No 37 AUTUMN EDITION 2006

THE PENSIONERS REVOLT Extracts from report by Jim Tanfield.

An army of pensioners made their presence felt in Harlow town centre during a protest at health service privatisation and pensions. It was the first time the Pensioners Action Association (Essex Region) had chosen to hold its annual rally in the town. Members of branches from Braintree, Basildon, Colchester, Chelmsford, Harlow and Tendering converged on the Market square for the start of the march to the civic centre. The speakers included Professor Wendy Savage, former senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, Frank Cooper, President of the National Pensioners Convention and Tony Constable.

Wendy Savage spoke of her concerns about future privatisation of the Health service. "The Government does not think these things properly and may cause serious problems for the most vulnerable members of society." She gave details of how the present campaign "Keep our NHS Public" started over 12 months ago and urged that groups be established locally to join the campaign. The only thing we can do is to mobilise the people on the ground to campaign and fight, to tell MPs we don't want this to happen to the NHS.

Frank Cooper spoke about pensions; the problem facing politicians was that people were living longer. This situation has to be taken into account when devising the pension schemes, but I have news for them. I for one am not going anywhere willingly. There was injustice of the Government's Pension credit scheme. "The man who applies for his pension after spending his wages on the dogs, ends up being better off than the man who has worked hard, earns the same money yet still manages to save for a rainy day" its totally unfair. Frank also spoke of the activities of the NPC, meetings with Government Ministers and the Lobby of Parliament. The Free Bus pass scheme appears to operating satisfactory and a lot of the problems are being resolved by the Councils. For example, Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the pass covers all of the counties and Cambridgeshire after pressure have agreed to a county wide scheme including cross boundary travel from 1st July.

Tony Constable from Colchester CRRA spoke of the problems when pensioners are forced to move into a care home and the Local Council social services are not carrying out the correct assessment .Basically, social services were using different guidelines to suit their particular area and refusing to pay the care home costs and putting a surcharge on the estate of the person when died. Some time ago, in a court case, the judge ruled that the social services were not carrying out the correct assessment and ordered the Council to pay for her care. Since then, the Government have ordered Local Social services to recheck. There have been a high number of cases where the assessment was incorrect and Councils have been slow in rectifying the situation.

BLACKMAIL SHAME OF ELDERLY CARE by Liz Phillips

Families are being blackmailed into paying towards the care of their elderly relatives because of the shortfall between what local Authorities will pay and how much the residential care home charge.

According to Age Concern, one local authority is writing to people who are vaguely associated with the person in care- such as neighbour who might once have collected the old person's pension for them, demanding that they pay top-ups. Unless the shortfall is made up, the elderly can be forced to move to cheaper homes, which could be miles away from friends and relatives or into shared rooms.

Elderly people in council homes are protected by human rights legislation, which should prevent them being forced out of their homes. Due to a loophole in the law, those in private homes are not protected. Money mail has heard several horror stories of elderly people caught in this trap. An 88 year old, with dementia, who has spent £395,000 of her savings on care fees in the past 14 years. With her savings down to £18,000, the local authority has to pick up the bill but its rate is £120 per week less than she is paying. The family cannot cover the difference, so the home said she will have to leave. An 89 year-old women who sold her home to pay for her care for four years. Once her capital reduces to £21,000, her son was told he needed to top-up her fees by £25 a month. In two years, this has risen to £150 per month. Since he can no longer afford to pay the extra, she is threatened with a move to cheaper accommodation.

The average nursing home bill is nearly £30,000 a year, while a place in a residential home costs typically £21,000. Care home fees have been rising faster than inflation, with increases ranging from 6 pc to more than 9pc a year since March 2002. The rules on paying for nursing and residual care are:-

If you have assets of £21,000 or more including your home and you need residential rather than nursing care, then you must pay the bill only when your hard-earned savings fall below £21,000 will your local authority step in to pay.

If you are chronically sick and need 24 hour nursing care, the NHS should pick up the tab regardless of your assets- this must not be means-tested. Age Concern states that only 25,008 people in England and Wales have all their nursing fees paid in full. It estimates the number should be closer to 100,000. Even when the local authority pays for residential care, it will set a limit and if the home charges more, the elderly person or the relatives must pay the shortfall. Often, families do not realise they have the right to refuse demands for top ups.

Owain Wright, care fund adviser at Saga says" They are under obligation to pay the extra amount, but it is risky because the care home can ask the resident to leave. "It's emotional blackmail". Many care homes have two levels of fees because councils peg the amount they are prepared to contribute below the charges made by the home.

In Scotland, councils pay for personal care in homes as well as nursing cover, though some are now running out of money.

NHS PREVENTIVE DRUG TREATMENT by Les Coben. Harlow P A

Women at risk of osteoporosis will have to wait until they break a bone or reach 75 to get preventive drug treatment on the Health Service.

The guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been criticised by campaigners who claim thousands of women will suffer broken bones unnecessarily because they will be denied scans and drugs to stop the crippling condition. A spokesman for NICE said the guidelines were in draft form and out for (so called) consultation until 20th October. NICE expects to issue final guidance in March 2007.

A drug that could help people going blind in later life, called Lucentis has been discovered in America, though it is expensive, the drug is due to be licensed in Europe by the end of the year, yet hear in England the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will consider whether the health service should fund the drug and a similar therapy called Macugen next August.

This is not the first time that this government quango, a supposedly independent body has lagged behind in allowing drugs to be prescribed by the NHS. The Alzheimer's drugs are a shining example, even after countrywide uproar, they relented but only allowed those that would be to late to help to have them. The government hides behind the story that it is an independent body, yet their remit proves that the final decision is the Secretary of State for Health.

The charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer is calling for a review of breast screening for women over 70 who do not get an automatic invitation to be breast screened.

In an editorial in the British Medical Journal, Professor John Young, of the Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation at St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, says decades of Health service under funding have provided "an environment in which ageism has flourished It is endemic". He added: "whenever a clinical stone is turned over, ageism is revealed. For example: in cancer services, coronary care units, prevention of vascular disease, and in mental health services. "To this list we must now add the management of transient ischaemic attacks - warning signs of strokes - and minor strokes".

Age Concern's Director General Gordon Lishman said: "It is disgraceful that in today's society Older people are being denied the treatment and care they need just because of their age"

Why is this Government so anti-elderly when it comes to health matters?

The treatment of the elderly in hospitals, and care homes is becoming a major concern for the elderly, yet this government continues to put its head in the sand, and hope they will go away or die. It is not just health matters that the government is anti elderly, by not renewing the contract with the Post Office for card accounts for pensions, thousands of sub- post offices across the country will be forced to close, and the elderly forced to travel to nearby towns to collect their pension from a bank that is if there is a bus service for them to use.

Gas prices in the home are soaring, yet the wholesale price of gas has plummeted. Ofgem has "threatened" to investigate any firm which fails to pass on future falls in wholesale prices, if this wasn't so serious it would be funny, a television programme showing the gas company's installing new pipes, claimed that was the reason for the increases, the customer had to pay the costs of improvements, the company's didn't want their shareholders to lose out, and up pops a guy from Ofgem saying that is not right, the shareholders were paying 40% towards the cost of installations.

What is the government doing about this blatant robbery of the customer, we pensioners? cannot afford anymore increases, the government must make these firms pay a windfall tax of 40% and pay it out to the poor to pay the bills