Social climbing 'aids blood pressure'

12 July 2011 Last updated at 03:48 GMT Occupation of both generations were recorded Social climbing could be good for your blood pressure, a study has suggested.

Swedish researchers, writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, looked at the blood pressure of 12,000 same sex twins and the social status of them and their parents.

Those born with lower socioeconomic status who then moved upwards had lower incidence of high blood pressure than those who remained in a poorer class.

British experts said action was needed to narrow the class gap on health.

High blood pressure (hypertension) is a known risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

But the effect of moving into a higher socioeconomic group was unknown.

One theory says moving into a different social bracket than that of your family and the people you grow up with causes added stress, while another argues that "social climbing" will in itself improve health chances.

In this study, researchers from the Karolinska Institute used data from the Swedish Twin Registry to track adult and parental socioeconomic status among 12,000 same sex twins born between 1926 and 1958.

A postal survey on health and lifestyle was carried out in 1973, and a phone interviews were conducted between 1998 and 2002 as part of the Screening Across the Lifespan Study (SALT).

Questions included any treatment for high blood pressure. Parental occupations were obtained from birth records, which routinely contain this type of information in Sweden.

Environment

Compared with those who stayed on the lower rungs of the social ladder, those who rose up were less likely to have high blood pressure - 12.5% of those who moved up compared to 15.4 who did not.

Continue reading the main story

Action is needed at a national and local level to close the heart health gap between affluent and deprived groups, and to make sure people aren't left behind”

End Quote Cathy Ross British Heart Foundation Overall, people with a low socioeconomic status were more likely to have high blood pressure (17.1%) than those of a high status (12.9%).

Writing in the journal, the team led by Dr Lovisa Hogberg, said: "These findings suggest that the risk of hypertension associated with low parental social status could be modified by social status later in life.

"This could possibly be targeted by early introduced public health or political interventions."

Cathy Ross, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "This study adds further evidence that socioeconomic differences influence our health.

"Low socioeconomic status can increase the risk of poor health and in particular risk factors associated with heart disease such as high blood pressure.

"Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that improving people's socioeconomic status can help improve their health awareness and reduce the health risks associated with their environment."

"Action is needed at a national and local level to close the heart health gap between affluent and deprived groups, and to make sure people aren't left behind."

View the original article here

Elderly 'facing social care cuts'

27 June 2011 Last updated at 00:21 GMT By Nick Triggle Health correspondent, BBC News Ministers are looking to revamp the social care system in England Social care budgets for the elderly in England will be cut this year - despite promises to invest more cash, according to an analysis of spending plans.

The Age UK research, based on freedom of information data, suggested spending on the over-65s would drop by over 8%.

The charity predicted the impact of such a cut could be "devastating" as the system was already at crisis point.

Care services minister Paul Burstow questioned the figures, suggesting the situation was not as bad as claimed.

He acknowledged budgets were "under pressure" but said that did not always lead to a deterioration in care.

"While some councils may simply be cutting care, others are working hard to get more for less with innovative ways of delivering better care, including using more telecare and cutting needless admissions to hospital and residential care," said Mr Burstow.

The findings come after extra money was promised in the 2010 spending review.

Ministers said ?2bn more would be invested in social care by 2015, with the first tranche coming this financial year.

This was earmarked for both elderly care and younger adults with disabilities.

Rationing

The promise came after the government had announced a review of the system amid evidence councils were having to ration care because of the increased demands being placed on services by an ageing population.

That review is due to publish its recommendations next Monday and pave the way for an overhaul of the means-tested system.

Social care has been struggling for funding in recent years with the overall budget only rising slightly above inflation.

Continue reading the main story

Funding for social care is already inadequate. The consequences of cutting expenditure further could be devastating”

End Quote Michelle Mitchell Age UK In recognition of the problems, the government said last year it would set aside some extra funds to help the system until any new arrangements were introduced.

But the Age UK research suggested that the money was not yet getting through to the frontline of elderly care.

It asked all 152 councils with responsibility for social care for data on their spending plans and service provision for the elderly for this financial year.

The charity received information on spending from 110 councils, which suggested the budget would be cut by 8.4% - equivalent to ?610m.

It also received evidence councils were coping by taking measures such as reducing the number of care home places and hours of home help.

Michelle Mitchell, from Age UK, said: "Funding for social care is already inadequate. The consequences of cutting expenditure further could be devastating.

"We are fearful that even more vulnerable older people will be left to struggle alone and in some cases will be put at risk."

Councillor David Rogers, of the Local Government Association (LGA), pointed out while extra money had been promised by ministers for social care, it was being cancelled out by the wider cuts to local government - its budget from central government is being reduced by a quarter over the next four years.

"As the LGA warned last year, and this report backs up, government funding cuts have left councils with huge gaps in their adult social care budgets. Savings have to be found and tough decisions will have to be made in some areas."

View the original article here

Social care cuts plan is unlawful

19 May 2011 Last updated at 16:27 GMT Karen Ashton of Public Law Solicitors: "Disabled people have a voice"

Birmingham City Council acted unlawfully over a decision to reduce its provision of care for disabled people, High Court judges have said.

The judgement has implications for local authorities in England and Wales.

Thursday's ruling said local councils must abide by existing disability laws to eliminate discrimination.

It said councils must take account of people's disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others.

'Climate of cuts'

Across the UK there are 122 councils, as well as Birmingham, that currently only provide care to people with either substantial or critical care needs.

The judges said all public bodies had a duty to follow the disability discrimination law, while acknowledging that placed "significant and onerous" obligations on local authorities.

Continue reading the main story Nick Triggle Health correspondent, BBC News

The social care system is creaking at the seams. A combination of the ageing population and squeeze on spending means Birmingham is not alone in needing to make cuts.

One of the easiest ways for councils to do this is to raise the eligibility threshold at which people are entitled to help. There are four levels of need - low, moderate, substantial and critical.

Most councils are already at substantial - 116 out of 150 to be precise - leaving them with only one option - restricting support to only those with the severest need.

This, of course, excludes many people who have for years been relying on social services and raises the question whether their rights have been infringed.

Many believe this judgement tips the balance back towards the individual by suggesting that councils can no longer take it for granted that they can keep on cutting back on social care - a statutory service after all - just because money is tight.

The families of four severely disabled people fought Birmingham council's spending cuts decision and took legal action against the authority.

Solicitor Karen Ashton represented the families and welcomed the High Court ruling in London saying it gave disabled people a voice in law.

'No new money'

She said the council's proposed policy would have had "devastating" results.

"With consequences of this kind, then councils must look if savings can be made elsewhere," she added.

Birmingham City Council said it welcomed the greater clarity of its duties with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

Peter Hay, the council's strategic director of adults and communities, said: "The original dilemma between reducing services in different areas remains.

"There is no new money as a result of the judgement and hard choices about meeting growing needs with fewer resources will have to be made by local authorities."

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat run authority had proposed the cuts as part of a plan to save ?212m.

In April a court sitting in Birmingham made an interim judgement that the council had acted unlawfully and this latest ruling is the full finding.

'Strong message'

In a statement Unison said: "The council should rightly be condemned for defending the indefensible. Thousands of vulnerable people in the city would have been put at risk if it were not for the intervention of the courts."

Deafblind charity Sense said the ruling should be a warning to all authorities.

Conservative leader Mike Whitby said the ruling should not affect Birmingham City Council's budget

Its head of legal services Kari Gerstheimer said other councils in England and Wales may be considering making similar cuts to social care.

"We hope that this judgement sends a very strong message to those councils, that we are in a climate of cuts.

"But even in a climate of cuts there are choices to be made and a civilised society does not choose to cut services to people with the greatest need - that's disabled people."

Previously the council said it had identified ?118m worth of cuts by 2014-15 from its adult and communities directorate and needed to save ?308m in total in the next four years due to the central government cuts outlined in the Spending Review.

It said only people whose needs were judged to be "critical" would qualify for council-funded care. Following the Adult social care judicial review on Thursday, the council said it would revise its plans and re-run the public consultation.

A council spokesman added: "It is important to point out that Mr Justice Walker has said that we were considerate and thoughtful of disabled people, in making our new offer, that our consultation was extensive but that it needed to be fully informed by impact assessment."

View the original article here