117 funding and top up fees

[Kevinl]

It’s been decided today that the way forward for my wife is to be discharged from the assessment unit she’s in (under a section 3) and go into an EMI unit funded under section 117.
Bearing in mind what’s been said on here about the fee increases made by care homes, what would happen in this situation (all figures are made up and round numbers to keep the sums easy).
She goes into care with the LA paying £500 and me paying a £100 top up.
Self funders pay £600. So mine and the LA contributions add up to £600 too.
The fees go up to self funders by 10% so from £600 to £660.
The LA will only agree to put their rate up by 5% so will only pay £525.
Does this mean my top up will still remain as the difference between the 2 figures and go up from £100 to £135 and could this happen every year?
If so something that starts out affordable could pretty soon spiral out of control.
Anyone have any thoughts or experience of this?
K

 

[2jays]

As far as I'm aware

117 funded care legally should NOT have top up fees

If the "cheapest" care home doesn't fulfil ALL needs that a more expensive one does... THEY have to pay the more expensive fees

Hopefully those with the knowledge will be able to give you the full picture when they can xx

 

[nitram]

This problem is not unique to s117 it also applies to LA funding and has been discussed previously.
I think the general consensus has been that increases in top up because of care fees increases is a potential extra cost even if the care fee and the council tariff increase by the same percentage. The problem is compounded by the fact LAs usually change their tariffs in April whereas care homes may do it at other times. Others may have personal experience.

Note that it is only recently that top ups could be paid in respect of s117 funding.

Choice of Accommodation (Section 75 (6))
The last major change to after-care services is that by a new s.117A the Secretary of State is empowered to make Regulations requiring a local authority to comply with a preference by P for particular accommodation, with P paying a top-up fee if the preferred accommodation is more than the authority’s usual cost. In discharging the s.117 duty, the Council is permitted to provide the person with direct payments.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...d=52:adult-social-services-articles&Itemid=20

 

[tigerlady]

I only know about CHC funding, but I was of the opinion that 117 funding also meant that the fees were paid in full by the SS and the NHS, unless something has changed recently.

I have just googled it but cant really understand all the jargon,but it implied that the NHS would top up any amount above what the SS would pay. Surely it should act in the same way as CHC .

 

[lin1]

I'm no expert, but I do know that Nitram in post 3 above , is correct, the regs re 117 aftercare and tops ups have been changed recently.

All I know about top up fees is, they always seem to go up, so what was manageable in the beginning can become hard later on .

first I would look around at places that accept LA rates, you may find one that is good.

 

[Onlyme]

I thought that 117 was given the same health status as if that person was being looked after in a hospital.

 

[Kevinl]

I thought that 117 was given the same health status as if that person was being looked after in a hospital.

Well I thought that too until today (well yesterday now) I was pretty much told I would have to pay a top up in the situation in post 1 (below).
"It’s been decided today that the way forward for my wife is to be discharged from the assessment unit she’s in (under a section 3) and go into an EMI unit funded under section 117."
Hence I'm asking what I might be letting myself in for.
Thank you to Nitram for the info that section 117 can now pay top ups, news to me.
That said the figure they quoted for the top up was framed "would I be prepared to pay an extra £10 a week to put her somewhere nicer" yes ten pounds a week!
There then were some comments that the available options might not be all that nice.
If I want to pay a top up that's up to me, but when as Lin1 suggests I said I'd rather look at the ones without a top up first the atmosphere turned a bit chilly.
I don't know what the agenda is exactly, get me to ay a top up I don't need to, get people in paying a top up so the home is obliged to take the ones who can't afford it at the lower rate when the LA tells them to, who knows.
K

 

[lin1]

I thought that 117 was given the same health status as if that person was being looked after in a hospital.

IMHO they should be but sadly the powers that be have decided otherwise.
Hitting the vulnerable and those least able to speak up for themselves seems to be the order of the day now.

 

[lin1]

Well I thought that too until today (well yesterday now) I was pretty much told I would have to pay a top up in the situation in post 1 (below).
"It’s been decided today that the way forward for my wife is to be discharged from the assessment unit she’s in (under a section 3) and go into an EMI unit funded under section 117."
Hence I'm asking what I might be letting myself in for.
Thank you to Nitram for the info that section 117 can now pay top ups, news to me.
That said the figure they quoted for the top up was framed "would I be prepared to pay an extra £10 a week to put her somewhere nicer" yes ten pounds a week!
There then were some comments that the available options might not be all that nice.
If I want to pay a top up that's up to me, but when as Lin1 suggests I said I'd rather look at the ones without a top up first the atmosphere turned a bit chilly.
I don't know what the agenda is exactly, get me to ay a top up I don't need to, get people in paying a top up so the home is obliged to take the ones who can't afford it at the lower rate when the LA tells them to, who knows.
K

I don't know what their agenda is, however I probably like all on here believe that standards in all types of residentual care should be high quality regardless whether funded by the LA or not.
If local authorities are using places that are bad then shame on them !!!

Unfortunately we have a very expensive, supposedly all singing and dancing facility, just down the road from me , self funders pay around £1500 per week.
I know someone who used to work there looking after people in the EMI unit and met someone who lived there who was self funding , non dementia, she had to pay extra for any care given and she was severely disabled.
What they said about that place I can't write here but it was far from good.
They both left because they could stand it no longer.
What I'm trying to say is, expensive does not guarantee good caring care

 

[Pete R]

I don't know what the agenda is exactly, get me to ay a top up I don't need to, get people in paying a top up so the home is obliged to take the ones who can't afford it at the lower rate when the LA tells them to, who knows.
K

Their agenda will be the same as with everyone ....Pay as little as possible.

The CA2014 did change things, supposedly to bring it into line with everyone else who needed state funded help. Unfortunately though any contract for a top up is to be negotiated between you and the provider and not via the LA(or whoever is paying) leaving you open to large yearly increases. The LA do not have to up their amount if a placement within budget is available.

The one other difference for s117 is that "first" party top ups are allowed.

Don't be forced into accepting their budget especially if you do not feel the placement is suitable. Paying a top up for S117 should be for a better standard and not the norm.

Good Luck.