Compass CHC has secured c£100,000 in continuing healthcare funding for a Bath patient who was incorrectly denied money by BaNES Clinical Commissioning Group.
The patient was diagnosed with Parkinson’s and dementia and had several severe health issues associated with these conditions, and required constant supervision and 24-hour care.
Compass CHC – a private company who specialise in securing NHS continuing healthcare funding for clients who have severe, complex and unpredictable primary health needs – was approached by the family of the patient after they were turned down for funding by BaNES Clinical Commissioning Group despite having severe health issues.
Tim Davies of Compass CHC represented the family’s interests on two occasions when appealing to NHS England regarding BaNES Clinical Commissioning Group’s decision to refuse the patient’s NHS continuing healthcare.
The NHS England appeal panel agreed with Compass CHC’s case and continuing healthcare funding was awarded and backdated to the date of the original Decision Support Tool assessment almost two years previously.
In total Compass CHC managed to secure an entitlement to reimbursement of care costs paid in the region of c£100,000 for the patient.
This one case demonstrates the growing number of cases Compass CHC is involved with because CCGs are ignoring the guidelines set out in the National Framework and incorrect decisions are being made at every stage of the continuing healthcare funding process. However, it also illustrates that even when the initial appeal process has been exhausted there is justification to pursue matters further to ensure that an individual receives the funding they should be entitled to.
As a company Compass CHC has a high success rate of assisting individuals in securing continuing healthcare funding, both on a retrospective basis (securing refunds of fees that should not have been paid), and also securing funding on an on-going basis from day one.
The Compass CHC team of continuing healthcare experts, comprising lawyers (non-practising) and clinicians (including nurses, tissue viability specialists and pharmacists), review and consider the evidence from a clinical perspective before drafting reasoned arguments which identify an individual’s entitlement to the funding by cross referring the medical evidence to the National Framework for continuing healthcare criteria. Further, the advocates are all (non-practising) lawyers specialising exclusively in continuing healthcare funding matters.