finance

[jaymor]

Rachel, I don't think anyone is criticising you. It is as it is. Unfair maybe but having the funds gives you choice. No one gets free care. As I said in my first post on here if you are below the savings level then the local authority have to pay some but state pension, all or part of private pension and any attendance allowance is taken off the person needing care. £23.50 is left for their weekly needs. My husband is in a nursing home and £23.50 would no where covers his weekly needs. The local authority will give what they deem suitable and this will restrict your choice of care home. If you find one you prefer then any difference in cost will have to be met by family or friends and NOT the dementia sufferer. The only way to avoid this 'top up' is to accept the home the local authority are prepared to pay for. They will pay more IF, there is no home available that they deem able to give the level of care that they say is what is needed, then they will pay for the next higher fee being asked.

Certainly make your Mum's home a little more comfortable and make sure it is well maintained. This is using the money but it is being invested in the house making her more comfortable but it is still an asset to be disposed of when full time care is needed. I am not sure about the paying you to care from her money. Paying you a decent wage will bring declaring tax, national insurance and goodness knows what amount of paperwork to deal with into force.

We are not a wealthy family. We have been careful, seen that our children and grandchildren have been helped and because of alzheimers have been denied any retirement to enjoy the fruits of our prudence. My husband was 62 when he was diagnosed and will be 69 at the end of this month and is now in a nursing home. The house has not been taken into consideration when assessing him but it will be if I ever need care for whatever reason. Even if I do not get dementia I may need to go into residential care and the house will pay for that. I have no intention of asking my children to give up their life and families to take on the burden of looking after me, so I will spend 'their inheritance' on giving them their freedom and peace of mind that I am safe and looked after. As long as they visit from time to time, if even only to pick up their pocket money, that will be fine by me. I have looked after my husband but I see that as a different thing altogether than looking after a parent when you have a job, home and family to care for. I was just months away from retiring when my husband was diagnosed so other than the two of us I had no one else to worry about.

It does seem unfair but please keep in mind that the person in the next room being paid for by the local authority (that is if they have been lucky enough to have been put in a decent home) has £23.50 a week to live on for the rest of their lives and not a penny more.

Hugs Jay

 

[sussexsue]

it has made me realise there is no point in saving any money for old age!

I too thought that at the beginning, and indeed could easily have written the same opening post as you. Now I honestly believe that we should all be saving for any potential Care we may need in later life.

I am going to be very honest here. When my mum first had Alzheimers we too were shocked that her money would potentially be used to fund a Care Home and any other care she needed. I honestly thought Care Homes were free in the same way most NHS services are. I too was angry that we would have to pay when others didnt. As a family we also looked into ways to protect/hide her savings. Looking back, through our own innocence we could have "deprived her of assets" and made some very wrong decisions.

I learnt so much on TP about finances. Without input from this site I think we would have inadvertently made some bad, even potentially illegal decisions.

However, after 10 years with Alzheimers we were so glad that she had the funds available to allow us to chose the right Care Home for her, regardless of cost, and be able to choose at what stage of her illness she would need to to into Care.

The sad fact is that those without funds often have little say in which Care Home their loved ones go into, or even the right to go into one when they are struggling to survive at home.

 

[hollycat]

Hi Rach

I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU FEEL.

It upsets me that a self funder and a council funder can be in the same CH, one paying from their own money and the other the state paying (the state paying is a bit of a laugh too because the statement "state paying" means us, the tax payers).

Those with sufficient funds to pay for themselves are paying time after time after time. They pay their taxes all their life, they save all their life. SELF FUNDERS are actually paying twice ! They pay once when they pay for themselves and then through paying their taxes they pay again for the council funders.

In addition, the non-self funders pay a lower rate than the self funders so they pay again.

Sorry if this upsets the "WE HAVE A CHOICE BRIGADE".

I just wanted to say I understand how you feel. I personally have no problem funding my own care but I draw the blinking line at paying for others; with the system how it is at the minute, that is exactly what self funders are doing.

For those folks that have been to see a solicitor early in their lives and setup trust funds, put their property into tennants in common, gifted monies etc etc etc the best of luck to them. They may be fortunate enough to avoid the deprivation of assets rules.

So Rach, whilst your hands are tied my advice would be, if like me you feel so strongly about this subject, get YOURSELF down to a solicitor to try and protect YOUR FUTURE.

Hope you can laugh at this, but for years I have preached to my elderly family to get their CASH from under their beds and biscuit tins and get it paid into the bank for safe keeping; one could argue, what stupid advice ? !

 

[Nebiroth]

Hi

Sorry if my question derails the thread, but I think thinking ahead - can family members be FORCED to pay top up fees..... or can you just say no. My worry is if we do this for MIL when/if the time comes it will come out of our own savings - ie our own care home fees which we are currently saving for! Hopefully the situation won't arise some savings

Abolsutely not. No one can be required to pay any part of someone else's care fees. Only the assets of the person in care are relevant.

Additionally, "top ups" cannot apply to essential aspects of care. They are for optional extras only. Examples might be paying extra for a room with a sea view or to have a weekly visit from a beauty salon.

If someone needs a regular visit from a podiatrist because they have health issues with their feet then that is not a "top up". However, a weekly visit from someone to do a foot massage because it;s nice to have, would be a "top up".

No relative, or anyone else, can be obliged to pay for any aspect of someone else's care, let alone top-ups. Any payment of these is a strictly voluntary arrangement. So any official or care home that implies otherwise or tries to pressure you into signing a contract should be regarded with suspiscion and never sign anything without taking legal advice first!

 

[Margaret W]

Nebiroth, top-ups may be necessary if the family choose a more expensive home than the one covered by the Local Authority. When choosing one for my mother, only two homes in the area charged Local Authority rates and I would have hated either of them. They one we chose was more expensive, so anyone living there would have needed a top-up.

Why would I have not chosen either of the others? They were both full of residents sitting in chairs around the telly, both places stank of urine and worse, were dark and dingy, and when I asked about entertainment one said she sometimes takes a couple of residents in the car when she visits her other care home and the other said she sometimes takes the residents for a walk outside the perimeter of the home. The one I chose for mum had an activities co-ordinator and took residents on trips in a minibus. That would have needed a top-up. I didn't see that as being an optional extra such as a room with a sea view or a visit to a beauty salon.

 

[Margaret W]

Rach, it's really academic. Your mum's £50 grand won't last two years anyway, so you are hardly in the league of trying to hide a couple of million.

I think a few folks on here have been harsh on you, expecting you to know the rules when you are so new to all this.

They mean well.

Love

Margaret

 

[Isabella41]

Additionally, "top ups" cannot apply to essential aspects of care

Here in Northern Ireland things must be different. A couple of months ago when the pre-discharge meeting was being held for mum I was told that there was a bed available at X home but that I would need to pay extra per week from my own pocket as it was more expensive than the maximum the Trust would pay. They told me they could get her a bed in the home she'd been in previously and it was fully funded by them. Both homes ran by the same company but the more expensive one offered a higher staff:resident care ratio and was much closer to my home.

Again in the area I live in there are very few Trust owned homes so the majority are private homes with residents a mix of self funded and Trust funded. Relatives do get the final say in the choice of home for their loved one. I can see no incentive therefore in present circumstances of having more than £23500 in the bank at a certain age.

Can I also say I am sorry if my post was taken as critisism Rach. It was not my intention. My mum was also loathe to spend money and saved as best she could. I think the idea of prepaying for a funeral is a good one especially as I understand they are quite a bit more expensive in England than they are over here.

Isabella

 

[jenniferpa]

To be honest, I think the assumption that we were being critical of Rach was made by a single poster. I don't think it's at all critical of a poster to point out the problems with a possible course of action: I would call it a kindness.

 

[patilo33]

Disregard of care home charges

Hi
Another piece of info that might be helpfully for carers.
The value of my mums house will be disregarded when she's assessed for care home charges. I moved in to mums house to care for her and am now over 60.


"Continuing habitation by a ‘relative’ or ‘family member’
When a resident no longer occupies a dwelling as his home, its value is disregarded from the means-test if it continues to be occupied, in whole or in part, by his partner, be they present or former except where the resident is estranged or divorced.
The disregard also applies if the home is occupied in whole or in part by a care home resident’s relative or family member, but, for the disregard to apply in this category, the
person who continues to reside in the dwelling must also be: aged 60 or over; a child of the resident aged under 18; or incapacitated."
Financing care home charges
House of commons library
15/05/2012

Not sure what the "occupied IN PART" means. Anyone else know?

 

[Nebiroth]

I would assume, it means a part of the residence is reserved for their exclusive use and which is potentially self-contained, for example, a "granny flat"

Unfortunately, the protection only applies to carers over the age of 60. If you're under that, as I am, then it becomes discretionary so the local authority do it case by case.

 

[Nebiroth]

Here in Northern Ireland things must be different. A couple of months ago when the pre-discharge meeting was being held for mum I was told that there was a bed available at X home but that I would need to pay extra per week from my own pocket as it was more expensive than the maximum the Trust would pay. They told me they could get her a bed in the home she'd been in previously and it was fully funded by them. Both homes ran by the same company but the more expensive one offered a higher staff:resident care ratio and was much closer to my home.

Again in the area I live in there are very few Trust owned homes so the majority are private homes with residents a mix of self funded and Trust funded. Relatives do get the final say in the choice of home for their loved one. I can see no incentive therefore in present circumstances of having more than £23500 in the bank at a certain age.

I suspect that the local authority would have argued that being closer to you and the higher staff-to-resident ratio were not aspects of essential care.

If a specific care need is identified and can only be catered for by a care home that is "more expensive than our maximum fee" then the local authority has to pay. The "maximum fee" is a myth, in that regard.

Naturally, the local authorities will attempt to argue that such-and-such doesn't fall under "essential care" but is only an "extra" they aren't obliged to cover. But they do need to be able to show that someone's care needs will be fully met if they want to place them somewhere cheaper. Also, things like relatives ability to visit have to be taken into account. It cannot be solely a financial decision.

 

[Margaret W]

The single poster who felt people were being critical was me. I'm sure they only meant to point out the law, but the first few appeared to imply (or maybe I inferred) that Rachel should think herself lucky - and I felt that was a bit harsh.

Anyway, no matter, Rachel seemed okay with the comments, which were all correct.

Margaret

 

[Margaret W]

Not sure that podiatary isn't an extra. I understand that care workers aren't allowed to cut toe nails, can only be done by a qualified podiatrist. Mum had to pay to have hers cut, no idea if funded clients had to pay. I recall it cost £16 a time.

 

[garnuft]

£16 a time? Does Chiropody not come under the umbrella of the NHS? If a person is unable to cut their own toe nails and their carers are not legally allowed to do so, I would think a visit to GP and an appointment made to the NHS Chiropodist would solve the problem.
My son sees the Chiropodist every 6 months, I cut his toe nails in the meantime, My Nana used to visit Chiropodist 25 years ago. I cut my Mam's toe nails now but if they become a problem, or she doesn't want it anymore, I will take her to GP and Chiropodist will do the job.
I think Nebiroth said that foot massages etc. were extras, quite right too. I don't think you should have been paying £16 for necessary treatment.

 

[jenniferpa]

I think the problem with chiropody is the same as with dentists (or in fact worse) - NHS chiropodists are very few and far between. You're correct, of course Gwen - this does come under the NHS umbrella but a lot of people simply give up and end up paying for it themselves.

 

[garnuft]

Well then Jennifer, I can only be glad that me and mine live in the Land of the Prince Bishops, rolling hills, beautiful beaches and plenty of NHS Dentists and Chiropodists. It's time the postal code lottery ended. 'Cradle to Grave'
Gwen X

 

[jenniferpa]

If you can access an NHS chiropodist then you are indeed blessed. Doubly so if you find a decent NHS dentist.

Incidentally, I may not be correct about this, but I think I remember more than one poster being told by their care home that an NHS chiropodist simply will not visit, so if they want those services they will have to pay. Maybe 2 or 3 years ago? It was definitely a care home situation.

 

[beech mount]

How this thread has moved on from finance to feet! but i can think of no reason why a NHS chioropodist cannot visit, all there equipment can be contained in a small bag and if a care home could make a block booking (even if this was done on a private basis) a good price could be found, after all, everyone is trying hard to make a living.
John.
Tried it once,God it hurt!

 

[fredsnail]

Grandad has to pay for his Chiropody - I assume those funded would have to pay from their weekly allowance.

 

[jenniferpa]

According to nhs.uk

Chiropodists, also sometimes known as podiatrists, treat a wide variety of abnormalities and conditions of the foot and lower limb, from verrucas and ingrown toenails, to arthritis.

Chiropodists work with people of all ages, but also play an important role in helping older people, and disabled people, to stay mobile and independent.

Chiropody is available on the NHS free of charge in most areas of the UK, although the availability in your local area will depend on your Primary Care Trust (PCT).

Each case is also assessed on an individual basis. Whether or not you receive free treatment will depend on how serious your condition is and how quickly it needs to be treated. If your condition is unlikely to affect your health, or mobility, you may no

So this says 1) it may not be available in all areas and 2) even if it is you may have to pay if you don't have a health condition that they consider warrants treatement.