Extortionate self funding costs!!

[Moorcroft]

I'm new to this game, but my experience so far, of paying for carers either residential or home-visiting, is quite negative. Frankly, the help we have had hasn't been worth the money paid. I accept that the workers themselves are paid a minimum wage, so obviously the owners must be swanning around in Rolls Royces with Rolex watches.

In the last few weeks we've paid for an agency carer to come in and give mum a meal at lunchtimes on weekends. The very first one to call didn't know how to use a microwave and left a complete mess in the kitchen. Another did not know how to fry bacon and eggs. Yesterday's didn't know how to poach an egg. As a result, we are paying £15 a visit for her to be made a slice of toast, or offered cheese and crackers. It is a joke.

At Christmas, I booked her into a local old people's home for the week, in the hope that with her near me we could have a family Xmas. They wanted to charge us £850 for four days, even knowing that she wouldn't be there most of the time. Mum cut up about the cost so we cancelled in late October. Now they are dunning me for the full £850, saying they have to charge for the cancellation. I'm not paying.

Mum's moving near me in a few weeks time, and after she's done so, we'll avoid using the agencies and homes for as long as we can. I'm happy to pay for mum's care, but I'm not keen on subsidising either the lifestyles of entrepreneurs, or subsidising local authority care places.

 

[LadyA]

The fact that there are two different types of care complicates matters as well. Residential care is considerably cheaper than nursing care. Then there is the overlap of nursing care and CHC, both paid for by the NHS. The difference being that with CHC the NHS foots the entire bill.

If the nursing home has a contract with the CCG, then you could argue that self funders are subsidising the NHS.

In countries where health insurance is mandatory, the majority of the population rent. They're spending their money on their care upfront, not on buying a home.

When the NHS started, life expectancy was lower and only 10-15% of people owned property.

Spiro, rents here average around 800 euro per month, and while I'm not in the cheapest area for renting, I'm not in the most expensive either - not by a long way. If you qualify for a mortgage here, it can be cheaper to buy.

In the US you can get Long Term Care Insurance which covers the cost of residential and nursing home care if needed. I think the statistic is that around 5% of elderly people reside in nursing homes, so the Insurance Companies must be doing ok out of it!

 

[velocity]

extortionate self funding cost

I think people really need to understand that through contributions the elderly have paid for their care, only to pay again, as the title says Extortionate.
Why should they have to repay?

 

[AlsoConfused]

Everyone agrees the current approach to what is allegedly "social care" is breaking down, unfair and unaffordable. There isn't a political will to tackle the whole thing - it's too difficult. I think the politicians won't be prepared to do anything until the system breaks down entirely - which I'd expect to be soon enough to hit me.

 

[Pickles53]

In the US you can get Long Term Care Insurance which covers the cost of residential and nursing home care if needed. I think the statistic is that around 5% of elderly people reside in nursing homes, so the Insurance Companies must be doing ok out of it!

I suppose because the US has an insurance-based health system people are used to the idea that you're paying for the security of knowing that if you have these costs you won't be bankrupted by them. I think it's like house insurance...if you don't have catastrophic fire/flood/burglary then you may never claim a penny. I'm sure the insurance companies make a good living but I prefer the peace of mind.

It would be interesting to know the comparable statistics for the % of people who eventually go into residential care here (maybe someone on TP knows) but it appears that there is not a market for private insurance against future care needs. Perhaps the premiums would be so high that they would be unaffordable.

I know we all pay NI, but when you think about everything it has to cover it would have to be at a much higher rate to fund social care for everyone. I don't think we realise just how much it costs to provide the services/benefits/pensions we already have. We have a choice...we can either pay higher taxes/NI/insurance during our working lives, or take the risk of paying from our savings when the crisis happens.

 

[AlsoConfused]

Agree with you Pickles. I think the money ought to come from progressive taxes like Income Tax and the state should resume the responsibility of being main provider. This would be the cheaper option for all AND is a better safeguard against homes suddenly closing and turfing out all their residents.

 

[LadyA]

I think the 5% of elderly living in residential care is actually either UK or Irish statistic. Not sure which or how old it is though.

 

[LadyA]

Google has thrown confusing statistics - I suppose it depends on the source of the data. And on the definition of "elderly ", with some profilers taking it as low as 60, and others as high as 85! So I think, if you take, say, 65s and over then the % in nursing home care works out around 5%. However, if you go to 85s and over, you are up to something like 23% needing full time nursing home care. Which, if I am remembering right from my training, is more or less in line with the statistics for dementia as we age: by age 60-65, it's something like 1 person in 25 will have developed dementia. By age 85, it's 1 person in 5.

 

[Spiro]

If you qualify for a mortgage here, it can be cheaper to buy.

LadyA, I was thinking of mainland Europe, not Eire or USA.

 

[fizzie]

I think people really need to understand that through contributions the elderly have paid for their care, only to pay again, as the title says Extortionate.
Why should they have to repay?

Agreed. Also I believe there should be a legal challenge to two tier funding. It is one of the biggest inequalities on the planet. It has nothing to do with pensions being taken etc the fact is that people who have already paid through the system are being charged again and then double the cost, you can't get much more unfair than that. LAs and self funders should pay the same. Noone wants to deny anyone care but the cost of a place is the cost of a place end of. I don't understand why this hasn't been challenged

 

[stanleypj]

Agree with you Pickles. I think the money ought to come from progressive taxes like Income Tax and the state should resume the responsibility of being main provider. This would be the cheaper option for all AND is a better safeguard against homes suddenly closing and turfing out all their residents.

Both suggestions absolutely spot-on AlsoConfused. Someone should launch a campaign on these issues.

 

[fizzie]

I think if the Councils took back homes then we wouldn't be dealing with investors expecting, and getting, a 50% profit. A care home owner or two have told me that they don't do it for less than 50% profit - at the expense of the residents and relatives

 

[dadalz]

It is grossly unfair that people who have worked and saved hard should be forced to pay extortionate fees. My father will probably have to go back into care. My sister and I are toying with the idea of renting out my father's housr to help cover the care costs. I always ask the question if people have got to pay extortionate fees, then what have they been paying their national insurance and taxes for?

 

[Pickles53]

. I always ask the question if people have got to pay extortionate fees, then what have they been paying their national insurance and taxes for?

It's a fair question, but we aren't collectively paying anywhere near enough to cover all our potential needs from cradle to grave. This is partly because of medical advances which mean that ever more complex treatments are available, thus increasing overall life expectancy and ultimately meaning that a much higher % of the population will need nursing care. (Lady A quotes some interesting statistics n her post.)

Sadly politicians of all parties have refused to face up to these issues for many years, so contributions were not increased (because that was unpopular) and now we are in crisis.

 

[velocity]

extortionate self fundingcosts

It's a fair question, but we aren't collectively paying anywhere near enough to cover all our potential needs from cradle to grave. This is partly because of medical advances which mean that ever more complex treatments are available, thus increasing overall life expectancy and ultimately meaning that a much higher % of the population will need nursing care. (Lady A quotes some interesting statistics n her post.)

Sadly politicians of all parties have refused to face up to these issues for many years, so contributions were not increased (because that was unpopular) and now we are in crisis

 

[velocity]

extortionate self funding cost

Words fail me

 

[notsogooddtr]

It's a fair question, but we aren't collectively paying anywhere near enough to cover all our potential needs from cradle to grave. This is partly because of medical advances which mean that ever more complex treatments are available, thus increasing overall life expectancy and ultimately meaning that a much higher % of the population will need nursing care. (Lady A quotes some interesting statistics n her post.)

Sadly politicians of all parties have refused to face up to these issues for many years, so contributions were not increased (because that was unpopular) and now we are in crisis

That's it in a nutshell.We are not paying enough,who will be brave enough to raise taxes to make up the shortfall?I'm.not holding my breath.As to different rates it happens in other areas eg energy but there it's the less well off who get hit with higher tarriffs.The point of business is to turn a profit,the bigger the better.That's capitalism for you.

 

[stanleypj]

Two other possibilities:

Some people pay a fraction of what they should be paying.

Money is spent on the wrong things.

 

[Pickles53]

Two other possibilities:

Some people pay a fraction of what they should be paying.

Money is spent on the wrong things.

Can't disagree that these are influencing factors too, but we all have different ideas about what the 'wrong' things are. I suspect that for many people it's only when they or their family members need support that they realise why public services are so critical.

Having lived in the USA for quite a few years, and seen first-hand how their system works, I would always vote for higher contributions to keep a decent level of services, but not enough of my fellow citizens agree.

 

[theunknown]

You do know that in England and Wales at any rate, you keep AA if you are self funding?

I don't even know how attendance allowance works. As far as my mum's concerned, a local authority pays about £450 and we pay another £450 from her bank account, per week. I've had to sell her house to pay for her care, and I have deputyship to deal with my mum's financial details. I don't think my mum's ever received attendance allowance.