funding of Care for the elderly

The most unfair aspect to me is that self funded residents may pay £1000.00 week but that same care home only gets say £500.00 per week from residents funded by the local authority. Very few get free care (only those getting CHC funding paid by the NHS). Residents funded by the local authority lose their state pension to pay for care (except for a small amount for personal expenses) and half of their occupational pensions. Attendance Allowance is also stopped. This can often leave a partner still living at home with financial problems.

In my forties I looked after my grandmother at home; 4 years ago I did the same for my husband - it ended up with a few months of palliative care in our home. Neither wanted to die in hospital or a care home. Even with help from the surgery in the case of the former & Marie Curie for my late husband, it was no picnic. And I was fortunate to have family support in both cases.

I decided to downsize to help my sons get on to the mortgage ladder. I am determined to keep myself fit and live my days here. I am currently fixing the house up to be easy to manage should I become infirm (a bit sad eh?) I do not want my sons to look after me although I will be grateful for their help and support. I don't expect to have funds left if I need care so this house will have to be sold if everything goes horribly wrong but at least my sons will have had some help from me.

I have supported myself by working all my life. I know I have been lucky to be able to do this and feel for young people these days. What future for them eh?

I just don't believe the government cannot put more
money into social care. They simply don't see it as a priority. The latest move to allow local authorities to levy more cash through council tax means that everyone, young and old, pays. Not saying it's wrong, just that's how it is.

health tourism is lagely a fallacy,its noting like what the mmsm say,most people who need emergency care would get it free ,on reciprocal arrangements ,certainly within the EU ,and as far as I'm aware commonwealth.Others PAY ,are invoiced .Another divide and rule tack by the tories to blame someone else for the mess THEY are making

The matter of 'health tourism' has been discussed before on GN. Do you have any real evidence of the cost, Rosina? How would you stop 'health tourism' anyway? The administrative costs of checking on everybody would almost certainly exceed the savings.

One relatively simple measure, which has been on the back burner for a while, is to stop the higher rate tax relief for pension contributions. It was hidden in Labour's 2010 election manifesto, but has now been shelved.

Pension contributions are paid tax free, which means that a basic rate tax payer, which most people are, get a 20% top up from the government to encourage people to pay into a pension.

However, higher rate tax payers get a 40% top up. Many small business owners avoid paying themselves an income which takes them into the higher rate tax bracket, but pay into a pension fund. It's likely that they won't be above the higher rate threshold when they retire, so they avoid paying 40% tax.

This is one of the reasons about 10% of pensioner households have assets of over £1 million. These are sometimes the same people who squeal about having to sell their family home to pay for care and object to inheritance tax.

Abolishing the higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would, apparently, save the government about £8 billion annually, which could be used to fund quality care for more people.

How much more would we have in the kitty to improve social care if we ceased the stupid practice of allowing 'health tourism'. This evidently cost billions every year. Those who have contributed nothing getting free first class treatments and operations and then going home, and yet carers here are paid a minimum wage for doing work that most of us would shrink from. I read last week of a carer in a remote part of the country who has to drive miles between clients (half an hour in some cases) and she is not paid for the journey time, not does she get a petrol allowance. She must be working for about two pounds fifty an hour. This lady also had fifteen minutes to wash, dress and feed her client. Utter nonsense, who could do that much for a helpless person properly in fifteen minutes? It is outrageous, and if these inbalances were addressed and carers recognised for the vital service they offer and paid accordingly, then we might have less of a problem.

By the way - if you cannot sell your home, the LA puts a legal charge on it and funds your care till the sale, when they have the right to recoup the money that is owed to them.

But would you want your children contributing large sums of money each week to your care? - I know I would not.

The intangibles are indeed the most important. I had to mop up the mess when the CQC closed the happiest home in the area - and these contented and slightly demented residents had to be scattered to the 4 winds with their belongings in bin liner bags. It was a disgrace. It broke my heart. Many of them died very soon after.

It was closed because if some discrepancy in the paperwork. The lady who ran it was a bit scatty in that regard, but her residents were very happy - they were allowed to behave as if it was their own home rather than sitting round the walls. What should have happened was that this lady should have received the support she needed to deal with the paperwork so that these residents could see out their years where they were happiest.

It was also slightly scruffy and I am sure that this swayed the CQC - a smart home with similar problems would have been kept open I am sure.

The tales I could tell of the fun the residents had in this home!! But it was all destroyed.

The trouble with retirement flats/complexes as they stand now, is that service charges are often sky high, and they can be the devil to sell. Which can be a real problem if the person later needs to, for care home fees. And even if it's standing empty for a considerable time, the charges still have to be paid.
From all I've read and heard over the years, it can be better to rent one of these, if that's possible.

Should have put WITHOUT the added expenses being put on families.

Its not just the elderly, there are young people, like my daughter, who are in a residential setting. I cared for my daughter at home, seizure 6 days a week, type 1 diabetic and learning disabilies, no respirte care and no help but I managed. My daughter like any other young person wanted to leave home and the only setting then was residential care. I found a lovely placement run by SCOPE for her but it was out of county and the council didnt want to fund it. Long story cut short I fought for the placement and she has been there for a good many years. All her benefits went to pay for her care and she received at the end £22 a week for clothes, social activities, washing powder and everything for her personel care and any holidays. I ended up having to help out and the Council tried to get me to pay a monthly top , which I refused. I am pleased to say that this year she has moved into supported living with SCOPE being her carers. I don't know what the answer is but we fund all kinds of unnecessary treatments on the nhs, large payrises for MPs and over the top expenses for MPs to name but a few. The care of our elderly and vulnerable is fundamental and somehow money should be found for it with the added expense being put on families. The selling of family homes to my mind is not a fair one. Rant over, off for a glass of Baileys.

If families can afford it then pay or at least make a contribution. Afteral what are we saving for if not to make our twilight years comfortable

I don't see why OAP villages couldn't be built with government help and people selling their houses when the time comes for needing care. The flats or bungalows could be sold at a later date to give the family their inheritance. I'm sure there are small complexes in this country already similar to what I am suggesting and they seem to work. Why not do this on a bigger scale and do away with the private companies absolutely milking the system/

Luckylegs wrote:
'If the person needs it and cannot sell their home to fund it, haven't the council got to find a care home funded by the tax payer.'
I think that's what happens now. But I was listening to a discussion about this on LBC, last week, and one caller said 'I'm a tax payer, why should I have to pay for the care of someone else's relative?'
Was he being mean, or was that a fair question? It brings up the whole subject of how the govt. allocates resources raised from various taxes. Similar to the problem hospitals have, when they say they can't afford a new expensive treatment.

From experience of so many over the years, the only way to find a home you are happy with, is to visit as many as possible person, and discount any that ask you to make an appt. just for an initial look around. And try not to be influenced by smart or 'stylish' decor.
My mother was self funded but although I don't know the proportions, there were a good many LA funded residents in her care home. She was there for very nearly 8 years and quite a few of the staff were there the entire time - always a very good sign. It wasn't 'smart' but was cosy and homely, and invariably warm and welcoming to relatives.
We looked at a lot before that one, which just felt right. Which was a massive relief, I can tell you.

Good post jane and it exactly matches our experiences. dh visited care homes on a daily basis and always maintained that LA homes were scruffy but lovely! But, as I said upthread, there are none (or very few) left here. That is where the cqc inspections fall down being based entirely on quantifiables - though, as Jane says, the really good bits are not measurable.

There are lots of la funded residents in Mum's home. It is my understanding that the LA negotiate a 'bulk' rate in privately run homes and, therefore, the privately paying residents are subsidising the la ones.

Having visited a fair few care homes in my time and also being involved in drawing up and monitoring care standards, there can be a somewhat undefinable quality that imbues a place. I wish that it could be easier to turn into easily scorable lists.
I've seen what look like pretty tatty places where every resident is completely happy due to loving care (no other words for it) by not particularly well qualified staff. I've also seen palatial residences full of lonely people but staffed by 'experts'. Most fall somewhere in between. I know where I'd rather be.
Staff attitude is key. A good kind manager can imbue a staff group with the right values. Sometimes an intangible atmosphere is perceptable almost on entry to a place.
Its the people that make the difference not the en suites or fancy menus! If only you could standardise people.

I don't have any experience on this subject, but surely relatives wouldn't have to pay for a relatives care. If the person needs it and cannot sell their home to fund it, haven't the council got to find a care home funded by the tax payer. In my case, It would be nice to pass on an inheritance to my children. I know mine would not look after me at home if it was required, so I would sell my home and fund it until the money runs out. I cannot see any other solution. There are some families that are close and wouldn't dream of putting mom and dad in a home and I wouldn't have let my own dad go in one as we were lose. I have not got that relationship with mine.

When I was working as a social worker with elderly people and frequently had to seek residential or nursing home places, there was no doubt at all that the residential homes that were run by the LA were infinitely superior. The staff had proper training and on-going support, and the turnover of staff was very low. When I started out they were more or less all LA homes, but gradually they dwindled until there were none.

The private homes were less easy to monitor and the staff lacked training and changed a great deal. Finding places for people became a nightmare. You just did not know where to feel confident that someone would get good care. It all became hit and miss. It was a seller's market and they could name their price, so costs went up.

There were undoubtedly some excellent homes still, but it was not easy to tell which were which, and it took a long time to sort out those where you felt confident that good care would be given. I expect there are still some excellent homes, but how do you know? The system of inspection is frankly nonsense and no help at all.

Agreed, but who loses out once you get to the stage when you need a care home? Shrouds don't have pockets. Reading this thread, it seems that those who have some money in their last few months/years do get more choice/better care.

If someone has never worked officially, they might have done cash in hand jobs, lived in a council house the chances are they are entitled to every benefit under the sun. If they have worked hard all their life and paid their taxes, into a works pension then their get nothing from the state.

Govts only think short term. Three to five years or whenever the next election is. We need to have proper long term strategy.

I wonder if it has occurred to the Government that the increasing numbers of young people renting homes because they will never have a chance of buying means an increasing number of people who will have nothing to sell if they ever need care?

Too many 'not's!