And questions have been asked about the efficiency of the scheme as some individuals have waited two years to be assessed.
Les Amis, Jersey Cheshire Homes and Autism Jersey have raised concerns about the scheme to the Health and Social Security Scrutiny panel.
The organisations say the scheme is ‘one size fits all’ and does not suit those with more complex needs.
The scheme was introduced in 2014 to provide financial support to individuals who are likely to need care for the reminder of their life.
The care can be provided in their own home or in a residential home.
Islanders are able to claim the LTC benefit once their assessed care costs have reached a cap of £54,480 for a single person.
Les Amis managing director Shaun Findlay said he was worried some individuals were entitled to a better care package but due to a backlog of assessments the individuals would not know until that had been done. Currently 70 per cent of their residents are waiting to be assessed.
Residents receive funding for their care from the LTC scheme based on assessments provided to social workers by staff at Les Amis in 2015.
Mr Findlay said this has raised concerns about the level of funding some people are receiving because their needs could have changed.
He said there had been cases when some residents had been reassessed three times before their extra needs were met.
David Lord, manager of Jersey Cheshire Homes, said he has doubts about how assessments on severely disabled people were being carried out.
He said: ‘Social workers are coming in and speaking to the residents but they don’t talk to the staff who are providing them with the care – that makes me slightly nervous.
‘A lot of residents will say they don’t need care although they will need a level of care which won’t be able to be provided if they lived within the community.’
Meanwhile, Paul Sullivan, chief operations officer for Autism Jersey, said that the LTC fund, despite being well-intentioned, was a ‘square peg in a round hole’ and needs to be revamped.
He said that since the fund was introduced, they were losing out financially and there was less flexibility in how money provided to the organisation could be spent.
