funding of Care for the elderly

Why do you think family members should have to pay for their relatives' care?

My mam and dad scrimped and saved to buy a house and pay into superannuation. My aunt and uncle had a lot more money but spent it boozy nights out every weekend. They lived in a council house.

If my mam has to go into a care home she will have to sell her house to pay the fees. My aunt could go into the same care home and have her fees paid.

It's not fair that a person who saved for their retirement should be worse off than someone who could have saved but didn't. (Not talking about someone who was never in the position to save).

I would not want my family spending money on care for me. Definitely not.

We cannot dictate how people choose to spend their money during their active lifetimes.

I cannot see any really fair way of funding care, which does indeed get more and more expensive. Quality care costs lots of money and if we do not spend that money we get poor care, something that none of us would wish to see.

The state cannot afford to fund it all, so the only answer is means-testing and residents themselves making a contribution.

I can see no other way, although I recognise that this bill will simply get bigger and bigger over the years.

I don't think families should pay for care, but nor do I think they should benefit financially from the person needing care not paying for it. Hope that makes sense. What I'm saying is that if a person has assets which can be sold, that's what should happen. If the inheritance is gone - tough! This would, of course, mean tightening up the laws about trusts funds, etc, so that people can't transfer assets to family and expect the state to pay for elderly care.

I have had no experience of family members in care, I cared for my parents at home, their siblings and their spouses , eighteen in total, were all cared for at home , some died in hospital and some in their own homes. I do wonder why there is such a change now. Did we just get on with it because it was what previous generations had done?

I think families are much more geographically spread out now.

I think that might explained much Anker

I think that there should be a radical rethink on how the money avaiable is spent. There are lots of pensioners who could manage perfectly well without wfp, free prescriptions, bus passes or TV licences. All of those should only be available to people receiving pension credit or other designated benefits. People who use a bus pass could pay a nominal amount (£10 Pa), similarly for TV licences - all small amounts but together they would make a significant saving.

This could be used towards social care, which should also be means tested.

It is ridiculous to suggest that families should support the elderly by paying towards their care but, equally, nor should they benefit from assets that could be used for that purpose.

I'm not sure what happens when our children need care as lots of them can't afford to buy property to use to fund it.

I really don't know the answer to this. It looks like it's going to be a worsening problem in the future. I think past governments have been frightened to tackle it. Telling the public we're going to add a £1(or more) on your national insurance contribution to pay for quality care in your old age Is hardly a vote winner. Would we trust them to put the extra money into a social care budget or not? Many of us think they'd mismanage the funds or use it to prop up another part of the economy. I don't feel qualified now that I'm so near to retirement to say anything but I'd have been willing to pay extra to fund care of the elderly during my working life. We own our own home and if it has to be sold to pay towards our care in old age so be it. If we're in a care home were there are other residents who get the same care for nothing that's tough. This is how we chose to live our lives as independent from the state as possible. Other people don't choose that route or have no choice. Why should the ordinary tax payer be forced to pay for our care just so our children can inherit some money.

If you break your leg you are treated in hospital for free. If you have dementia you are expected to pay for your care. Why?
It has been mentioned that children should pay. In north London weekly fees are up to £1500 a week.

Totally disagree that family should pay for someone's care.
This is a progressive problem, for which I don't have an answer.

I agree with you absolutely, morethan2, but I don't know the answer about how the formulas should work.

It always amuses me a bit when people complain about inheritance tax. As far as I'm concerned, it's the only tax I really don't mind paying, because I'll be dead when it needs paying. My children can make their own way in life.

As I understand it the Old Age Pension is given up when going into a home isn't it? The problem of increasing costs has also only come with privatisation of Carehomes and the need to make profits as far as I can see.

It is a difficult one isn't it! Care of whatever kind has to be paid for in one way or another. Nothing is ever free ever. The question as to how it is all paid for is very emotive as can be seen from this thread already!
If property is owned and used to finance care then there is at least more of a choice of the standard of care. There is no choice of care home if there is no property and/or no family able to give the needed care.
One of my friends has insisted that she will sort out her own care and says she has "hocked her house to an insurance company for as big an annuity as she can get so that she can pay for all the private care she wants whilst staying in her own home". She does not trust her family to look after her interests and fears 'they would put her into a cheap and miserable place which she would hate' in order to get the proceeds from the sale of her house! She may be right but I know that she has not told her family what she has done so they will be in for a very rude surprise if they are expecting an inheritance!

I know that it can be a difficult thing to have elderly and increasingly less able relatives living in your home.
My own grandparents lived with us for the latter part of their lives after living for some time with an aunt and uncle so that the caring was shared out.
All the siblings in the next generation (our own) helped to look after the next generation of parents. Sadly only one of them got well into her seventies, two got into their sixties and one was only in her fifties. I know that there are many GNetters caring for elderly relatives and that it can be very hard. I know that we were spared the caring that carries on into our own old age but I still wish they had stayed with us for much longer than they did.
DH and I were chatting about how we would cope if we needed care and were roundly told off by our own DC for even thinking that they would not care for us themselves. I am fully aware of how draining and trying elder care can be but must admit I don't want "to go into care" as they call it but then neither do I want to be a burden on our younger people. The oldest DGC who is only just a teenager said that if they looked after us then the house wouldn't need to be sold and perhaps one of the DGC could live in our house one day. I thought that was very interesting and far thinking! Clearly they will have earned the right to inherit our house if they look after us that is certain, even if we do try really hard to be lovely and not to be crotchety old people!

Most of us will be hoping that we all keep well and able to look after ourselves right to the end but not one of us knows what the future will bring. The only sure thing in this life is death and taxes!

I was in the fortunate position of being able to look after my Mum at my house when she became too ill to look after herself . Not everyone is able to do this for various reasons , but if possible this is surely the best and kindest thing . Care homes seem to have become phenomenally expensive and really need some form of control on fees - a bit like private rental landlords do . The latest proposal of raising council tax to pay for elderly care will not even touch the sides of what is needed . The whole thing needs looking at properly instead of more crack pot ideas which will go no way to solving the problem . The people who own the `Care` homes are in it to make money obviously, perhaps lots more council run ones with properly trained and paid staff is the way to go . I just hope I die in my sleep before I get to that stage even though my children have said I will be moving in with them if I ever need to .

Whoever came up with the idea that family members should pay for their relatives' care needs a good talking to. We were recently asked to provide a substantial sum for MIL's care ( London prices). What do you do? Refuse and incur the wrath of the relative, or cough up and cut out the money you spend on your GC's activities, deny yourself those well earned holidays or cancel your home insurance and hope your house doesn't get flooded?

May I asked who asked you to pay for MiL care Lillie ?
Care homes may ask you for "top ups" which is extra money to cover a larger room or one with en suite or extra services. but families are not responsible for fees.
As another poster said the state pension is taken for care home fees. The person is left with £20 (may have changed) per week for personal expenditure such as hairdresser, toiletries, newspapers.

In France relatives are expected to contribute to a parent's care. A dd has a French colleague who is expected to pay a substantial sum each month - which she really struggles to afford - towards her father's care.

Here, AFAIK, if the person's assets are not enough to pay for their care, relatives cannot be required to pay top ups. If social services have deemed that the person needs residential care, it's up to them to find a suitable placement.

However, with fees endlessly rising, and more care homes closing, it is presumably often very difficult to find anywhere both affordable, and with a room available.

We have had 3 self funders in this family, all with dementia, and all their houses had to be sold. Personally I had no objection to this, and from all I've read and heard over many years it was a great 'blessing' that we could choose the time and place, and did not need to be dependent on social workers, who (understandably, given the cost) are so often anxious to avoid care home placements as long as they possibly can, even when relatives doing their best to care are on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

In Australia and NZ I understand they have Retirement Villages, where you buy an apartment whilst you are hale and hearty then gradually as you age, take up more of the in house facilities designed to help older people in the complex.

I understand that these complexes have sports and leisure facilities and beauty treatments, as well as medical and home care arrangements for those who grow to need them. They are funded of course from people selling their house and downsizing. But it sounds like a model we could consider in this country.

Before we all end up on the scrap heap as successive governments fail to find a workable solution.

I guess we are The Elderly in our family , OH has carers coming in , DD1 comes in every evening to tidy up , I cook and feed OH . It is not great but OH was in a Care Home after hospitalisation and we are very anxious that he should not go back there . Obviously the Carers are funded but probably not as expensive as the Care Home , so I guess we are lucky and we do pay for extra help as and when . I see no reason why we should object to paying

Might add that what really makes me mad in discussions about elderly care, is when politicians or celebrities piously tell us how dreadful it is that we put any of our elderly in care homes at all - we should care for them ourselves, as they do in other countries - which is in any case not true.

The fact is that many, many people do their absolute best to care for relatives at home as long as they possibly can, but nobody who hasn't done it can begin to imagine how hard and exhausting it can be to care for someone with dementia. All too often it is NOT a case of a dear old thing just getting a bit more forgetful, and merely needing a little kindness and patience and lots of cups of tea.

Retirement villages are all very well for those who have all their marbles. It's a different matter for anyone with dementia, who will eventually need constant care and supervision.

Over the years I have heard of many cases of someone with not too bad dementia going into their own 'extra care' or 'assisted living' flat, but so often, sooner or later - and maybe sooner - it is no longer viable, since the person is constantly locking themselves out, knocking on neighbours' doors at all hours of the day or night, maybe getting aggressive and accusing neighbours of stealing things, wandering off and getting lost, etc.

ninathenana, MIL herself asked us for the contribution but DH smelt a rat when he had to sign a monthly direct debit, the amount of which would no doubt have risen year on year. We assume she may have been wanting a top up for a specific home as all her pensions were taken as you say. In the end we refused and she took umbridge, no longer speaking to us.

My cousins' in-laws in Holland live in a sort of retirement village which has medical services as they become more infirm. The wife became bed ridden, and was moved to a different building, but the husband could visit her anytime of day in the same complex. He still lives there after her death. Great continuity of care.

I did say families should HELP to pay, not the whole lot. If they can afford it. Raising the money from taxes etc means that other people are in fact paying for your parents care, is that right? Where do you think the govt. gets the money from?
I agree that these retirement villages sound ideal, but the prices are very high, not many people can afford to buy in such a place.