LA means test dilemma

[mhw]

mum went into full time care in Feb after a hospital stay, she in last stage dementia and has been for about 6-12 months, registered as palliative less than yr ( probably) to live.
Her long term partner jointly owns their property ( 20 yrs) and in tenants in common.
shes been refused chc but granted fnc so now will be assessed by LA,
My dilemma is, her partner does want to sell the house now shes not going back, but as we have a deputyship I've been informed even if we pay and apply for permission to sell thru the COP it could not grant permission before she dies basically.
at present she has enough to be a self funder when means tested for maybe 3-4 months til she gets to the threshold of 23k
Should I just let LA means test and go on to pay when her savings dictate and then tell them when or even if we manage to get COP permission to sell the house, or would they then try and act like it was our choice to sell ( legally he can stay there and they cant even put a charge on the property) and demand we pay back payments they have covered.
none of this might happen she may even die before we can get permission or market

 

[nitram]

As long as partner stays in house it will be disregard in any financial assessment.
When her assets other than the house reach the upper limit the LA will assist with funding, your mum cannot make top ups,
Assuming mum has been self funding the LA will not put a charge on the house or ask for any back payments.

Have you considered a Fast Track CHC
An 'appropriate clinician' has to sign

The individual fulfils the following criterion:
They have a rapidly deteriorating condition and the condition may be entering a terminal phase.
For the purposes of Fast Track eligibility this constitutes a primary health need. No other test is required.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ol-for-NHS-Continuing-Healthcare-guidance.pdf

Note the guidance

13. The completed fast-track pathway tool should be supported by a prognosis, where available. However, strict time limits that base eligibility on a specified expected length of life remaining should not be imposed:

a) ‘rapidly deteriorating’ should not be interpreted narrowly as only meaning an anticipated specific or short time frame of life remaining
b) ‘may be entering a terminal phase’ is not intended to be restrictive to only those situations where death is imminent
14. It is the responsibility of the appropriate clinician to make a decision based on whether the individual’s needs meet the fast-track criteria.

15. An individual may at the time of consideration be demonstrating few symptoms yet the nature of the condition is such that it is clear that rapid deterioration is to be expected in the near future.
In these cases it may be appropriate to use the fast-track pathway tool in anticipation of those needs arising, and agreeing the responsibilities and actions to be taken once they arise, or to plan an early review date to reconsider the situation.

 

[Kevinl]

Respect to nitram, one hell of a good answer. K

 

[mhw]

As long as partner stays in house it will be disregard in any financial assessment.
When her assets other than the house reach the upper limit the LA will assist with funding, your mum cannot make top ups,
Assuming mum has been self funding the LA will not put a charge on the house or ask for any back payments.

Have you considered a Fast Track CHC
An 'appropriate clinician' has to sign

The individual fulfils the following criterion:
They have a rapidly deteriorating condition and the condition may be entering a terminal phase.
For the purposes of Fast Track eligibility this constitutes a primary health need. No other test is required.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ol-for-NHS-Continuing-Healthcare-guidance.pdf

Note the guidance

13. The completed fast-track pathway tool should be supported by a prognosis, where available. However, strict time limits that base eligibility on a specified expected length of life remaining should not be imposed:

a) ‘rapidly deteriorating’ should not be interpreted narrowly as only meaning an anticipated specific or short time frame of life remaining
b) ‘may be entering a terminal phase’ is not intended to be restrictive to only those situations where death is imminent
14. It is the responsibility of the appropriate clinician to make a decision based on whether the individual’s needs meet the fast-track criteria.

15. An individual may at the time of consideration be demonstrating few symptoms yet the nature of the condition is such that it is clear that rapid deterioration is to be expected in the near future.
In these cases it may be appropriate to use the fast-track pathway tool in anticipation of those needs arising, and agreeing the responsibilities and actions to be taken once they arise, or to plan an early review date to reconsider the situation.

I have only just got the decision still deciding whether to bother appealing , also trying to get her moved to the NH in home town now the assessment process is nearly over. Once we move her, and she can have her normal gp again I will push for either fast track or hospice place, the stance of present gp and NH seems to be they won't apply for fast track until she stops eating/looses weight consistently

 

[Dave63]

the stance of present gp and NH seems to be they won't apply for fast track until she stops eating/looses weight consistently

The important part of the guidance @nitram has provided is paragraph 15.

15. An individual may at the time of consideration be demonstrating few symptoms yet the nature of the condition is such that it is clear that rapid deterioration is to be expected in the near future.
In these cases it may be appropriate to use the fast-track pathway tool in anticipation of those needs arising, and agreeing the responsibilities and actions to be taken once they arise, or to plan an early review date to reconsider the situation.

It doesn't seem right that a restriction is being placed on completing a fast track application until a certain set of needs arises (stops eating/loses weight). It appears to be completely contradictory to what is being said in the above guideline.

An individual may at the time of consideration be demonstrating few symptoms yet the nature of the condition is such that it is clear that rapid deterioration is to be expected in the near future.

If she is already registered palliative then surely a rapid deterioration is expected in the near future. It doesn't say anything about waiting for that deterioration to make itself known.