needs.
A consultation period for the changes has been extended by a month to September 15.
Lewisham Mencap and Age Concern Lewisham are pleading with people to make their views known.
Both charities believe if the cuts go ahead their clients' conditions may worsen, and that many people probably don't know what is being considered by the council.
Nick O'Shea, of Lewisham Mencap, said: "We have been rallying parents, holding meetings and getting people to fill out the consultation forms.
Lewisham council is considering three options, including only providing non-residential adult social care to those with "critical" and "greater substantial" needs.
It is believed if the cuts go ahead it will affect 580 people and save the council around £1.6million.
Chris Lunn, of Age Concern Lewisham, said: "We recognise the council has to make decisions but we want to present the case for older people as strongly as possible.
"We are asking people to really consider how this will impact on themselves, their family and those who already need these services.
"There is a lot of evidence that shows people in these circumstances get worse quickly without help and end up needing intensive and very expensive services instead."
Labels:
elderly care,
lewisham,
social services
Alzheimer's drug ban to stay, court rules
Alzheimer's victims in England and Wales suffered a blow yesterday when the courts ruled that they would not be prescribed drugs that could ease their suffering - reports the Daily Telegraph.
Campaigners branded the decision "morally reprehensible" after a High Court judge upheld the decision by the drug's rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), to ban three new drugs; Aricept, Reminyl and Exelon.
NICE ruled that only those with severe Alzheimer's could have them. The drugs, which cost £2.50 per patient per day, can slow the disease.
Harriet Millward, the deputy chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said: "We are devastated that these drugs will remain unavailable on the NHS to people with early-stage Alzheimer's. We need to do more research, but it is hugely underfunded."
Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern, said: "People with dementia will have to get much worse before they receive help."
NICE has refused to reveal how it calculated whether these drugs were cost effective in cases of mild Alzheimer's.
The ruling comes after Ivan Lewis, the health and social care minister, admitted that the NHS was failing the 600,000 patients with dementia.
While Ivan Lewis recognises the problem, clearly the necessary funds just aren't available to tackle it - for example by offering clinically effective new drugs like these on the NHS.
So in this context how is it justifiable to reward the audit-failing EU with a 63% rise in payments - handing over £2.5bn extra year (net) on top of the £3.5bn we already pay?
Who needs that money the most - Alzheimer's sufferers or Brussels? And why aren't minsters - and even some MPs no doubt with Alzheimer's sufferers and their families among their own constituents - being more responsible with the finite 'pot' of public money?
Campaigners branded the decision "morally reprehensible" after a High Court judge upheld the decision by the drug's rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), to ban three new drugs; Aricept, Reminyl and Exelon.
NICE ruled that only those with severe Alzheimer's could have them. The drugs, which cost £2.50 per patient per day, can slow the disease.
Harriet Millward, the deputy chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said: "We are devastated that these drugs will remain unavailable on the NHS to people with early-stage Alzheimer's. We need to do more research, but it is hugely underfunded."
Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern, said: "People with dementia will have to get much worse before they receive help."
NICE has refused to reveal how it calculated whether these drugs were cost effective in cases of mild Alzheimer's.
The ruling comes after Ivan Lewis, the health and social care minister, admitted that the NHS was failing the 600,000 patients with dementia.
While Ivan Lewis recognises the problem, clearly the necessary funds just aren't available to tackle it - for example by offering clinically effective new drugs like these on the NHS.
So in this context how is it justifiable to reward the audit-failing EU with a 63% rise in payments - handing over £2.5bn extra year (net) on top of the £3.5bn we already pay?
Who needs that money the most - Alzheimer's sufferers or Brussels? And why aren't minsters - and even some MPs no doubt with Alzheimer's sufferers and their families among their own constituents - being more responsible with the finite 'pot' of public money?
Elderly 'suffering mental health pandemic'
Britain's elderly are in the grip of a mental health crisis with more than 3.5 million older people suffering depression or dementia, according to a new study reported in the Daily Telegraph.
The new figures show the scale of mental health problems in the over-65s is far greater than previously thought.
Experts warn unless prompt Government action is taken the number of those suffering mental health problems will rise by a third in the next 15 years.
The disturbing analysis is released today by the UK Inquiry into Mental Health and Well-Being in Later Life, involving experts from the London School of Economics, the Royal College of Nursing and the charity Age Concern.
According to the study, up to 2.6 million older people - one in four of those over 65 and two in five of those over 85 - are suffering from depression or serious symptoms of depression. Meanwhile, one in five people over 80 suffers from dementia.
Describing it as a "mental health pandemic", the report claims that these are the "invisible" people whose problems are often caused by loneliness, long-term illness and lack of independence.
Many avoid seeking help because of a perceived stigma. Those that do seek help often receive inferior treatment and have their symptoms put down to age.
The inquiry calls for a Government task force to be set up by 2008 to tackle the problem.
"There is no time to waste. As our population ages, we must ensure that the number of older people who suffer mental health problems are minimised," the report says.
"The majority of older people with mental health problems do not receive services. We need to shift our attention to them, to ensure they are supported by loved ones and enabled to care for themselves - by design, not by accident or neglect."
The study predicts that unless there are effective interventions, 3.5 million older people will have symptoms of depression and almost one million will have dementia by 2021.
It states that the Department of Health framework for mental health services has so far focused only on people up to 65.
Those over that age receive lower-cost and inferior services to younger people, even if they have the same condition.
Dr June Crown, the chairman of the inquiry said: "Mental health problems in later life are often preventable and treatable, and action to improve the lives of older people who experience mental health difficulties is long overdue."
Ivan Lewis, a junior health minister, said: "This report raises fundamental questions for the NHS, care system, families and all communities."
The new figures show the scale of mental health problems in the over-65s is far greater than previously thought.
Experts warn unless prompt Government action is taken the number of those suffering mental health problems will rise by a third in the next 15 years.
The disturbing analysis is released today by the UK Inquiry into Mental Health and Well-Being in Later Life, involving experts from the London School of Economics, the Royal College of Nursing and the charity Age Concern.
According to the study, up to 2.6 million older people - one in four of those over 65 and two in five of those over 85 - are suffering from depression or serious symptoms of depression. Meanwhile, one in five people over 80 suffers from dementia.
Describing it as a "mental health pandemic", the report claims that these are the "invisible" people whose problems are often caused by loneliness, long-term illness and lack of independence.
Many avoid seeking help because of a perceived stigma. Those that do seek help often receive inferior treatment and have their symptoms put down to age.
The inquiry calls for a Government task force to be set up by 2008 to tackle the problem.
"There is no time to waste. As our population ages, we must ensure that the number of older people who suffer mental health problems are minimised," the report says.
"The majority of older people with mental health problems do not receive services. We need to shift our attention to them, to ensure they are supported by loved ones and enabled to care for themselves - by design, not by accident or neglect."
The study predicts that unless there are effective interventions, 3.5 million older people will have symptoms of depression and almost one million will have dementia by 2021.
It states that the Department of Health framework for mental health services has so far focused only on people up to 65.
Those over that age receive lower-cost and inferior services to younger people, even if they have the same condition.
Dr June Crown, the chairman of the inquiry said: "Mental health problems in later life are often preventable and treatable, and action to improve the lives of older people who experience mental health difficulties is long overdue."
Ivan Lewis, a junior health minister, said: "This report raises fundamental questions for the NHS, care system, families and all communities."
Monday, 13 August 2007
Spelthorne: 'Tie rubbish to your Zimmer' 93-year-old told
A 93-year-old woman has slammed Spelthorne Council's new rubbish collection plans after being advised to tie her bin bags to her walking frame, reports Your Local Guardian.
Jessie Emer, of Cadbury Road, Sunbury, contacted after reading about blind residents' concerns about distinguishing the new bins, which are being rolled out across the borough.
Mrs Emer, a lifelong Conservative voter, said she would be unable to move the new wheelie bins as she walks with a frame.
She said: "I really do not know how they can do this without any consideration for the elderly. How am I now supposed to take my bins to the front of the house.
"The bin man just told me to tie the black bin bag to my frame and hobble to the wheelie bin."
Mrs Emer, who has lived in Spelthorne for 73 years, said even though she had contacted the council, nothing had been done and that she was not alone in having difficulty - her 96-year-old cousin is suffering from the same problem.
She said: "It is appalling and I am disgusted the council think they can do this without asking people.
"I can not move the bins about and I will not vote Conservative again. How do they think I can cope?
"They carried out a small test which proved nothing. Would they expect their own elderly relatives to move about these big bins?
"I am unable to walk without my frame never mind push anything."
Mrs Emer, who has lived through two world wars, said she believes the introduction of the new rubbish collection policy is penny pinching.
Jessie Emer, of Cadbury Road, Sunbury, contacted after reading about blind residents' concerns about distinguishing the new bins, which are being rolled out across the borough.
Mrs Emer, a lifelong Conservative voter, said she would be unable to move the new wheelie bins as she walks with a frame.
She said: "I really do not know how they can do this without any consideration for the elderly. How am I now supposed to take my bins to the front of the house.
"The bin man just told me to tie the black bin bag to my frame and hobble to the wheelie bin."
Mrs Emer, who has lived in Spelthorne for 73 years, said even though she had contacted the council, nothing had been done and that she was not alone in having difficulty - her 96-year-old cousin is suffering from the same problem.
She said: "It is appalling and I am disgusted the council think they can do this without asking people.
"I can not move the bins about and I will not vote Conservative again. How do they think I can cope?
"They carried out a small test which proved nothing. Would they expect their own elderly relatives to move about these big bins?
"I am unable to walk without my frame never mind push anything."
Mrs Emer, who has lived through two world wars, said she believes the introduction of the new rubbish collection policy is penny pinching.
Friday, 10 August 2007
MP's back Wilson's drug plea
Two Manchester MPs are backing a campaign by music legend Anthony Wilson to persuade local health bosses to provide a pioneering cancer drug on the NHS - reports the Manchester Evening News.
Mr Wilson - known as `Mr Manchester' - was denied a new drug for kidney cancer called Sutent on the NHS and is now paying for the £3,500-a-month treatment with the help of friends.
Sutent has doubled the life expectancy of some patients in trials but is still being assessed for use across the NHS so individual health trusts are deciding on a case-by-case basis if they wish to fund it.
Two patients being treated alongside Mr Wilson at the Christie ARE receiving funding for the therapy because they live a few miles away in Cheshire, where a much higher proportion of patients are being funded.
Health bosses in Cumbria have also decided to fund the treatment for their patients, some of whom are cared for at Manchester's Christie Hospital.
Graham Stringer MP for Manchester Blackley and Tony Lloyd MP for Manchester Central have written to Manchester Primary Care Trust to ask them to pay for the drug until the Government watchdog decides whether Sutent should be provided nationally.
The letter reads: "We are writing to you following reports in the Manchester Evening News that a number of patients in Greater Manchester are not being allowed to be treated with the kidney cancer drug called Sutent, although we understand patients from Cumbria and Cheshire are receiving this treatment.
"We consider this to be completely unacceptable and would ask you to review this policy."
Health bosses say they have to make very difficult decisions in order to provide the best care for patients and have good procedures in place to look at the effectiveness of new drugs.
The M.E.N. has learned that in the last 16 months PCTs in Greater Manchester have turned down eight requests for Sutent backed by doctors at the Christie and approved one, while Central and East Cheshire PCT have turned down one patient and approved two.
Four people who were refused treatment with the new drugs on the NHS , including Mr Wilson, are paying privately.
He said: "I want to know what has happened to the 11 people who can't afford to pay for treatment.
"I want to know what their lives are like now, have they been sentenced to death by this decision? It is a scandal."
Manchester NHS Primary Care Trust, which has refused to pay for Mr Wilson's treatment, says there is not enough `demonstrable evidence to support the use of this drug in treating kidney cancer.'
But Prof Robert Hawkins, a kidney cancer expert from Christie, believes the refusals come down to cost - even though he estimates the total bill if Sutent was routinely available on the NHS would be £2m a year for Greater Manchester.
He said: "There is no doubt it would be available if it was cheap. I will now be able to prescribe Sutent to patients from Cumbria but not routinely to anyone else - which puts me as a doctor in a difficult position.
"I am delighted local MPs have asked the PCTs to look again at this issue. The PCTs in the north east looked at the best available new evidence and cost-effectiveness data taking full account of recent price reductions and accepted it was a cost-effective treatment. I would urge the Manchester PCTs to look again at this fuller information."
Tony Lloyd said: "If someone living a few metres over the border into Macclesfield can have this treatment but someone living in my constituency cannot, it can never be acceptable."
When the medical experts, in this case senior doctors from the Christie who are certainly regional experts and is some cases nationally and internationally renowned, recommend a treatment for a certain condition we have to take that seriously."
Graham Stringer said: "We are asking them to reconsider, this is not a maverick treatment, it is recommended by doctors and some patients are already being treated with it."
We contacted Manchester PCT but they said they were unable to comment on the letter because it raised issues involving health trusts across Greater Manchester.
Previously Shauna Dixon, clinical director for Oldham PCT, which is leading Greater Manchester cancer drug commissioning, said: "Every effort is made to make sure the best care is provided to patients.
"All NHS trusts give careful consideration to the very difficult decisions they make when they look at individual cases to make sure they safely meet their medical needs. A clear framework is used to ensure there is good evidence to demonstrate a drug is effective."
Mr Wilson - known as `Mr Manchester' - was denied a new drug for kidney cancer called Sutent on the NHS and is now paying for the £3,500-a-month treatment with the help of friends.
Sutent has doubled the life expectancy of some patients in trials but is still being assessed for use across the NHS so individual health trusts are deciding on a case-by-case basis if they wish to fund it.
Two patients being treated alongside Mr Wilson at the Christie ARE receiving funding for the therapy because they live a few miles away in Cheshire, where a much higher proportion of patients are being funded.
Health bosses in Cumbria have also decided to fund the treatment for their patients, some of whom are cared for at Manchester's Christie Hospital.
Graham Stringer MP for Manchester Blackley and Tony Lloyd MP for Manchester Central have written to Manchester Primary Care Trust to ask them to pay for the drug until the Government watchdog decides whether Sutent should be provided nationally.
The letter reads: "We are writing to you following reports in the Manchester Evening News that a number of patients in Greater Manchester are not being allowed to be treated with the kidney cancer drug called Sutent, although we understand patients from Cumbria and Cheshire are receiving this treatment.
"We consider this to be completely unacceptable and would ask you to review this policy."
Health bosses say they have to make very difficult decisions in order to provide the best care for patients and have good procedures in place to look at the effectiveness of new drugs.
The M.E.N. has learned that in the last 16 months PCTs in Greater Manchester have turned down eight requests for Sutent backed by doctors at the Christie and approved one, while Central and East Cheshire PCT have turned down one patient and approved two.
Four people who were refused treatment with the new drugs on the NHS , including Mr Wilson, are paying privately.
He said: "I want to know what has happened to the 11 people who can't afford to pay for treatment.
"I want to know what their lives are like now, have they been sentenced to death by this decision? It is a scandal."
Manchester NHS Primary Care Trust, which has refused to pay for Mr Wilson's treatment, says there is not enough `demonstrable evidence to support the use of this drug in treating kidney cancer.'
But Prof Robert Hawkins, a kidney cancer expert from Christie, believes the refusals come down to cost - even though he estimates the total bill if Sutent was routinely available on the NHS would be £2m a year for Greater Manchester.
He said: "There is no doubt it would be available if it was cheap. I will now be able to prescribe Sutent to patients from Cumbria but not routinely to anyone else - which puts me as a doctor in a difficult position.
"I am delighted local MPs have asked the PCTs to look again at this issue. The PCTs in the north east looked at the best available new evidence and cost-effectiveness data taking full account of recent price reductions and accepted it was a cost-effective treatment. I would urge the Manchester PCTs to look again at this fuller information."
Tony Lloyd said: "If someone living a few metres over the border into Macclesfield can have this treatment but someone living in my constituency cannot, it can never be acceptable."
When the medical experts, in this case senior doctors from the Christie who are certainly regional experts and is some cases nationally and internationally renowned, recommend a treatment for a certain condition we have to take that seriously."
Graham Stringer said: "We are asking them to reconsider, this is not a maverick treatment, it is recommended by doctors and some patients are already being treated with it."
We contacted Manchester PCT but they said they were unable to comment on the letter because it raised issues involving health trusts across Greater Manchester.
Previously Shauna Dixon, clinical director for Oldham PCT, which is leading Greater Manchester cancer drug commissioning, said: "Every effort is made to make sure the best care is provided to patients.
"All NHS trusts give careful consideration to the very difficult decisions they make when they look at individual cases to make sure they safely meet their medical needs. A clear framework is used to ensure there is good evidence to demonstrate a drug is effective."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
