Avoiding nursing home costs

noelphobic

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Some are indeed, those who don't choose to go elsewhere. You can also go into a home at an earlier stage if you can afford to, or have private care in your own home. My grandmother was only in (an absolutely lovely) care home for a few weeks before she passed away, prior to that my mother was fighting for several months for state funding whilst she took up a hospital bed needlessly. I would note that my grandmother was not taking care of herself properly at home, had expressed a desire to go into a care home, was unhappy in hospital yet very happy in the home.

My grandmother got better care in the home than in the hospital because it was homely and the staff were working on the resident's mental wellbeing as well as their physical needs. Money means choice,and choices can mean better quality of care.

The home my mum was in was considered to be the best in the area and was the best that we could find. She would still have been able to go there even if she wasn't self-funding and would obvously have got the same standard of care. In her case having money (although she didn't actually have much) didn't give her any more choice. The only way it would have possibly have made a difference would have been if she was extremely wealthy and could have paid for one to one care around the clock in her own home.

noelphobic

Amber_Sunshine wrote: »

Life isn´t fair. When someone has assets that could fund their care, why should the state (ie taxpayer) pay so that their children can have an inheritance? And I say that as someone whose parent owns a house.

The taxpayer funds hospital care. If someone is in a nursing home because of serious health problems then this should be funded in the same way.

pineapple123

noelphobic wrote: »

The taxpayer funds hospital care. If someone is in a nursing home because of serious health problems then this should be funded in the same way.

But serious health problems are covered by CHC funding but not care the same as people with serious health problems recieve free hospital care but have to be discharged when medically fit even if they require all assistance with their condition.

phoebe1989seb

noelphobic wrote: »

The taxpayer funds hospital care. If someone is in a nursing home because of serious health problems then this should be funded in the same way.

Exactly - DH's mum had cancer caused by excessive smoking. She had a long and lingering death over very many months and was cared for throughout in an NHS hospital. Neither of us begrudged her this at all (although DH s vehemently anti-smoking) of course, but now we each have a parent with dementia issues - my mum with Alzheimers' is currently self-funding in a care home since my father suffered a fall due to a mini stroke and DH's dad is in a care home funded by the LA after being sectioned due to behavioural issues caused by then undiagnosed Vascular Dementia. DH's dad sold a (relatively low-priced) property a few years back - after his wife passed away - and gave most of the capital away. He has not had to pay a penny towards his care

pineapple123

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

Exactly - DH's mum had cancer caused by excessive smoking. She had a long and lingering death over very many months and was cared for throughout in an NHS hospital. Neither of us begrudged her this at all (although DH s vehemently anti-smoking) of course, but now we each have a parent with dementia issues - my mum with Alzheimers' is currently self-funding in a care home since my father suffered a fall due to a mini stroke and DH's dad is in a care home funded by the LA after being sectioned due to behavioural issues caused by then undiagnosed Vascular Dementia. DH's dad sold a (relatively low-priced) property a few years back - after his wife passed away - and gave most of the capital away. He has not had to pay a penny towards his care

He should not have to pay for care because he was sectioned due to behavioural issues.

phoebe1989seb

pineapple123 wrote: »

He should not have to pay for care because he was sectioned due to behavioural issues.

Ah, thanks pineapple123 - I wasn't aware of that. Fortunately DH has several older siblings who have been dealing with their dad's situation so we weren't that involved with that side of things. I'm not so lucky - being an only child, and with parents that had me relatively late in life - so have to shoulder all responsibilty for both my parents with only DH to support me.....

withabix

Amber_Sunshine wrote: »

Life isn´t fair. When someone has assets that could fund their care, why should the state (ie taxpayer) pay so that their children can have an inheritance? And I say that as someone whose parent owns a house.

So why should the taxpayer pay for ANYONE'S care?

If you can't afford it, your family should be looking after you in that case, NOT the State.

Fire_Fox

noelphobic wrote: »

The home my mum was in was considered to be the best in the area and was the best that we could find. She would still have been able to go there even if she wasn't self-funding and would obvously have got the same standard of care. In her case having money (although she didn't actually have much) didn't give her any more choice. The only way it would have possibly have made a difference would have been if she was extremely wealthy and could have paid for one to one care around the clock in her own home.

You are missing the point. Money buys choices, they may not be choices we wish to or need to exercise - we may not need care at all - but the choices ARE there. You don't know until you need the care whether the state funded place is decent, you can't plan that twenty years ahead because things change. You don't know if your children will end up relocating to the other end of the country for work and you want to follow them. You also don't know if the state will agree to cover the cost of care when you want it funding.

Personally I'd rather my parents have the choice of nursing in the own home, choose between every care home locally and every care home down south where my sibling lives, choose the day and time they go in instead of being beholden to the state. If inheritance is prioritised, many of those choices are taken away. My grandmother got the same standard of care ... but only for a few weeks instead of many months. That is not the best that money can buy in my book.

Fire_Fox

withabix wrote: »

So why should the taxpayer pay for ANYONE'S care?

If you can't afford it, your family should be looking after you in that case, NOT the State.

Because it's based on need and ability to pay, like housing and healthcare are for everyone else. UK citizens are expected to pay for their own rent or mortgage, food and bills, unless they cannot afford to do so in which case the taxpayer assists. It's standard practice not to get means tested benefits if you own a house you are not living in, that is an asset you could liquidise.

Not every older person has children, or only family that work full time or who don't have a spare room or who are in another country. The more the state spends on care, benefits and health the higher our taxers are, that hits those on a low income hardest. It's not right for, say, London teenagers on minimum wage to fund a care home place for someone who has a three bedroom house sat empty.

BobQ

When you say that your parents own the house outright you need to be clear if your father owns it or whether they own it jointly as either tenants in common or joint tenants.

If they have lived there for years its possible your father does own it outright as was commonly done 30 years ago. If so it would be possible for your father to change his will to leave it all to you in trust granting your mother the right to live there until shee dies. This is not depreivation.

If its joint tenants then the property goes to your mother. So your father needs to act quickly tonvert it to tenants in common. This only requires a Deed of Transfer to be drawn out and is very straightforward, If the house has been owned for a long time it may not hve been registered by the land registry which would make this even simpler. He would then beed to change his will of course.

This has dangers as others have pointed out, say you got married and then divorced, or went bankrupt?

One other point, if you live in the house and are over 60 the house will not be considered in the calculation.

Whether you could subsequently transfer all or part of your mothers share would depend on the situation but always be subject to consideration as deprivation of assets.

For example, you may be able to justify buying a further share from her. Obviously the money you paid her would have to be demonstrably at market rate and you would have to give her real money. Obviously this money would be an asset but if say she was able to spend it (in a demonstable way) then I doubt it would count as deprivation, although you should seek proper advice on this.

I had a similar problem a few years ago when my parents could not afford to deal with a cumulative number of house repair problems that needed about £20K of work. We wend to a solicitor and arranged for me to acquire a percentage of the property at a market rate. In return they got a £40K from me which the spend partly on the repairs and partly on two holidays they had always wanted to have with some left over.