Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: From Zero: The Meth Episode, in reply to SHG,
used it, enjoyed it, didn’t get addicted
-
Excuse me, anyone out there using Funded Family Care..
I see from their 2014-2015 Annual Report that Inidividualised Funding Host Manawanui in Charge Ltd. has the Funding Advisory and Support Services Ltd. as a wholly owned subsidiary
(FASS Ltd. was set up to implement the Funded Family Care (FFC) Policy from the Ministry of Health.)
Now, all those contracting for the Mystery of Health operate under a Service Specification, and in the absence of a specific specification for the Funding Advisory and Support Service would it be reasonable to presume that their Service Specification is the same as their parent company's?
Manawanui in Charge Ltd, as a contracted IF Host, is required to facilitate the...
e) Establishment of networks for People accessing Individualised Funding to enable support, sharing of resources (such as staff, training, bureau, advice).
q) Develop networks to ensure Individualised Funding consumers are connected to other People using it and able to share supports, or provide mutually beneficial advice and support where appropriate;(Emphasis most definitely mine.)
Surely there is an obvious need for the recipients of Funded Family Care to have access to such a networking facility?
Shouldn't the Funding Advisory and Support Service Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Manawanui in Charge be facilitating these?
Would it be worthwhile contacting Manawanui in Charge Ltd. and it's wholly owned subsidiary Funding Advisory and Support Services Ltd. to see if this could be arranged?
Because sure as hell the recipients of Funded Family Care need to organise. -
For a bit of historical context....this is a speech by Ruth Dyson from 2001.
I particularly liked the description in the conference programme of the NASC workshop – “unlocking the mysteries of the Needs Assessment”. Perhaps when you’ve done that, you could give me the key as well!
I must say that a review of NASC is my top priority. I’m getting very inconsistent messages about NASC around the country, including the message that for many, NASC is the main obstacle to people receiving good services rather than the entry point.
The original concept of NASC was good – putting the person with the disability at the centre of the equation, assessing their needs (as defined by themselves and their family) on an individual basis, and actively securing the best possible package of services to meet those needs.
In practice, however, the concept is becoming increasingly unworkable. The process is inconsisent, and is being used as a budget manager. As NASC provider Lorna Sullivan described it recently, it has become "a gateway to limited resources", where needs "are defined from within a very limited range of possibilities identified on a standardised assessment tool".
Every time I read this...I just want to sit and weep at how far we have come....
The Misery of Health seems determined to lock disabled New Zealanders in sort of a time loop....SSDD.
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to Sacha,
Tony Ryall tells family carers where to go....pdf
I’d forgotten how obnoxious Tony Ryall was
-
I'm really keen to get others' interpretation of these two passages....(I am incapable of seeing them other than through the lens of suspicion.)
Service coordinations need to be based on ESSENTIAL NEEDS only.
• MOH does not fund lifestyle choice (ie where natural support would otherwise fill the need) - for example when the family refuse other government funded supports (ie
rehab/respite or MSD funded day services).NASC must use the ICARe process to determine the need for direct physical support (hands on support needs) at all times ensuring that natural supports (not considering lifestyle choices such as full time work) are included in the support plan. Funding will be based on assessed support hours and will be based on core staff costs.
-
Access: Help needed! Deciphering the…, in reply to Angela Hart,
If there was a respectful, honest and sincere effort on the part of the Ministry to cater for people with disabilities,
If the Ministry of Health’s priority was health rather than cost and it engaged sensibly...
See...right there...!
I don't know whether it is malice, or they simply have shit for brains.
-
Tony Ryall tells family carers where to go....pdf
Excellent piece of work ...
http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/are-family-carers-getting-a-fair-deal-2016112611
Oh! The pain at seeing Uncle Tony Ryall telling porkies....and telling us where to go...
-
Funded Family Care is hitting MSM this weekend with not one, but two programs discussing the issue.
TV3...The Nation on Saturday and TV 1's Sunday program.
I have no idea as to why now....but Andrew Geddis has a post up on Pundit giving folks the heads up.
In AG's latest post on this issue....A little something for the weekend ... he makes an interesting observation...
When this first was enacted, I wrote about it in a post titled "I think National just broke our constitution". That still remains, I think, the most read thing I've ever written in any format. What the government did - explicitly prevent the judiciary from ensuring that government policy is consistent with the laws of the land - was pretty jaw-droppingly outrageous.
Bold mine.
Who would have thought it???
-
Judge (and defence counsel) criticise the Three Strikes legislation as he sentences offender to seven years' jail for indecently assaulting prison officer.
I have no option but to sentence you to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence - seven years' imprisonment. I agree that is very harsh given that what you did was not the most serious assault of its type, but Parliament has determined that your history of violent offending requires a very stern response to protect the public from you and to act as a deterrent to you and others.
"It may seem very surprising that this consequence could be required by law for an offence of this kind, but that is the law and I have no option but to enforce it.
"Were it not for the requirement to sentence you to the maximum term of seven years, the need to denounce your conduct, hold you accountable and deter others and you from such offending, it would likely have resulted in a period of no more than 12 months' imprisonment."
Toogood sentenced Campbell to seven years in prison, but Campbell is still able to apply for parole once a third of that term has passed.
Speaking after sentencing, defence counsel Sutcliffe indicated the law is an ass.
"It's an illustration as to why this is bad legislation. It's ill-considered and it needs revision.
-
Oh dear! Big Daddy knows better than the locals.....