Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care            .

This report outlines the commissioning proposals and 2024/25 fee setting for the most significant areas of externally commissioned service provision for adults with care needs: Care Homes in Stockport; Home Support to enable people to live in their homes for longer; Day Care Services and Learning Disability Services.

The Cabinet is recommended to give approval to the fee setting approach, including fee uplifts, as detailed in the report.

Officer contact: Jon Wilkie on 07970 318461 or email: Jon.Wilkie@stockport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the commissioning proposals and 2024/25 fee setting for the most significant areas of externally commissioned service provision for adults with care needs.

RESOLVED - That approval be given to the fee setting approach, including fee uplifts, as detailed in the report.

To consider a report of the Director of Adult Services.

The report outlines the 2024/25 fee setting recommendations for the most significant areas of externally commissioned services within Adult Social Care and represents the continuation of a strategic approach by the Council to invest in the wider Social Care Market.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to note, comment and endorse the approach set out in this paper; prior to consideration Cabinet on 12 March 2024.

Officer contact: Jon Wilkie on 07970 318461 or email: jon.Wilkie@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Adult Services submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the 2024/25 fee setting recommendations for the most significant areas of externally commissioned services within Adult Social Care and representing the continuation of a strategic approach by the Council to invest in the wider Social Care Market.

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was commented that a fair wage was both the right approach as an employer and economically sensible where there were recruitment and retention issues.

·         Given the significant budget implications associated with the fee setting, it was queried why Members had not had the opportunity to consider the report prior to the budget setting full Council meeting.

·         In response, it was commented that there were issues in relation to the timescale for preparing the report, particularly with regard to the volatility around inflation rates and completing the cost of care exercise, however this would be a consideration when preparing the fee setting report for 2025/26.

·         It was noted 59% of care homes were rated as good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission and queried what work was being undertaken to improve the figure.

·         In response, it was stated that the 59% related to the nursing care provision which reflected the changes in the Care Quality Commission inspection regime and pressures in the acuity of individuals. It was noted that this was a priority to address, and work was ongoing with health colleagues and the Care Quality Commission to provide support, advice and intervention and there was also investment in a system of self-assessment to monitor providers more effectively.

·         It was queried what mechanisms were in place to provide assurance that providers were paying all their staff at the Real Living Wage rate.

·         In response, it was commented that there were spot-checks within quality assurance and there was the ability for individuals to report pay related issues directly to the service for investigation. It was also noted that if providers were not paying a competitive wage, there would be issues with recruitment so there was an element of self-regulation in the market. 

·         It was queried how assurances could be provided that employees were not paying for travel related costs as required within their role.

·         In response, it was stated that there was a contractual requirement particularly around home care to ensure that providers were paying fair mileage which would be challenged if a provider was found to be in breach of their contract.

·         It was commented that a challenge in recruitment and retention was opportunities for career progression and therefore adequate career progression plans would likely save money in the long term.

·         In response, it was commented that the service recognised the challenge in relation to recruitment and retention of social care staff and the Council continued to support the sector with the recruitment challenge by continuing to work collaboratively with health colleagues on jobs fayre events and strengthening the training offer including the developing specific social care leadership courses in collaboration with Stockport College to show that there were opportunities for career progression.

·         In relation to the cost pressures, it was queried whether the service was confident that the percentage increase was sufficient.

·         In response, it was stated that percentage increase was slightly lower than in previous years due to the fair cost of exercise that the council undertook last year which was a national requirement that saw a significant uplift averaging around 10.3%. It was stated that the service was confident that the fee uplift was fair and had taken into account a variety of factors including the existing fees and rising costs of energy and food.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.