Kate Garroway-Care at home costs

A newspaper has reported that her second London home, worth less than her main residence, is valued at £1.8 million. Could she have let it or raised money in it?

On, not in

Germanshepherdsmum

I know he originally gave his consent, but he deteriorated to the point where that was not possible. Giving consent once does not necessarily equate to giving irrevocable continuing consent. He is unlikely to have known how his condition would progress as little is known about the long term effects of covid.

Was being told of his double incontinence necessary?

Yes it was, incontinence is one of the things which breaks most carers and their loved ones end up in a care home because the carer can't cope. We need to bring more awareness so the government & local councils become much more aware of the strain this has on the carers. More training, support and education on this is required and of the availability of free pads and other equipment. Carers need to know where they can turn to for help and support when their caring role reaches this stage. People often feel ashamed to discuss this issue, and often try to pretend this is not. happening. The more awareness the better.

I understand that, but did he consent to his double incontinence, with all that entails, being known to all and sundry?

I agree.
Kate has done an excellent job of highlighting the problems, sensitively, because she realises she is in a "better" position than most, earning wise.

People seem not to like that, unless it is them who are the high earners.

Then we are told "life is unfair, it'll never be equal".

Kate is an advocate to alllllll carers. She has a platform to raise this necessary issue. I have nothing but admiration for her.

Serendipity22

Kate is an advocate to alllllll carers. She has a platform to raise this necessary issue. I have nothing but admiration for her.

I agree👍

SallyatBaytree

The whole care system must be reviewed..an example I know of:
My aunt was in residential home for years, and had to fund herself as she' did not have nursing care needs'. Even though she couldn't get out of bed or bath without z hoist, and at times needed feeding ,toileting etc. She was deaf and at times very confused. She used all her assets in fees .
On the other side, friend's mother is eligible for paid for [ by state] in a top of range care home , like a hotel because she was MHA,sectioned aged 17 . She has been stable and mentally well for 60+ years, and the family are millionaires!! I believe that because she was sectioned once she falls under Section 117 of MHAct which means she is funded ongoing.

I do not understand half of these posts and the confusing about funding care. Regardless where and how much care you need it comes down to your own financial situation. It is quite simple if you have more than £23500 in savings you pay for your own care, if you have below you are partly funded, once your money is below £16.500 you become fully funded.

Also care at home plus what they now call hospital at home is what everyone is pushing for now. We simply have not got enough care homes nor care staff to cope. They are instead relying on family and friends doing hospital at home which is very much cheaper than having treatment in the hospital and not blocking beds. I have been a carer 3 times for 20+ years in total and had CHC for 2 of my cared for because of their health needs only not social needs, that is not means tested and awarded as I say for NHS needs only. As someone else mentioned somewhere else of this thread, the cared for requirements needs to be unpredictable which helps a lot towards this, but remember a managed need is still a need. You can study the "tools" as they call them and it is easy to see when you should qualify, if they say you don't and they often do these days you can fight if you have the energy, which lots of carers don''t. Fortunately for me I did not have to fight for CHC at all, once was fast tracked so only covered 3 months the other covered 6 years. I am however talking about 10+ years ago and realise things have changed a lot since then with being successful applying for CHC, but charges for social care, nursing care and care homes still stand the same as always and is means tested. Kate would therefore have had to pay if her husband did not qualify for CHC. She would however have received the nursing contribution for sure to help with this.
To sum it up there may be different costs depending on needs but everyone contributes at the same level according to their means testing. (I am aware that MH have different rules once sectioned under 117)

Germanshepherdsmum

I understand that, but did he consent to his double incontinence, with all that entails, being known to all and sundry?

That I can't comment on, I know he wanted to tell his story, but how far that story went in his mind at the time, we will never know. Personally I think the filming was too intimate but bringing awareness verbally is a totally different things. Possibly not with the same impact though. Kate is certainly making an impact.

MissAdventure

So people shouldn't be allowed to die at home, because being in hospital is cheaper?
I mean at the very end of someone's life.

Palliative care is CHC funded is you are expected to die within weeks you should and would qualify

but charges for social care, nursing care and care homes still stand the same as always and is means tested.

If you are in a care home for a medical need, all of your care regardless of it being social care will be paid by CHC. To me, this is where the system is wrong. I would happily pay for the care that my Mum would need if she didn't have medical needs but the Nursing Care she needs costs way beyond the Nursing Contribution which in any case, the Nursing homes often keep above the care costs. It seems outrageous that CHC will pay for everything including your food if you qualify (although I realise if you were in hospital this would be included). Similarly, if your Nursing Home costs more than average because it is the one you've been in for a while, the CHC will be forced to pay a greater amount rather than having a cheaper home. Once again, I would be more than happy to choose where my Mum went and pay the difference.
CHC also depends where you are. In West Sussex, you pretty much only get palliative care. In Hampshire, it is stringent but you do get funded more often. In Portsmouth they are much fairer in the way they assess. That should not be the case that it is a postcode lottery.

I also meant to say that CHC is not means tested and they are not allowed to do a financial assessment. However, if you are wealthier, Social Services will avoid helping you get CHC because as long as they don't have to pay, they are not bothered. They'll attend the assessments and argue your case if you don't have funds and they'll end up paying the bill because you don't have funds. The system is shite.

Agreed Icanhandthemback

icanhandthemback

^but charges for social care, nursing care and care homes still stand the same as always and is means tested. ^

If you are in a care home for a medical need, all of your care regardless of it being social care will be paid by CHC. To me, this is where the system is wrong. I would happily pay for the care that my Mum would need if she didn't have medical needs but the Nursing Care she needs costs way beyond the Nursing Contribution which in any case, the Nursing homes often keep above the care costs. It seems outrageous that CHC will pay for everything including your food if you qualify (although I realise if you were in hospital this would be included). Similarly, if your Nursing Home costs more than average because it is the one you've been in for a while, the CHC will be forced to pay a greater amount rather than having a cheaper home. Once again, I would be more than happy to choose where my Mum went and pay the difference.
CHC also depends where you are. In West Sussex, you pretty much only get palliative care. In Hampshire, it is stringent but you do get funded more often. In Portsmouth they are much fairer in the way they assess. That should not be the case that it is a postcode lottery.

Yes I cannot disagree with any of that. I think we all agree the system is not working fairly and needs a complete overhaul, including a care cap which is transparent.

I read that Kate has a second home also in London

It would have been taken into account.

MissAdventure

It would have been taken into account.

Yes it would if it is in Derek's name or joint names, they home they reside in is disregarded but a second home is very much included in the means testing.Not that I think they ever had one done as it is is obvious Derek owns more than £ 23500. What Kate earns is totally unimportant it is only Dereks own savings and income which counts.

Very little has been said about the plight of the paid carers. Many of them deal with a number of patients each day. They are not paid for the time taken to travel between patients and their pay is low compared to the amounts that the agencies charge.

My BIL was ill with Parkinsons and was cared for at home by his wife. She had a carer in twice a day for 6 days to get him up and put him to bed. The carer claimed mileage from the agency who reduced the amount paid because "everybody exaggerates their mileage" and VAT was deducted. I could not get my head around why this should be the case because the carer was not charging it and, obviously, was not VAT registered.

Considering that the carers had an establish round there should not have been a problem in establishing the mileage of each carer.

The criticism of Kate Garraway here has been cruel,she found herself living a nightmare for 4 years, her husband aged 52 fell
seriously ill. What did we know of covid? . She coped in a way
which helped her deal with 4 years of anguish, now in grief she
faces criticism

I think she has done a very good job. In my opinion.
Having a very large salary helps. In some ways. You can throw money at some of the problems.

I suspect, that if it were to have been the other way around, he would have acted in much the same way.

They are both used to being in the media.

Germanshepherdsmum

I understand that, but did he consent to his double incontinence, with all that entails, being known to all and sundry?

"with all that entails" do you mean a
catheter and someone to clean him?
It's all very normal for many people needing care either at home or residential.

Lilyflower

A newspaper has reported that her second London home, worth less than her main residence, is valued at £1.8 million. Could she have let it or raised money in it?

Its been reported that it was rented and money had been raised against it.

All my working life I have been a carer, both in nursing homes, a private carer and also home care. The pay was absolutely dire, we didn't get paid for travel time, but for me i threw 100% of myself into the job I loved.

At times ( which was most of the time ) the amount of calls I had ( Homecare )) was beyond uncaring, no thought whatsoever to Mrs A or Mr B, we had to literally be IN and OUT like a scaled cat, i know my comments dont allow for financial input because to be honest with you, i was at the other side of the fence, where we shot in their home, carried out the jobs which were needed for that particular person and back out the front door.

I could write a book on the amount of calls that were squeezed together, many, many a time i gave up my own time to allow Mrs A or Mr B extra time, with the intention of not rushing them, it was shocking and I didn't agree whatsoever.

We had we be a counsellor, a cook, cleaner, personal provider, 'friend' and SO MUCH MORE.

I havent mentioned financing it all because as I say, I was on the other side if the fence, but I loved my job with a passion and saw sooooo many carers leaving and stressed out, which was perfectly understandable.

I admire and so respect Kate for being a voice for both carers and the person who has reached a time in their life that they need help.

THANK YOU KATE.

As Kate said, someone could get hit by a car at age twenty odd and end up with the same frailties.

icanhandthemback

I also meant to say that CHC is not means tested and they are not allowed to do a financial assessment. However, if you are wealthier, Social Services will avoid helping you get CHC because as long as they don't have to pay, they are not bothered. They'll attend the assessments and argue your case if you don't have funds and they'll end up paying the bill because you don't have funds. The system is shite.

They don’t want to fund any of it even if you qualify. All wealth might do is but you legal advice and representation