-3x Short China Discussion Threads

[selkirk69] 12/5/2011 16:59

Bit of a late RNS there, have they showed their hand??

[mavverick] 11/5/2011 11:31

selkirk

should be an interesting month for SC...would love to be a fly on the wall in the LL negotiations.

Its difficult for Jamie as he is still getting up to speed as does not come from a care background...so he will sometimes make a couple of steps forward and one step back. The general point i am making is not to overrely on staff with a nursing/clinical background particularly when they have a fairly traditional nhs career background. Care homes are not something that the nhs has much experience of operating so needs a different philosophy.

[selkirk69] 11/5/2011 10:49

Mav
I can't disagree with you but at least we can both agree it's a step in the right direction.

[mavverick] 11/5/2011 10:32

Hi Selkirk

It is good they are wanting to make progress and having a forward strategy is positive. Jamie knows what's needed to run a business. It will get overall a good press.

However, THE key issue for council buyers/commissioners is the Personalisation and Choice agenda. Not to reflect this is a key omission that suggests SC are not onside with THE main agenda for all social care services.

There are some good bits in this document but it could be so much better. Still talks about staff empowerment but the real agenda is resident empowerment. And needs more emphasis on independence and reenablement.

On balance it is a step forward but still think it's an opportunity missed to demonstrate real modernisation

[mavverick] 11/5/2011 09:36

For me this is not on the money. As in post 7797 above I was concerned about the over reliance on a medical clinical model and clinical expertise. I was absolutely looking for SC to have a modernising social care philosophy...and this even has a Florence Nightingale quote! Looks tired and dated. It is Councils who buy these services and they are NOT looking for a model of care that highlights falls and infection, important as these aspects are. Opportunity missed.

[lej2] 09/5/2011 16:47

My real concern here, as a shareholder, is that if I was engaged as a restructuring expert I would like to start by chopping the 150 homes that are the poorest in terms of EBIT. The only way that this can be done in the curent climate, without a huge cost to the company, is by some form of administration in which the shareholders are hung out to dry (along with the landlords of the 150 chopped homes). A Newco (or more than one Newco) would buy the pick of the homes at Valuation - which given the onerous leases would be relatively small - leaving SC with some cash and some huge lease liabilities.

This assumes that the leases are individual by home and not grouped and that the leases are assignable. The structure of the company (with several different trading companies) may suggest that the leases are grouped in some way.

[lej2] 09/5/2011 16:29

The occupancy figures will be down, possibly much more than anticipated, as the press speculation about receivership (not discouraged by the BoD who may have been focusing on the rent negotiations, where the speculation may have helped) would almost certainly have led to some Social Services Care Managers embargoing some SC homes. (Unfairly and probably illegally, but unofficially).

Dementia care is regarded as the most secure for LA funding as the severe sufferers are not easily cared for at home. There have been huge improvements in the care for dementia patients in recent years and SC need to be recognised as a leader in this field, so the recent appointment is welcome.

[mavverick] 08/5/2011 23:09

LEJ2 it will be interesting to see if the general direction of the plan is given a bit more meat. with regard to the numbers the question is how bad( i think the smokescreens of the seasonal variations is long buried)...the numbers will help with trend info as they should give an as at 30/4 figure too for occupancy. I fear the worst here. However, the recent appointment of the nurse manager lead on dementia is a positive, as suggests there are realistic strategies to keep this show on the road.

[lej2] 06/5/2011 16:09

mavverick,

we know that the numbers will be poor as you have mentioned on past posts. This is all about the board presenting a realistic, but profitable, plan for the future. Rent cuts will not save SC, although will assist in the short term.

The retsructuring experts recently appointed will hopefully cover their cost (which will not be peanuts) many times over in the long term. You are right in that their must be a major effort to enhance the SC reputation.

[mavverick] 06/5/2011 15:06

19/5 then for some numbers

[mavverick] 06/5/2011 14:45

clock ticking 3 weeks or so to the end of may...sure they will get a good deal but it needs to be able to underpin the delivery of a medium/long term recovery plan...not just a few bob off the rent

tk has appointed recently 2 x nhs nursing staff to senior management care posts...appointing a modernising social care expert to a senior post would be a better move as would help to market the SC reputation to councils/commissioners and aid transforming the care philosophy/practice

[lej2] 06/5/2011 11:19

IMHO the cracks in the 'Care in the Home' policy is that it is a flawed method of dealing with the needs of the elderly. Many Social Service Care Managers believe that it is flawed and dangerous to those in need of care.

There is also much dispute over the true financial cost of 'Care in the Home'. The headline savings to the LA are more than offset by the hidden NHS costs (GP costs, ambulance services, short term hospital stays etc) and the additional personal costs involved in keeping, say, 50 residents in their own home rather than in a care home (energy costs, maintenance costs, public service costs etc).

The average age of the 'children' of the residents in our homes is probably over 60 now as the residents are usually well into their 80's, so I am not sure how relevant the repossessions/first time buyers argument is.

However, in the wider scheme of things, the previous government targetted the need for huge numbers of new homes to be built to cater for the growing population and currently there are less than 20% of the required numbers being built. (I don't recall the exact numbers or the target date). The blocking of older homes coming on the market will not be helping solve the 'housing crisis' that would presumably happen if the government forecasts on housing needs is correct.

[b1llyboy] 06/5/2011 00:00

LEJ2............

What in your opinion would be the fundamental stand alone reason for these cracks.

Household financial weakness?

Higher degree of repossessions amongst first time buyers,forcing them back into the family home......................No room at the inn, so to speak.

I would bet there is a geographical inverse correlation, between first time buyer repossessions and care in the home failures.

[lej2] 05/5/2011 16:33

I am not sure how relevant it will be to SC, but there are signs that the policy of LA's sending people in need of care to their own home rather than a care home is beginning to fail. Some of the Welsh councils started doing this last year (against social services recommendation) and the cracks in the 'care in the home' solution are now causing problems and a rethink of policy.

[mavverick] 04/5/2011 23:22

likely go to the wire...with the occupancy falling they need out of lots, soon

[stevespi] 04/5/2011 12:50

we must be due some news from SCHE soon on a LL update.

[mavverick] 03/5/2011 12:30

eerie silence here?

[mavverick] 27/4/2011 07:41

LA's typically set a ceiling on the fees that they will pay. Care homes that charge more than this, LA's will simply not fund but families can top up from their own resources.

[pakomacha] 26/4/2011 15:04

LAs have historically 'sold' care at a loss. i.e. Where individuals don't qualify for LA funding (assets above £23K) they were onyl being charged a subsidised rate. Many LAs have now cottoned on to the idea that buying in services at a higher price than is being recovered by those who are supposed to be paying for their care is not a very sensible idea.

The private market operates on a more open basis reflecting more closely (not always) the true costs for a service.

[mavverick] 26/4/2011 08:19

probably relates to self funders...SC can and have been raising these fees...its very unfair as self funders, in many but not all cases, are effectively subsidising others whose fees are paid for by the LA for the same/very similar service

[stevespi] 26/4/2011 08:17

I see this as good news... This is a long term investment though. But would be nice to gradually build upto 12p until news from the rent reductions.

[warwick69] 26/4/2011 08:13

well article in papers say Local Authorities are to raise the cost of residential care for thousands 9 out of ten LOA researched were going to raise fees for people in their care homes. Is this good news for SCHE as surely they can just raise their fees asm well and reduce shortfall against rents. As well as reducing rents with LL agreement. ?

[schlemiel] 24/4/2011 09:50

SCHE seen as a 'long term play' in Sat's Times but paywall so no idea about contents of it..do they know something the market doesn't?

[mavverick] 22/4/2011 19:57

i think the Birmingham one is about care at home and the wales one about care in a care home. In broad terms i think the wales one means you cant just freeze a fee level without having applied some science as to how the figure was arrived at and as pakomacha says a lot of councils can just retrace their steps and apply a logic, but some of the lower paying councils may find this more difficult. In wales the council also failed to follow in part its own contract! (not clever)

The bits i picked up about Birmingham was that they were trying to reduce care packages to people in their own homes based on eligibility criteria and putting still more onto family carers to do instead! (as if they were not already saving the state a fortune!)