Pensions Planning: The NUMBER

Nual

That is a very scary picture you have drawn ! The reality is that yes, the hoped for contraction of morbidity has in fact proved to be an expansion of morbidity, with extra lifespan being mostly extended years of ill health. However, only 3.2 % of the 65+ population are in care homes, between 50% and 75% of over 85s are not classed as frail, and most care home stays are under 2 years.
The most positive and cost effective thing anyone can do to prepare for old age is to age proof their home or move to purpose built older people's accommodation. Downstairs toilet, walk in shower, level access etc make a massive difference in reducing slips trips and falls and allowing people to be independent for longer.

westv

I expect to live in good health until 117 and then disappear in a puff of smoke.

badmemory

I guess the problem scenario re care is the one who deals with the finances and is really "with it" is the one with the physical disabilities. The other who has dealt with everything practical so far becomes effected with dementia. The whole house of cards hits the deck.

The one with dementia becomes now totally out of it or indeed anything as they have no idea what day of the week it is or even what year.

With luck the disabled partner is able to scream loud enough that they do exist and let them deal with things that they can in fact deal with things, but don't hold your breath.

DairyQueen

Nual wrote: »

That is a very scary picture you have drawn ! .

Agreed. My experiences of the last few years have scared the hell out of me.

Nual wrote: »

However, only 3.2 % of the 65+ population are in care homes,

Yes, but it's not age 65 thru 80 that I'm concerned about. The vast majority of care home residents are aged 80+ and it's this later stage of retirement that I had previously marginalised - until now. Probably because, despite recent experience, I had refused to accept reality. The media focuses on care homes and NHS resources devoted to retirees - especially the funding thereof - but very little media space is devoted to the widespread and (arguably) greater demand/need for at-home care.

Nual wrote: »

,,, between 50% and 75% of over 85s are not classed as frail,

'Frailty' is defined as a specific age-related condition and I suspect that many of those needing/receiving care are not defined as such, whether they are over 85 or not. For example, my mother (late 70s) needs 24/7 care but is definitely not defined as 'frail'. My MIL was also not defined as 'frail' until she reached age 85. However, the combination of arthritic shoulder, frozen right hand (she is right-handed) and heart condition are the kind of combination of health problems typical of someone aged 80+, She has struggled with the activities of daily living since her late 70s. The heart condition has been the primary cause of the dizzy spells and the falls. Frail? No. Over age 85? No. Care needs? Yes.

Nual wrote: »

... and most care home stays are under 2 years..

Yes, that's also true and I believe this is because so many people resist the move into a residential home. Many have substantial care needs for years before a major crisis finally catalyses the move into residential care.

Nual wrote: »

The most positive and cost effective thing anyone can do to prepare for old age is to age proof their home or move to purpose built older people's accommodation. Downstairs toilet, walk in shower, level access etc make a massive difference in reducing slips trips and falls and allowing people to be independent for longer.

Exactly my point but, unfortunately, it seems that many people fail to take this step in time. There seems to be a window of opportunity that closes by around age 80-ish. From that point any move is resisted regardless of the consequences of staying put. Denial is absolute until they suffer a serious injury or something equally horrendous. It's those (whom seem to be a minority) that make the move before their care needs escalate that appear to enjoy extended, independent lives.

I wish that my experience wasn't so bleak but the reality is that I know few people who have reached the age of 85+ without requiring substantial help to live independently, and the majority of those maintain the status quo only with the support of a partner/spouse/their children. Remove the family from that equation and the whole pack of cards collapses. Frequently that status quo is precariously maintained for some years despite the attachment to unsuitable housing.

I think that this reality is mostly hidden from view as those aged 85+ spend more time housebound because of health and mobility issues. I have only become more aware since the survivors of my parents' generation began reaching 80+.

The Age UK report confirms that my experience is not an anomaly. By age 80 many people have several age-related health problems: arthritis, heart disease, COPD, circulatory problems, etc, etc. and the older the age the more numerous and complex the health problems.

Of course these stats don't reflect individual differences. On one side of the bell curve are the lucky few who reach 90+ and live independently with minimal support. The other extreme includes those who (like my mum) reach retirement age already requiring full-time care. But this quote from the Age UK report I referenced above had me reaching for the vodka:

"... in 2005-07 a woman could expect to live another 10.7 years free from disability at 65, this peaked in 2010-12 at 11.2 and has now fallen back to just 10.9. Meanwhile men could have expected 10.2 years free from disability in 2005-07, peaking at 10.6 before declining to 10.3."

Yep, you read that right, the average (mean) age to begin suffering some form of age-related disability, for those who reach 65, is only 75! The report suggests that the average person can expect to experience increasingly complex medical and care needs after age 75 regardless of how long they live.

All the pundits emphasise the need to fund a 30-year retirement but nobody mentions that the chances are pretty high that 50% of that time will be spent suffering health issues. It certainly focuses my mind on the need to retire as early as possible. Every year you delay is deducted from the finite time available for a carefree retirement. It also puts a different perspective on the increase in sPA for younger people. To add to their woes their carefree years of retirement will reduce regardless of how long they live unless science finds a way to breach what appears to be a human genetic boundary.

I have revised my retirement plans around this previously unknown information. (sigh) Ignorance was bliss.

Having maxed-out those carefree years we will downsize to mobility-friendly accommodation around age 75 as that 'move resistant' attitude seems to appear from around age 80 (possibly as the result of the aforementioned health problems). This will release the cash needed to self-fund adequate, at-home care for self and spouse as-and-when, with help from a little extra added to the number.

Bob's-your-auntie. Sorted. Now I just need to play with the spreadsheet and then convince OH that retiring a couple of years earlier is both do-able and advisable. :think:

lisyloo

badmemory wrote: »

I guess the problem scenario re care is the one who deals with the finances and is really "with it" is the one with the physical disabilities. The other who has dealt with everything practical so far becomes effected with dementia. The whole house of cards hits the deck.

The one with dementia becomes now totally out of it or indeed anything as they have no idea what day of the week it is or even what year.

With luck the disabled partner is able to scream loud enough that they do exist and let them deal with things that they can in fact deal with things, but don't hold your breath.

My MIL has physical disabilities (arthritis for 50 years) and dimensia, she dealt with all the money for 60 years.
We now have a team of 7 family members who do stuff, but I fear for anyone who has no or few family.
We visited about 20 care homes and some were dreadful - the kind of places people without family end up. It was difficult for us because Mum was borderline for residential and some places wouldn’t take her.

I take care of the pension, pension credit, attendance allowance, Carter’s allowance, care bills, warm front grant, council tax benefit. This would be difficult for a normal person let alone someone with dimensia.

Because they need practically everything doing we struggle to keep up with demand and that’s with 7 of us.

Interstingly my MIL nursing home is £670 per week funded but the LA but at one point they contributed her contributing £3 (incorrectly didn’t halve the savings) and the fees privately were £825. This is a very ordinary care home in Bristol, nothing special (but most people there cannot get out of a chair and need to be hoisted everywhere).

badmemory

lisyloo wrote: »

We visited about 20 care homes and some were dreadful -

I think what shocked me the most was the state of some of the most expensive care homes we visited. THE most expensive had my sister gagging before we even got to reception & it wasn't bleach. We didn't keep that appointment!

michaels

DairyQueen wrote: »

Agreed. My experiences of the last few years have scared the hell out of me.


Yes, but it's not age 65 thru 80 that I'm concerned about. The vast majority of care home residents are aged 80+ and it's this later stage of retirement that I had previously marginalised - until now. Probably because, despite recent experience, I had refused to accept reality. The media focuses on care homes and NHS resources devoted to retirees - especially the funding thereof - but very little media space is devoted to the widespread and (arguably) greater demand/need for at-home care.


'Frailty' is defined as a specific age-related condition and I suspect that many of those needing/receiving care are not defined as such, whether they are over 85 or not. For example, my mother (late 70s) needs 24/7 care but is definitely not defined as 'frail'. My MIL was also not defined as 'frail' until she reached age 85. However, the combination of arthritic shoulder, frozen right hand (she is right-handed) and heart condition are the kind of combination of health problems typical of someone aged 80+, She has struggled with the activities of daily living since her late 70s. The heart condition has been the primary cause of the dizzy spells and the falls. Frail? No. Over age 85? No. Care needs? Yes.


Yes, that's also true and I believe this is because so many people resist the move into a residential home. Many have substantial care needs for years before a major crisis finally catalyses the move into residential care.


Exactly my point but, unfortunately, it seems that many people fail to take this step in time. There seems to be a window of opportunity that closes by around age 80-ish. From that point any move is resisted regardless of the consequences of staying put. Denial is absolute until they suffer a serious injury or something equally horrendous. It's those (whom seem to be a minority) that make the move before their care needs escalate that appear to enjoy extended, independent lives.

I wish that my experience wasn't so bleak but the reality is that I know few people who have reached the age of 85+ without requiring substantial help to live independently, and the majority of those maintain the status quo only with the support of a partner/spouse/their children. Remove the family from that equation and the whole pack of cards collapses. Frequently that status quo is precariously maintained for some years despite the attachment to unsuitable housing.

I think that this reality is mostly hidden from view as those aged 85+ spend more time housebound because of health and mobility issues. I have only become more aware since the survivors of my parents' generation began reaching 80+.

The Age UK report confirms that my experience is not an anomaly. By age 80 many people have several age-related health problems: arthritis, heart disease, COPD, circulatory problems, etc, etc. and the older the age the more numerous and complex the health problems.

Of course these stats don't reflect individual differences. On one side of the bell curve are the lucky few who reach 90+ and live independently with minimal support. The other extreme includes those who (like my mum) reach retirement age already requiring full-time care. But this quote from the Age UK report I referenced above had me reaching for the vodka:

"... in 2005-07 a woman could expect to live another 10.7 years free from disability at 65, this peaked in 2010-12 at 11.2 and has now fallen back to just 10.9. Meanwhile men could have expected 10.2 years free from disability in 2005-07, peaking at 10.6 before declining to 10.3."

Yep, you read that right, the average (mean) age to begin suffering some form of age-related disability, for those who reach 65, is only 75! The report suggests that the average person can expect to experience increasingly complex medical and care needs after age 75 regardless of how long they live.

All the pundits emphasise the need to fund a 30-year retirement but nobody mentions that the chances are pretty high that 50% of that time will be spent suffering health issues. It certainly focuses my mind on the need to retire as early as possible. Every year you delay is deducted from the finite time available for a carefree retirement. It also puts a different perspective on the increase in sPA for younger people. To add to their woes their carefree years of retirement will reduce regardless of how long they live unless science finds a way to breach what appears to be a human genetic boundary.

I have revised my retirement plans around this previously unknown information. (sigh) Ignorance was bliss.

Having maxed-out those carefree years we will downsize to mobility-friendly accommodation around age 75 as that 'move resistant' attitude seems to appear from around age 80 (possibly as the result of the aforementioned health problems). This will release the cash needed to self-fund adequate, at-home care for self and spouse as-and-when, with help from a little extra added to the number.

Bob's-your-auntie. Sorted. Now I just need to play with the spreadsheet and then convince OH that retiring a couple of years earlier is both do-able and advisable. :think:

Thanks, sobering info. I am not sure reaching for the vodka is the correct reaction though...

Terron

lisyloo wrote: »

We visited about 20 care homes and some were dreadful - the kind of places people without family end up. It was difficult for us because Mum was borderline for residential and some places wouldn’t take her.

In 2011 I visited half a dozen care homes looking for one for my father. At the time he could not walk, weighed less than 40kg, had Parkinson's and a heart condition, but his mind was clear. Most of the homes seemed to be for the living dead. We narrowed the choice down to two and left the final decision to him.
His NHS pension covered the costs with little to spare.
He started to get better there, and regained the ability to walk for short distances. Unfortunately that is what killed him.He was supposed to get someone to watch him when he walked in case he got dizzy, but insisted on going to the toilet by himself.

Thrugelmir

Nual wrote: »

The most positive and cost effective thing anyone can do to prepare for old age is to age proof their home or move to purpose built older people's accommodation.

Far easier to look after oneself well. Eat and sleep properly. Exercise. Approach life with a positive attitude.

justme111

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Far easier to look after oneself well. Eat and sleep properly. Exercise. Approach life with a positive attitude.

Do you have any data showing that people who do so do not need care in later life ? We know for certain they still die.