Cutting care bill costs
- Thread starter DaveSmith
- Start date
- Status
Hi i have never been under the assumption that its just dementia pts who should get free care..i think as this site is for dem/ az..thats what most people are talking about as that is whats effecting them..it is a disgrace that any person should pay for there care if they have medical needs...we were very lucky ( if thats the right word)..we got a phone call randomly from sw..as they hadnt seen mum or reviewed her in 3 years..so they came to care home to review..as soon as they seen her they asked me if i have apply for chc funding i said no as i was under the impression dementia pts werent eligible for it..sw said as mum is classed as end off life she was..to say i was shocked was an understatement..the sw contacted the dr and done everything and it was put in place within 10 days..family still pay 3rd party top up.x
Great news Baby Bunty.
CHC is out there and available but you have to fight for it, it’s not often just offered.
And yes exactly this site is for Alzheimer’s / Dementia support so therefore that’s why it’s this disease that’s talked about here lol.
I am surprised at the mindset of a few posters tbh.
It’s clear more should read the CHC framework and mayb they would understand more, but it’s the complexity and totally of needs that we’re talking about for funded care for any illness not just Alzheimer’s.
CHC is out there and available but you have to fight for it, it’s not often just offered.
And yes exactly this site is for Alzheimer’s / Dementia support so therefore that’s why it’s this disease that’s talked about here lol.
I am surprised at the mindset of a few posters tbh.
It’s clear more should read the CHC framework and mayb they would understand more, but it’s the complexity and totally of needs that we’re talking about for funded care for any illness not just Alzheimer’s.
I am very surprised that anyone would want to run down their PWD's assets in a race towards LA funded care. I am preserving my mother's funds simply because I want her to continue to receive good care in the care home of my choosing (not a fancy swish care home, just somewhere which gives genuinely excellent care). Once her funds run out, there is no guarantee she will be able to stay there as the care home no longer routinely accepts LA residents because the LA pays such a pittance. In that case she would be sent to wherever the LA chooses and it may not be very nice.
And in terms of taking money for myself, I am wondering whether I should gift myself £20 from her this Christmas. She would not have spent much more than that on me so it's the most I can justify, but I may not even do that. It isn't my money, it's hers and she always said she wanted to use it for her care.
And in terms of taking money for myself, I am wondering whether I should gift myself £20 from her this Christmas. She would not have spent much more than that on me so it's the most I can justify, but I may not even do that. It isn't my money, it's hers and she always said she wanted to use it for her care.
Hi Sirena
Although you’ve made some good points here, isent it only fair that anybody who has paid their taxes and NI is entitled to genuinely excellent care regardless if they have money or not?
Sometimes we get so bogged down we lose sight of the fairness we’re trying to get here.
More Elderly are living longer, better medicines are prolonging life, what happens on the bigger picture when all those self funding run out of their money?
The government are already fighting loads of different subjects where the horse has already bolted, CHC being one of them. Self funding or no this has to be sorted for the future generations .
And remember anyone who do want to pay can always just write the cheque.
Although you’ve made some good points here, isent it only fair that anybody who has paid their taxes and NI is entitled to genuinely excellent care regardless if they have money or not?
Sometimes we get so bogged down we lose sight of the fairness we’re trying to get here.
More Elderly are living longer, better medicines are prolonging life, what happens on the bigger picture when all those self funding run out of their money?
The government are already fighting loads of different subjects where the horse has already bolted, CHC being one of them. Self funding or no this has to be sorted for the future generations .
And remember anyone who do want to pay can always just write the cheque.
@Theresalwaystomorrow I was replying to the original post which was about deliberately removing assets to avoid paying for care - I don't understand why, current circumstances prevailing, anyone would do that.
In reply to your question, the best option would be that social care, like the NHS, would be free to all. But realistically that is not going to happen in my lifetime, the NHS itself is struggling so the money just isn't there for social care. And while the current system may seem inequitable, there is also an argument which goes "Why should Boris Johnson get free social care when he's got two million quid in the bank but wants to leave it all to his kids". I suppose you could look at it in a positive way - people who are able to pay subsidise those who aren't. Some care homes take private and LA clients and ramp up the private fees to compensate, although I think it's becoming less common now. My mother's CH's biggest client used to be the LA, but they no longer take LA funded because the fees are so low.
In reply to your question, the best option would be that social care, like the NHS, would be free to all. But realistically that is not going to happen in my lifetime, the NHS itself is struggling so the money just isn't there for social care. And while the current system may seem inequitable, there is also an argument which goes "Why should Boris Johnson get free social care when he's got two million quid in the bank but wants to leave it all to his kids". I suppose you could look at it in a positive way - people who are able to pay subsidise those who aren't. Some care homes take private and LA clients and ramp up the private fees to compensate, although I think it's becoming less common now. My mother's CH's biggest client used to be the LA, but they no longer take LA funded because the fees are so low.
There's nothing wrong it using money for a car and equipment if it is needed. Likewise, one can purchase a pre paid funeral in advance. Regarding, gifts I suspect they should be in line with previous expenditure. For instance, if it has been £50 for years then it should probably be in the same region.
Personally I believe that those who have should subsidise those who don't. By don't I mean those who genuinely don't, not those who seek to hide and disperse their wealth. Yes it's lovely to be able to pass on your life savings to your children but I honestly don't see why it should be seen that this is a "right", and the state should pick up the bill. The simple truth is that unless we all want to pay more taxes, and I for one wouldn't object to that, then we can't expect never ending services to be provided from public funds.
They bend the rules to suit themselves. Once someone is so poorly they are in bed all day , there is zero risk of falling so they loose points in that category. My dad had a a skin tear wound being packed daily by district nurses for 18 months and he scored very low as "he was responding to treatment". I am guessing that responding to treatment translated as his leg hadn't fallen off yet.
Loss of cognitive function didn't count because dementia had been mentioned in another category . The whole process was a farce in this area.
Just to finish my rant- I agree with poster who stuck their neck out and said that people don't save for paying their care bills. They save for passing it on to their children and would be horrified if they knew how how it was being used.
Loss of cognitive function didn't count because dementia had been mentioned in another category . The whole process was a farce in this area.
Just to finish my rant- I agree with poster who stuck their neck out and said that people don't save for paying their care bills. They save for passing it on to their children and would be horrified if they knew how how it was being used.
Thank you @ Selinacroft
Those that agree to this unfair cost are in the minority, the majority see it as unfair.
I could give a very true example of someone who’s had a life of abroad holidays and cruises and put their property in sons names years ago, now SS funded!
What I do know is that most of my generation will be off loading assets and keeping any saving well below threshold to avoid these payouts.
I will never stop fighting for this, but seriously if it’s not dealt with in a fair way it will only get worse for future generations .
Those that agree to this unfair cost are in the minority, the majority see it as unfair.
I could give a very true example of someone who’s had a life of abroad holidays and cruises and put their property in sons names years ago, now SS funded!
What I do know is that most of my generation will be off loading assets and keeping any saving well below threshold to avoid these payouts.
I will never stop fighting for this, but seriously if it’s not dealt with in a fair way it will only get worse for future generations .
Yes I agree with that @Quizbunny My dad is still living in his own home and is not likely to go into a care home as he has cancer as well as dementia and will probably need a hospice before the need for a care home arises but if he does need to into a care home some time in the future then he will pay and I will consider it money well spent. It is his money after all.
In fact I truly wish he had gone into a care home many months ago and sod the inheritance.
I am not sure about 'fairness' (is what your true example did fair? it's all open for debate I think) I'm just being realistic as I don't see where the money is going to come from for good state funded dementia care in the next (say) 20 years. If you do divest yourself of funds I hope you are happy with the free care you receive (if you ever need it, which hopefully you won't - having seen our relatives go through this, I'm sure we all hope we won't).
Obviously I wouldn't object to inheriting some of my mother's money, but given she needs care I'm glad she has the money to self fund. If she'd relied on the LA she would almost certainly have spent a lot longer at home with inadequate care, unsafe, anxious, at risk of falls, wandering around in the rain and being brought home by the police, because SS choose the least restrictive (i.e. cheapest) option. Which of course is all wrong, but this is how it works even with people being obliged to use a chunk of their assets to self fund - if they didn't, that would put further pressure on LA funded places. Our council is one of those which announced earlier this year it is cutting services to the bone, including those for 'vulnerable adults', to avoid going bankrupt.
Two things:
1) no one in their right mind would CHOOSE to be state funded. State funding means that you lose control over where/how you live and even how many incontinence pads you can have in a day. The local authority will place you in the cheapest care home available and in some areas that even means having to share a room.
2) in most areas if the cost of domiciliary care in the home is more expensive than the cheapest care home then state funded people will be moved to a care home. Whether they want this or not.
These two details are why I am constantly juggling my mother's funds to try and keep her above the levels of needing state funding. It would be really dire to get as far as we have got, with my mother fairly contented in her own home, only to be forced into a care home at the bitter end. When I get more time I will start a new thread about this.
I think however he had phrased it we would all have said - no you cant do that its Deprivation of Assets
I don't think it would have made any difference as to the responses here. The views expressed by the opening poster would still have been interpreted as potentially deprivation of assets
As the original poster, I want to make clear that having Power of Attorney over her finances, I have an obligation to act in my mother's interests. If my mother wants to preserve as much of her assets as possible to pass on to her children, is it not incumbent on me to follow through on these desires? Why be judgemental over what she wants? I am not passing judgement on your own families finances and how you decide to spend your money.
I have another question which is kind of related. Currently, my father's company pension goes into a joint account. From the assessors point of view, is that considered half my mothers or is it considered 100% his? Anyone know?
I have another question which is kind of related. Currently, my father's company pension goes into a joint account. From the assessors point of view, is that considered half my mothers or is it considered 100% his? Anyone know?
- Status
