Avoiding nursing home costs

Newbeginnings

Look into a family protection trust. A firm called WW&J McLures specialise in them. http://www.familyprotectiontrust.co.uk/

dorset_nurse

ILW wrote: »

£600 a week is a very cheap care home, it costs the state around that amount.

It depends on the area and level of care.

The local authority almost always has a lower rate in homes than private payer; it has to be or the care homes can't cover their costs.
A residential care home down South can cost from £320 for the Local Authority; you couldn't stay in a BnB for that price- let alone have 24 hour on-call care!
Private rates start from around £400.

Nursing homes start at £450 for the LA, and £550 for private.

There are fewer and fewer Local Authority run homes as the LA's are closing them. If this continues people will really need to have money to choose their placement as the LA will place people in the cheapest homes first.

There is talk about a new system where a certain amount of money is allocated to pay for care in a home for everyone to last a couple of years. After this amount the individual takes over the payments if they have assets, meaning that there is a higher chance of the person passing away in care (in those few years) and leaving more of their assets to their family.

Something definitely needs to be done to make the system fairer for everyone. Care homes are going bankrupt all over the place, and the staff are on minimum wage as there is no money to give them a payrise when the LA's pay less and less year on year when costs go up!

noelphobic

pineapple123 wrote: »

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.

My mum had dementia, Parkinson's disease and epilepsy. She was bed-ridden, doubly incontinent, had no speech and could not feed herself. She obviously had extremely serious health problems but was still expected to fund her own care. Very few people are granted CHC funding without fighting long and hard and even then many are refused.

noelphobic

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

I'm not missing the point at all. I understood exactly what you were saying. I was giving my point of view, which I stand by.

I think very few people would be able to afford care in their own home for any length of time. My mum did initially have carers coming in but their workload was so high that they would be in and out in less than half an hour. Paying for someone to be there around the clock would have been beyond her means, especially given the fact that she ended up being in residential care for 6 years.

noelphobic

seashore22 wrote: »

If there comes a time when I need to go into a care home, then I am quite happy for my home to be sold to pay for it. I wouldn't want to rely on the state to decide which level of care they are prepared to fund.

I would also hope that my children would care more about my comfort than a possible inheritance. If not, then they aren't the people I thought they were.

This is just my personal view and I don't expect everyone to share it.

I have worked and paid taxes all my life. I have also struggled to buy a house, pay a mortgage and deal with its ongoing upkeep. If i become ill I expect the state to care for me. I want to leave my house to my son but I know his priority would be seeing that I was looked after if I was unfortunate enough to become ill.

If I was a millionaire I would possibly feel differently.

noelphobic

dorset_nurse wrote: »

It depends on the area and level of care.

The local authority almost always has a lower rate in homes than private payer; it has to be or the care homes can't cover their costs.
A residential care home down South can cost from £320 for the Local Authority; you couldn't stay in a BnB for that price- let alone have 24 hour on-call care!
Private rates start from around £400.

Nursing homes start at £450 for the LA, and £550 for private.

There are fewer and fewer Local Authority run homes as the LA's are closing them. If this continues people will really need to have money to choose their placement as the LA will place people in the cheapest homes first.

There is talk about a new system where a certain amount of money is allocated to pay for care in a home for everyone to last a couple of years. After this amount the individual takes over the payments if they have assets, meaning that there is a higher chance of the person passing away in care (in those few years) and leaving more of their assets to their family.

Something definitely needs to be done to make the system fairer for everyone. Care homes are going bankrupt all over the place, and the staff are on minimum wage as there is no money to give them a payrise when the LA's pay less and less year on year when costs go up!

This is yet another injustice. People who are self-funding are subsidising the places of those who are LA funded. Even if I was to agree that anyone with assets of over £23kish should be paying for their own care (which I don't) then I don't see how making them pay towards anyone elses care can be justified.

I also think that staff are paid a derisory amount for a very difficult job.

pineapple123

noelphobic wrote: »

My mum had dementia, Parkinson's disease and epilepsy. She was bed-ridden, doubly incontinent, had no speech and could not feed herself. She obviously had extremely serious health problems but was still expected to fund her own care. Very few people are granted CHC funding without fighting long and hard and even then many are refused.

I understand what you are saying but NHS CHC funding is based on health issues not care as I said in previous post. Someone can need all help with everything and have alot of health problems and care needs but still not meet the criteria, PD and dementia is not seen as needing specialist nurse care but someone who is epileptic and its not controlled ie: prone to fitting on regular basis and has other care needs should be able to recieve funding because they need someone trained to cope with recognising symptoms, control and management of fit.

Amber_Sunshine

That is how I feel - I would rather my mum uses her money - note, HER money, it´s not mine - to be as comfortable and well-cared for as possible, should the need arrives. If I don´t get an inheritance, so be it. I just don´t have that sense of entitlement.

seashore22 wrote: »

If there comes a time when I need to go into a care home, then I am quite happy for my home to be sold to pay for it. I wouldn't want to rely on the state to decide which level of care they are prepared to fund.

I would also hope that my children would care more about my comfort than a possible inheritance. If not, then they aren't the people I thought they were.

This is just my personal view and I don't expect everyone to share it.

seashore22

noelphobic wrote: »

I have worked and paid taxes all my life. I have also struggled to buy a house, pay a mortgage and deal with its ongoing upkeep. If i become ill I expect the state to care for me. I want to leave my house to my son but I know his priority would be seeing that I was looked after if I was unfortunate enough to become ill.

If I was a millionaire I would possibly feel differently.

Well I am very, very far from being a millionaire. I was bought up on a council estate by disabled parents and they still live in a council property. My husband and I have also worked hard all our lives, paid taxes, bought a house, paid a mortgage and had to maintain the property. We live in a small, three bedroomed house with a tiny garden, which we love. So not sure that we are much different really.

When my husband or I are the last ones to leave our house and move into a care home (if that ever happens) we won't need the house any more. It will have served it's purpose and will then serve another ie funding our care. Why would I expect other tax payers to pay for that, so that my children can have an inheritance.

The country is in a bad enough state as it is. If everyone had their care fully funded the country would be bankrupt. I'm not trying to be difficult because this is just how I see the situation.

noelphobic

seashore22 wrote: »

. I'm not trying to be difficult because this is just how I see the situation.

I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it. I see the situation in a very different way so we'll just have to agree to differ.