Avoiding Care Home Costs

moggitymog

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

The quality of care for those who receive funding compared to those who pay for it themselves varies hugely

i know which I'd prefer.......

There is no difference in quality of care

Fang_3

moggitymog wrote: »

There is no difference in quality of care

Oh yes there is. And rightly so.

Torry_Quine

Remember that everyone pays something towards their care. Those who have used up any savings they may have had will have to give virtually all their pension income and be left with a small amount for personal spending!

As to quality of care my relative is in the same home with the same care for over five years. She was self funded initially but her money soon diminished. The staff have no knowledge of who pays and who doesn't and it makes no difference to the care the residents receive.

Everyone is entitled to good care in their old age.

Fang_3

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Remember that everyone pays something towards their care. Those who have used up any savings they may have had will have to give virtually all their pension income and be left with a small amount for personal spending!

As to quality of care my relative is in the same home with the same care for over five years. She was self funded initially but her money soon diminished. The staff have no knowledge of who pays and who doesn't and it makes no difference to the care the residents receive.

Everyone is entitled to good care in their old age.

The better care homes often don't take the socially funded. That is where the difference of care comes into it.

lynzpower

moggitymog wrote: »

There is no difference in quality of care

Patently totally untrue.

What a baffling statement!!

If there wasnt, what would be the point of the Care Standards commission and inspections??

Yes you might find some lower cost one providing superb care, likewise some expensive ones providing terrible "care" to say there is no difference between the services denigrates the very hard work many care staff put in and the commitment to protecting rights and choices in care settings.

Torry_Quine

Fang wrote: »

The better care homes often don't take the socially funded. That is where the difference of care comes into it.

This isn't the case in my experience as I've previously said.

lynzpower wrote: »

Patently totally untrue.

What a baffling statement!!

If there wasnt, what would be the point of the Care Standards commission and inspections??

Yes you might find some lower cost one providing superb care, likewise some expensive ones providing terrible "care" to say there is no difference between the services denigrates the very hard work many care staff put in and the commitment to protecting rights and choices in care settings.

There should be the same basic standard of care whoever is funding it. If you can afford it you can pay for extras but not to ensure good standard care.

lynzpower

Torry_Quine wrote: »

This isn't the case in my experience as I've previously said.



There should be the same basic standard of care whoever is funding it. If you can afford it you can pay for extras but not to ensure good standard care.

Im not doubting that at all.

The problem is at the lower end you often find a lot of unskilled workers and a great deal of "churn" which can confuse and worry residents, and an over-reliance on agency staff. I worked in london so many of the staff were from overseas, language barriers can also affect vulnerable older people especially if thier hearing is failing a little.

There were also issues of understaffing, that means care not given at the right time. Also there were issues of personal choice that understaffed units couldn't support, such as when residents wanted to eat/ get dressed/ be washed/ got out of bed etc.

I worked for a short time in Adults Social services and was taking complaints from family members regarding concerns regarding the homes they were resident in. It ranged from abuse to neglect to theft. It is my personal view that these things happen in residential units where there is more staff churn and more agency staff as this can become invisible.

samandona

Going back to the OP's original question; No it doesnt look as though there are any other options. The elderly woman is in a position to fund her own care and probably should do so. Its a shame that she is more concerned with inheritence than enjoying what years she has left. Sad....

Morgan_Ree

moggitymog wrote: »

There is no difference in quality of care

Erm yes there is
To say there isn't you're either extremely naive or completely clueless

Torry_Quine wrote: »

There should be the same basic standard of care whoever is funding it. If you can afford it you can pay for extras but not to ensure good standard care.

Well of coruse there SHOULD be the same high standard of care across the board
But there isn't. End of

I'm honestly shocked at the number of people seemingly happy to recieve funded care rather than pay for it themselves
I'm guessing these types have never set foot in any elderly care setting (funded of course!)

lynzpower

Morgan_Ree wrote: »

Erm yes there is
To say there isn't you're either extremely naive or completely clueless





Well of coruse there SHOULD be the same high standard of care across the board
But there isn't. End of

I'm honestly shocked at the number of people seemingly happy to recieve funded care rather than pay for it themselves
I'm guessing these types have never set foot in any elderly care setting (funded of course!)

Hate to say this as I knows it comes over a little judgey but I sometimes find those who are happy to receive this low-level state funded care are not the elderly person themselves ( although of course some will receive superb care as weve said) but their offspring who wish to get their "entitlements" as per the OP.

IME they are also the same people who complain that their beloved parents are not given choices in food/ not enough staff to ensure that their parents are fed properly or that social and leisure facilities are not varied enough.

Just my experience