Care home fees?

monkeyspanner

Thanks for that infomation.

Paul_Herring

bryanb wrote: »

EdInvestor wrote: »

Unlikely because, as mentioned above, only a small number of people in care homes would need to sell a house to pay for care.

If you really believe this I find it hard to credit that you have much experience in this area. The care homes I've talked to in this area are mostly populated by LA funded clients.

One does not necessarily preclude the other.

bryanb wrote: »

House prices are continuing to fall. Many local authorities (and families) rely on the sale of peoples homes to cover the costs of care in later life. How will the present level of fees be met by the falling equity from future house sales?

What you may not realise is that it is the Local Authorities that dictate the price of fees, not the care homes. Self-funders are essentially subsidising the LS funded residents/service users/inmates/whatever they're calling them this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3727743.stm

Mark_Cooper

My Dad has been in a care home for just a year now he pays £1571 every four weeks.
His pension and other allowances come to just over £1300 every four weeks, we have just sold his house and the money has been put into a savings account paying 6.97% monthly so hopefully his shortfall should be covered and a small amount left over for spending money.

Mark

treliac

Of course the house is not taken into account if the spouse or dependant/carer/child over 60 is living in it. So the problem mainly affects widow/widowers with comparatively low pensions and no savings.

Then the assumption is that the house would no longer be needed by the resident and is best used to fund their care.

No pensioner is fully funded by the council as pensions, other income and benefits are taken into account. So say a care home resident received a state pension and higher level attendance allowance they would be paying about £130 a week towards their care home fees once the weekly allowance (pocket money) of about £20 is deducted from their assessed income.

Attendance allowance continues to be paid to self-funders (but not to council funded residents) so they do have a higher proportion of benefits to put towards their fees. The council funded residents only qualify for their state pension, from which they continue to receive their weekly spending allowance, the balance being contributed to their care costs.

What you may not realise is that it is the Local Authorities that dictate the price of fees, not the care homes. Self-funders are essentially subsidising the LS funded residents/service users/inmates/whatever they're calling them this week.

Whilst true, this is a delicate balancing act, alongside the interests of all tax-payers. When most care homes went into the private sector, they became businesses, out of which their owners expected good profits. The needs of residents can come low in their priorities (which is not to say that there aren't some very good homes out there!).

Love the comment on names. Wonder what they'll be called next week?

My Dad has been in a care home for just a year now he pays £1571 every four weeks.
His pension and other allowances come to just over £1300 every four weeks, we have just sold his house and the money has been put into a savings account paying 6.97% monthly so hopefully his shortfall should be covered and a small amount left over for spending money.

Looks like your family has it sussed. House sold before its price drops any more and hopefully the capital won't need to be broken into. Well done. Your dad seems to be paying a very reasonable price for his care though and lower than average.

You show that it is possible not to have to give away everything that mum or dad has worked for. When people talk of having to pay for care out of the proceeds of their house, they often talk as if the whole lot is going to disappear. This is unlikely to be the case.

Paul_Herring

treliac wrote: »

Love the comment on names. Wonder what they'll be called next week?

Just a comment on your posting style, typing [

<name> wrote:

rather than [

will help - you quoted more than one person in your post without attribution - confusing for most. (remove one opening bracket - it's the only way I could (easily)get the forum to display what I wanted to say, instead of interpreting them as actual quotes)

To address why I said that - I have relatives in, and working in, care. I am aware of CSCI (colloqually pronounced See-Sky, which they apparently hate.)

Aparently CSCI are to be soon replaced with another body (talking years, not months here.)

I await the turmoil with interest. I expect those working in the sector to be more affected than those 'using' the sector.

treliac

Thank you Paul. I am not going to 'quote' you at all now as, for some reason, I can't get the function to work properly.

The method I used in my last post was in order to reply quickly to various points from different posters, as I had not been following the thread as it developed. Hope it was not too confusing for everyone.

Re. CSCI - They have not proved to be effective in raising standards of care. They have only been in existence for a few years. I am sceptical about yet another body being any more successful. The problems that exist need a far greater understanding, level of funding and radical response than the government seems capable of.

EdInvestor

Mark_Cooper wrote: »

My Dad has been in a care home for just a year now he pays £1571 every four weeks.
His pension and other allowances come to just over £1300 every four weeks, we have just sold his house and the money has been put into a savings account paying 6.97% monthly so hopefully his shortfall should be covered and a small amount left over for spending money.

Mark

In many cases the same result can be achieved by renting out the property and using the rental income to top up the pension income and allowances in paying the fees.A care annuity can also provide an additional top-up at reasonable cost and tax free.

Mark_Cooper

EdInvestor wrote: »

In many cases the same result can be achieved by renting out the property and using the rental income to top up the pension income and allowances in paying the fees.A care annuity can also provide an additional top-up at reasonable cost and tax free.

We looked into this before we decided to sell the house, there seemed to be a lot of things that have to be in place before you can rent out, and dad being dad didn't want anyone in his house, I know there's someone in it now but he says that's different.

Mark

monkeyspanner

Paul_Herring wrote: »

What you may not realise is that it is the Local Authorities that dictate the price of fees, not the care homes. Self-funders are essentially subsidising the LS funded residents/service users/inmates/whatever they're calling them this week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3727743.stm

In addition to this if a fully self funder's savings reduce to the maximum savings limit and they have to rely on Council support they can be faced with having to move care homes.

The reason for this is that they have agreed a higher fee level than residents who received council support from the start of their care home residence. The care home refuses to reduce their fees to the council level, the resident is not allowed (under council funding rules) to top up their fees and has to rely on 3rd party fee top-ups from relatives/friends. If this is not available the council can then insist on a move to a care home that will accept the councils fee levels (unless no such placement can be found by the council).

treliac

monkeyspanner wrote: »

In addition to this if a fully self funder's savings reduce to the maximum savings limit and they have to rely on Council support they can be faced with having to move care homes.

The reason for this is that they have agreed a higher fee level than residents who received council support from the start of their care home residence. The care home refuses to reduce their fees to the council level, the resident is not allowed (under council funding rules) to top up their fees and has to rely on 3rd party fee top-ups from relatives/friends. If this is not available the council can then insist on a move to a care home that will accept the councils fee levels (unless no such placement can be found by the council).

If the resident's capital reduces and they become eligible for council funding, then they should move onto the usual price paid by the local council.

The problem can arise when a home does not have a contract to provide care for council funded residents at the relevant rate.

There are homes who have provided privately funded places to people who have had very little capital over and above the local authority qualifying amount and have not made them aware of the rules. Homes have either taken them in and failed to inform them or have not investigated how long they are able to pay for themselves. When the residents' funds have reduced, the obvious problems have arisen.

I believe that home owners who are making good profits out of the care system have responsibilities to their residents.

There are, indeed, some reasonable homes who will negotiate a lower price for residents who have already paid out their life's savings on their care and are petrified they may have to move somewhere else.

This is a situation that people looking at care homes and their families should find out about, alongside all the other questions they will be asking.