Protecting mums finances

[Chemmy]

Another option: Deed of Variation

When my mum died, I was sole beneficiary of what was left, so I made a Deed of Variation which enabled me to pass a portion of the money straight on to my two children.

This seemed a far better option that them waiting to inherit upon my death, as they have been able to use it to fund improvements to their first homes, at a time in their lives when money is particularly tight.

However, I did write them a letter first, explaining my intentions and saying how disappointed I would be if they frittered Grandma and Grandad's money away and if that was likely to be the case, then I would expect them to refuse it. Of course, they understood that perfectly and have even checked with me in the interim that I am happy about what they are spending it on.

I know Mum and Dad would have approved of this and my children appreciate how fortunate they have been.

 

[Pickles53]

Same here - I don't want my daughters ever to hesitate about putting me in a home - I never want them to be stressed and exhausted with trying to look after me. BUT at the same time, they know that I will want no life-prolonging measures whatsoever - if Nature might be trying to let me go, then for heaven's sake just let her get on with it.
And I have a Living Will to that effect, for them to show to anyone who might think life must be preserved at all costs, no matter if I am incontinent, have lost every shred of dignity, and no longer know any of my own family.

Hear hear Chemmy and Saffie! We have inherited money from relatives over the last few years and have in each case passed on some to both our daughter and nephews/nieces, with their promise that it will be used on something important to their future rather than day-to-day spending.

 

[katek]

Martin have you looked into something called Continuing Health Care which can be arranged through the care home and social services. If you look up Angela Sherman and the web site that she has set up called "Care to be different" you will find details all about this. If your Mum meets all of the requirements then she can get fully funded care at home or in a care home for free!

Martin - just clarifying and extending on so unfair's post

Continuing Health Care (CHC) is provided by the NHS through local CCGs, rather than social services, although the latter are often involved in the multi-disciplinary team as part of the assessment process. A checklist is done as the beginning of the application process, and this has to be passed in order to continue to full assessment on the Decision Support Tool. You can google and download these documents to get some idea of what the criteria are, and whether it would be worth applying. CHC is very difficult to get (and there is quite a postcode lottery involved too) but those who fail to qualify often get funded nursing care (FNC) instead, which helps a little towards fees. However, the latter can only be awarded in a Nursing Home, not Residential Home or in one's own home. I don't know which type of home your mother is currently in, or the extent of her needs. However, if those needs meet the CHC criteria, the NHS is responsible for her care and she should not be paying for it.

 

[Spiro]

I actually think old age and its consequences has been the real bombshell here.

That's the real issue isn't it? The NHS was meant to provide medical care from the cradle to the grave.

Aneurin Bevan wasn't thinking about long-term conditions like dementia, in 1948.

 

[Pickles53]

That's the real issue isn't it? The NHS was meant to provide medical care from the cradle to the grave.

Aneurin Bevan wasn't thinking about dementia in 1948.

I seem to remember reading that average life expectancy was not much above 65 then so while the improvement is welcome it certainly has an impact on NHS (and state pension funding too). Also who in 1948 could have imagined the range and type of medical treatments that are now possible? Antibiotics were still new, nobody would have believed that heart transplants would ever happen.

 

[Chemmy]

I seem to remember reading that average life expectancy was not much above 65 then so while the improvement is welcome it certainly has an impact on NHS (and state pension funding too). Also who in 1948 could have imagined the range and type of medical treatments that are now possible? Antibiotics were still new, nobody would have believed that heart transplants would ever happen.

Interesting stats:

Life expectancy

1948: Men 65.8 Women 70.1

2004/6: Men 76.9 Women 81.3

2010/12: Men 78.7 Women 82.6

In addition:

"One third of babies born in 2013 are expected to live to 100"


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifet...bles/2012-based/sty-babies-living-to-100.html

 

[katek]

That's the real issue isn't it? The NHS was meant to provide medical care from the cradle to the grave.

Aneurin Bevan wasn't thinking about dementia in 1948.

The problem is that funding has not risen in line with demand. Like it or not, we should all be paying more in tax so that we can get free care if/when we need it.

It is people with long-term conditions such as AD patients that more often don't get the '...to the grave' part of the deal, and it is basically down to lack of money available. As an example, my brother-in-law's partner was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer (less than a year to live) in her 40's and all her treatment, and eventual stay in a hospice, was of course free. She was given chemotherapy (which made her look and feel awful) which would only have extended her life expectancy by a few months. Whatever that cost the NHS, it was still far cheaper than supporting someone in the last year of AD in a nursing home at 50K a year, which is where the latter lose out by having to pay for themselves. And because numbers affected are on the rise, there is simply not enough money to cope with the scale of the problem.

Unfortunately we do not get a choice as to what illness we develop, and as a result, whether, and how much it will cost us.

 

[Spiro]

It is people with long-term conditions such as AD patients that more often don't get the '...to the grave' part of the deal, and it is basically down to lack of money available.

I meant dementia and other long-term conditions in general. (I've edited my original post).

In 1948 doctors' fees were a luxury afforded by the privileged few. The same for home ownership, as the majority of the population rented.

However, going back to the original post by Martin 099 .........

I'm sure this situation will be familiar to many of you - we are currently using up mums savings to pay for care home fees before eventually have to sell her house to keep up with the payments. My brother and I have an enduring power of attorney enabling us to look after mums financial affairs.
The question is: Is there anything we can legally do to avoid all of mums financial assets, including her home, being used to pay for care fees?...or does the law state that we must use up mums money until we're down to her last £23k of assets?
Before mum became really ill with mixed dementia she always used to say to us that we should do something with the money before it's too late - things like leaving money to her 4 grandchildren was something she really wanted so much to do. It somehow doesn't feel fair that my mums life savings, for which she worked tirelessly, are spent solely care fees.
Thanks for reading
Martin

If insurance companies had come up with policies to provide care fees cover, as recommended by the Dilnot Commission, then by now there would have been a potential solution for some of us. To date, this hasn't happened. Some time ago, the Guardian referred to this lack of care insurance policy creation as "a market failure".

Maybe this will change next April when the so-called care fees cap comes in.

 

[katek]

If insurance companies had come up with policies to provide care fees cover, as recommended by the Dilnot Commission, then by now there would have been a potential solution for some of us. To date, this hasn't happened. Some time ago, the Guardian referred to this lack of care insurance policy creation as "a market failure".

Maybe this will change in April 2017 when the so-called care fees cap comes in.

You're right - there is no way of insuring against the possibility of having to pay the the costs of long-term illness, be it AD or other conditions.

The care cap will come into force next April, and is estimated to be around 72K. Some people, who may have already paid out hundreds of thousands, will see this as too little too late. And seventy two thousand is still a high price to pay, especially when other types of illness do not cost the patient anything. There is nothing we can do to insure against what illness we happen to get.

 

[nitram]

"...seventy two thousand is still a high price to pay..."

The actual cost will almost certainly be well in excess of £72k. the £72k is the amount spent at the LA estimate of the cost to provide the assessed care taking into account local conditions and allowing a fair profit margin for the home operator, it is not based on the fee charged by the care home.

There is also a £12k annual cap on accommodation cost calculated the same way.

Current self funders should arrange a needs assessment before next April so that all expenditure (at LA rates) after that date counts towards the caps.

 

[jugglingmum]

Does all care count? Or only in a care home?

My mum has care in her sheltered extra care flat. It was assessed by a SW and is charged at the LA rate as I understand. She also pays separately and direct to care comany for the same staff to clean once a week, is is banded in 5 hours so this couldn't be fitted in the 5 hours she has and otherwise she would move up to 10. So I presume this cleaning cost (which isn't care anyway I guess) wouldn't count.

 

[katek]

"...seventy two thousand is still a high price to pay..."

The actual cost will almost certainly be well in excess of £72k. the £72k is the amount spent at the LA estimate of the cost to provide the assessed care taking into account local conditions and allowing a fair profit margin for the home operator, it is not based on the fee charged by the care home.

There is also a £12k annual cap on accommodation cost calculated the same way.

Current self funders should arrange a needs assessment before next April so that all expenditure (at LA rates) after that date counts towards the caps.

Yes, there is also the annual 12K 'living costs' charge, as you mention, although I have less of a problem with this, as people would be paying (food, utilities etc) to live in their own homes if they were not ill.


What would have been a better change to the law would be that people only pay that element, and the care itself - which is needed only because of illness - were funded. The cost to the NHS would still be cheaper than a hospital placement, and could have been met by an increase in tax - in line with salary - ringfenced for his purpose. Instead of this, however, it is still the unfortunate patient who bears the cost (just not so much as before), and care homes continue to profit out of illness.

 

[nitram]

I think there could well be some creative accountancy.

An extreme example.

An LA currently pays £400/Wk >>>£20800/Yr

They decide the accommodation is excellent and rate it at £12k/Yr just meeting the annual cap.

This leaves £(20800-12000)>>>£8800 towards the lifetime cap.

This would mean that the cap would be reached in 72000/8800>>>~8.2 years

Also now that care and accommodation have been separated what happens to things like 'activities'? Do they become extras?

 

[nitram]

"Does all care count? Or only in a care home?"

Only residential care counts, I don't think sheltered care comes under this title.

EDIT
Sorry, all assessed care counts.

 

[jugglingmum]

Thanks - thought it probably didn't - but thought it worth asking - as with it being SW assessed and contracted through County Council it might. So will this mean SWs will start assessing self funded people as not needing care home, even when they are in one as care package at home doesn't count

Edit - see post below re assessed care.

 

[nitram]

"So will this mean SWs will start assessing self funded people as not needing care home, even when they are in one as care package at home doesn't count"

It is possible that the LA may decide that a self funder in a care home does not actually need that level of care.

All self funders currently in residential care should be assessed before next April, the assessment does not have to be done by the LA, third party agencies can be used.

 

[Spiro]

All self funders currently in residential care should be assessed before next April, the assessment does not have to be done by the LA, third party agencies can be used.

Does this assessment need to be done for self-funders receiving nursing care as well. If and when their capital threshold hits £23,250, how much will the LA contribute?

Self-funders can continue to receive Attendance Allowance. Funded Nursing Care is £112 per week, so the two added together aren't going to amount to much of a reduction in the total nursing home fees spent per annum. Depending on where you live, some residents are going find their funds depleting far more quickly than others. This sounds as though it's a post-code lottery

As far as using third party agencies to do the assessment, I was unaware one could do this. Any suggestions?

 

[nitram]

"Does this assessment need to be done for self-funders receiving nursing care as well. If and when their capital threshold hits £23,250, how much will the LA contribute? "

Yes.
The LA will contribute their assessed reasonable fee, not forgetting the sliding scale down to the lower limit, which will count towards the cap, there is a provision for self funders to make first party top ups.

"As far as using third party agencies to do the assessment, I was unaware one could do this. Any suggestions?"

It's the LA's duty to have the assessments performed and up to them if they want to appoint a third party.

 

[Spiro]

The LA will contribute their assessed reasonable fee, not forgetting the sliding scale down to the lower limit, which will count towards the cap, there is a provision for self funders to make first party top ups.

So depending on the LA's assessed reasonable fee, then it's possible that they could try and transfer the resident to a cheaper home. Not good news.

First party top ups are mentioned, but I thought it was currently possible to make third party top ups as well. Maybe that changes after next April.

 

[Spamar]

As a point of interest, our county family Carers are training some of their staff to do the assessments, the LA having passed it to them.