What should we do with mum's money

[Karjo]

But a computer costs a heck of a lot less.

Look I don't think we're going to agree on this: I think the benefits of having savings when it comes to dementia vastly outweigh the benefits of not and I think it's unreasonable for those that have those savings not to expect to pay out some of them. I know it's not a popular stance, but it is mine.

There is no choice in my area when its comes to nursing homes. My mum's care is paid for but she has one of the nicest rooms. So in the case of nursing homes I really don't know what the benefit of the savings would be, she would not be able to buy better.
In fact I think if parents passed their wealth on to their offspring so that care was paid for , the family could then use that money to provide lots of treats for their parent and would still be quids in. Playing devils advocate here as we are "lucky" in that mums care is currently paid.But its not fair.
Really I do agree with you that some of the savings should be paid out on care. The cost of food, rental of the room, heating etc - these are the costs we all have. having to pay for the profits, nursing equipment, nurses etc - this is where I feel uncomfortable. The person is ill for goodness sake or they would not be there.

 

[Chemmy]

I think it's unreasonable for those that have those savings not to expect to pay out some of them. I know it's not a popular stance, but it is mine.

Mine too.

This is a regular topic on TP and it always goes round in circles.

We are where we are, and to get back to the OP's question - no, attorneys cannot gift themselves their inheritance in advance. The time to discuss your mother making such a gift was when she still had the capacity to make that decision.

 

[tp18]

I held off replying to this because if I am honest, it made me quite cross.

I too agree that it does not seem fair that the government expect folks with dementia to be self funding (if they are able) when those with other illnesses apparently get off "scot free" with regard to later life care.

I also agree that it doe not seem fair when some have wasted their cash and then get free help, whilst others who have been careful with their money have to pay.

What I personally found hard to read what the fact that you expect it to be given to you. Unless I am missing something here, this is your mums/parents money, and not yours.

For the record, I am also in the same position in as much as my mother owns her own house and has savings over the threshold. However, I would not presume her money to be mine. Indeed even though I know the contents of her will (in which I am the main beneficiary), I have to accept that she will end up leaving virtually nothing, since I know she will at some point in the future need full time care. To my mind, what isnt fair about it is the fact that she will have to pay, rather than the fact that I will lose my inheritance.

This is just my opinion, and I am sorry if it is not what you wanted to hear.

 

[jaymor]

TP8

I agree there is a very unfair system in place when it comes to care for dementia sufferers. They should get the same treatment as other illnesses that are terminal. There can be no other illness that causes so much distress to the sufferer and their families..

We worked hard all our life and saved. We saved for our retirement. Our time when the children were adults, out there doing what we had done and saving for their retirement. Never crossed our minds we ought to be saving for care. My husband developed alzheimers at 62 though with hindsight had probably had it for 2 years before diagnosis. So no retirement for us, not one solitary day.

Whether we save or we don't save, care is not free. This is something I really do have a bee in my bonnet about and I am sorry to keep banging on about it. When the LA become involved with paying for care then you loose state pension, private pension if you have one and your attendance allowance. You are left with just over £23 per week. So just covering the essentials, i.e. hairdresser, chiropodist, toiletries and clothes is impossible. This is where, if you are lucky your family put their hand in their pockets and help you.

So given this choice, our retirement fund is now our care fund and not happy, but that's what it is now. At least we have a choice, how lucky are we?

 

[Misprint]

My MIL broke her hip and was never able to go back to her own bungalow to live. Although after several months in hospital she regained her strength and went home for a short period with a care package. She got confused with her tablets, did not really eat properly and was not really her old self. She did not have a 'diagnosis' of dementia although that is really what happened. She was living in a world of when she was a girl. We lived 100 miles away so could not give hands on care. It was decided that she needed to go into a care home (she veered from thinking she was in an hotel to a hospital) and we visited several and eventually picked the most expensive. This was picked for various reasons which in the end did not count. Ie close to where she lived as a girl so walks would be familiar, these walks etc never happened due to her deteriorating health.

Her savings were under the threshold but she did have a small bungalow that we sold to pay for her care. We had her best interests at heart although I must say it was frustrating for us as we had facilitated the purchase of the property when FIL was alive. They had never been wealthy although both working hard all their lives and when the option to buy their council house came up hubby and I took out a bank loan to help them purchase it. This said we were happy that she was comfortable and well looked after.

My question after all this background ramble is, what is the difference between residential and nursing. If a person cannot do anything for themselves is this classed as nursing and if so is part of the cost then met by the LA? If a person is hallucinating, wandering, anxious, needing help to eat etc surely this is more than just social care.

With my MIL sadly she passed away before all her funds were gone, we did have a small inheritance and for that we were grateful. We were worried what would have happened when the money ran out as the home was considerable more expensive than the council was willing to fund. In my opinion more is not necessarily worth it. MIL spent most of her days sat alone in her room (her choice). Her view from her window was a a small parking area so no stimulation there. Frankly she could have been anywhere. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Thanks for reading

 

[Lulabelle]

The point is that paying for care goes against the principles of the National Health Service - the government promised to care for us from the cradle to the grave regardless of wealth or social status. There was no mention of 'unless you get dementia then you're on your own'.

Now I realise that the argument is that the government can't afford to pay for all those dementia sufferers who need full-time care but surely it is every bit as expensive to hospitalise people for, say, cancer, so what is the difference? Are cancer sufferers more deserving than those who have dementia?

The National Health Act of 1948 is the law so, if the government no longer wants to adhere by the principles of the NHS then fine, but change the law. It will be a brave government who puts into the statute books what successive governments have been doing surreptitiously for years which is blatantly ignoring the law in this regard.

It is, for me, not a question of those with savings should pay and those who don't get it paid for by the government, it is a question of it being illegal to discriminate in this way against those who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives and those who have squandered what they earned.

 

[sussexsue]

Like many I started out on mum's Alzheimers journey very miffed that she was going to have to pay for her care. By the end I was just so grateful that she had the money and we could chose the best care home for her, especially when I hear of some of the horror stories on here. Total turnaround in my views.

Equally my in-laws, who certainly scrimped and saved all their lives, lived and raised their three children in a tiny two up/two down in the Midlands, never invested in central heating or "luxury" items like a washing machine. They have never been abroad (unless Scotland and Wales count ).

They are now in their 90s, not very mobile and FIL has dementia. But the money they have saved has allowed them to move together into a lovely beachfront Care Home in Cornwall. MIL has actually gained independence as she can now walk with her wheeler to the shops and seafront, whilst the CH look after FIL. They are being well fed and have made friends. Before they were pretty much confined to their own home. Because of their age and various illnesses, their savings will pretty much cover their care, but it is unlikely there will be anything left. However as their family we are just so pleased and relieved that their future is secure, safe and happy.

 

[Karjo]

My MIL broke her hip and was never able to go back to her own bungalow to live. Although after several months in hospital she regained her strength and went home for a short period with a care package. She got confused with her tablets, did not really eat properly and was not really her old self. She did not have a 'diagnosis' of dementia although that is really what happened. She was living in a world of when she was a girl. We lived 100 miles away so could not give hands on care. It was decided that she needed to go into a care home (she veered from thinking she was in an hotel to a hospital) and we visited several and eventually picked the most expensive. This was picked for various reasons which in the end did not count. Ie close to where she lived as a girl so walks would be familiar, these walks etc never happened due to her deteriorating health.

Her savings were under the threshold but she did have a small bungalow that we sold to pay for her care. We had her best interests at heart although I must say it was frustrating for us as we had facilitated the purchase of the property when FIL was alive. They had never been wealthy although both working hard all their lives and when the option to buy their council house came up hubby and I took out a bank loan to help them purchase it. This said we were happy that she was comfortable and well looked after.

My question after all this background ramble is, what is the difference between residential and nursing. If a person cannot do anything for themselves is this classed as nursing and if so is part of the cost then met by the LA? If a person is hallucinating, wandering, anxious, needing help to eat etc surely this is more than just social care.

With my MIL sadly she passed away before all her funds were gone, we did have a small inheritance and for that we were grateful. We were worried what would have happened when the money ran out as the home was considerable more expensive than the council was willing to fund. In my opinion more is not necessarily worth it. MIL spent most of her days sat alone in her room (her choice). Her view from her window was a a small parking area so no stimulation there. Frankly she could have been anywhere. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Thanks for reading

Misprint
Re your question on nursing home. We were told my mum had to go into a nursing home. Physically she is quite fit, infact mentally quite fit in that she can still do plenty. but her Alzheimer's and confusion caused behavioral problems so that she was a danger to herself and others. The answer was nursing care with mental health nurses. not many around.
The people in the residential part below do not require a nurse to be on duty all the time. If SS or the NHS or the powers that be assess someone as needing nursing care then this element , around £108 pw , will be paid for by the NHS. Its usually paid direct to the nursing home. Nursing homes are more expensive than residential care though , so the " hotels " costs will still need to be funded, either as self funding or by SS and pensions.
Sorry its probably not too clear what I have written. We had a helluva job trying to understand it and SS never even mentioned the nursing £108. So when we went off looking for a nursing home at the SS "expected to pay rate " of £425 pw we got quotes of £750 pw!! It all worked out in the end but its very confusing. I think they should offer a university degree in it!!! A dementia degree sure would cover most of life's experiences.

 

[Egeon]

Now I realise that the argument is that the government can't afford to pay for all those dementia sufferers who need full-time care but surely it is every bit as expensive to hospitalise people for, say, cancer, so what is the difference? Are cancer sufferers more deserving than those who have dementia?

I just happened to be looking for some documents I needed for a fight against the NHS and came across accounts for the regional authority..
Years around 2006 2008 ish were in deficit, but... current year a nice fat surplus!
Saving expenses by stealing homes from those that are eligible for CHC!

 

[jenniferpa]

T

Now I realise that the argument is that the government can't afford to pay for all those dementia sufferers who need full-time care but surely it is every bit as expensive to hospitalise people for, say, cancer, so what is the difference? Are cancer sufferers more deserving than those who have dementia?

Can I just point out that most people with cancer are not hospitalized ,or at least, not for very long. I'm trying to think of another long term illness like dementia and coming up empty.

The truth is, dementia is unique in its time frame and its effects. People have cancer for longer sometimes, but they can generally live independently for most of that time. The same goes for other diseases.

 

[Lulabelle]

Can I just point out that most people with cancer are not hospitalized ,or at least, not for very long. I'm trying to think of another long term illness like dementia and coming up empty.

The truth is, dementia is unique in its time frame and its effects. People have cancer for longer sometimes, but they can generally live independently for most of that time. The same goes for other diseases.

OK so perhaps cancer was a bad example but what about motor neurone disease (which my father had), multiple sclerosis (which my sister has), brain injuries, stroke patients and the like. The point here is that the discrimination against dementia sufferers is illegal no matter how long they might need to be cared for. Nowhere in the Act does it say that those with dementia are excluded from the provisions of the Act.

 

[jenniferpa]

My mother had strokes and no, they didn't keep her in hospital. People simply don't stay in hospital for extend periods of time unless they are in a coma (which is probably the closest condition in fact - unable to do anything for oneself).

 

[Lulabelle]

Do coma patients have to pay for their own care?

 

[jenniferpa]

No that was my point - people in a coma are normally (but not always) kept in hospital, but that's the only case I can actually think of which that is the case.

 

[Saffie]

OK so perhaps cancer was a bad example but what about motor neurone disease (which my father had), multiple sclerosis (which my sister has), brain injuries, stroke patients and the like. The point here is that the discrimination against dementia sufferers is illegal no matter how long they might need to be cared for. Nowhere in the Act does it say that those with dementia are excluded from the provisions of the Act.

I'm afraid that I believe you have chosen further bad examples as sufferers of the above conditions are not kept in hospital either. There are people with MN disease and stroke sufferers in my husband's nursing home and certainly one of the former was paying for his own care until he died last year as I used to speak with his wife.
In the main, people are not kept in hospital unless undergoing treatment for an acute condition. Once a condition is stabalised, they either go home or to a care/nursing home. Dementia pateints are treated in a similar fashion but they are more likely to survive for a longer period.

 

[stanleypj]

No that was my point - people in a coma are normally (but not always) kept in hospital, but that's the only case I can actually think of which that is the case.

I don't see the relevance of this argument. As it happens one condition, apart frrom dementia, that requires long-term care has been identified. I expect there are others. So what?

It seems to me that people with dementia - at whatever age - have a right to expect that the NHS will pay if their illness means that they need long-term care.

If you agree, please sign the petition at:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
petitions/44333

The argument that is running through this thread would become happily irrelevant if people with the illness known as dementia were treated on a par with other terminal illnesses.

I know someone will then say 'But there's no money!'

But of course there is!

 

[Lulabelle]

Sorry Jennifer, I think we are talking at crossed purposes.

Are saying that it's OK for coma patients, which is the closest thing to dementia, to have their care paid for, but it's not OK for dementia sufferers?

I think we are getting bogged down in the hospital situation rather than the need for care situation.

 

[Chemmy]

Stroke patients have the same means test for SS funded care

Page 4

http://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/Accommodation%20after%20stroke.pdf

as do those with motor neurone disease.

http://www.mndassociation.org/getting-support/HSCP-services

As for dementia being a terminal illness - I have a copy of my mother's death certificate from a month ago. She first showed signs back in 2001.

Cause of death: Old age (I kid you not)

Contributory factor: advanced dementia.

 

[jenniferpa]

Lullabelle - my point was that if you want to make an effective case for dementia sufferers having their care paid for, then you need to be able to show that other people in a similar situation are treated differently, and I would say that people in a coma would be a valid example. Not people with cancer, no, but people in a coma yes.

I'm not getting into the cradle to grave argument.

 

[stressed51]

Great to see that if assets are used correctly then self funding does not mean that everything disappears. I am one of the brigade who think inheritance is a gift not a right but would like to think that at the end there would be something left over for our children.

I am also a believer that LA funding is not free care. They will take your pension, private pension and attendance allowance and leave you with a princely sum of around £23 per week. Clothes, chiropody, toiletries etc on £23 per week just not doable. Not so much choice of care either.

It certainly is not a very fair system when it come to dementia and care. Will it ever change? who knows. If I was a betting person I would say odds on, this discussion will still be being discussed in 10 years time.

I agree with everything you've written Jaymor. Dementia is an illness like any other illness, in fact worse in so ways than lots of other illnesses, so why should it be treated so differently x