I rise to speak to amendment 73, which would introduce safeguards around the discharge-to-assess process.
The discharge-to-assess process may have been a necessary element of the NHS’s pandemic response, but it contains gaps in safeguarding that leave unpaid carers vulnerable to financial impact and risks to their health. Many unpaid carers have to begin caring overnight, when their relative or friend, who may be quite unwell, is discharged from hospital without a plan for their care at home. Without a carer’s assessment to check whether a person has the capability or capacity to take on such a commitment, weeks can pass before any plan is made, leaving carers and the people they care for struggling in a desperate situation.
The Government’s own impact assessment on discharge to assess states baldly:
“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this could require a reduction in workhours and associated financial costs.”
Organisations that support unpaid carers are outraged by that statement. The Government’s expectation that carers can just drop everything to take on a new caring burden is insulting, particularly given the extra caring burden that 3 million people have already taken on during the pandemic.
I recently queried that point with the Secretary of State at the Health and Social Care Committee. In response, the he wrote to the Committee to say that the Government do
“not expect unpaid carers to need to give up work or reduce their working hours to look after friends or family while their long-term health and care needs assessments are completed”.
When the impact assessment says one thing and the Secretary of State, after being questioned about it, says another, I have to question the understanding in the Department and among Ministers of the discharge-to-assess policy and its impact on the 13 million carers in the country.