I just want to share something with you all, in case I am not the only one who sometimes fails to see the obvious (or in case I have misunderstood): When my husband was diagnosed with AD, I never questioned that I would give up work to care for him if/when the need arose. However, several years later, as things deteriorated gradually, I took on board various bits of advice and opted for Homecare, initially just to make sure he was safe and managed some lunch. Based on our financial assessment, Homecare was funded, and Social Services mentioned that if my husband needed residential care, then the same criteria would apply. Events overtook us, he suddenly became completely reliant on help, and within months Social Services agreed to increase the care package to 4 hours per day to meet his needs and ensure his safety. There was a point at which I doubted whether he would be able to stay at home much longer, as he was unable to negotiate the stairs and almost completely unable to communicate and co-operate. I was scared stiff of what lay ahead, and realised that I relied on the comparative normality and continuity of work to keep me going mentally and emotionally. Finances came into it too, as I am not near retirement age yet, but I kept thinking that if necessary, we might just have to manage somehow on my husband’s pension. Imagine my shock when a learnt in a chance conversation this week that if my husband had to be cared for in a residential home, it would, indeed, be funded by Social Services, but his pension would go towards meeting the cost. I suppose this makes sense, but it simply had never occurred to me. Does this mean that if I had (or did) given up work to care for my husband, and he had, eventually, been admitted into a residential home, I would be left without any income at all?