Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

Fleurpepper

she is paying for it, with HER money- and then the sale of her home, which is VERY valuable. I can only imagine they want her to move to a cheaper home so there is more left eventually.

But that’s not their decision, it’s hers, and if she doesn’t want to move to a cheaper home they can’t force her. It depends on whether they authorised to act for her as Lasting Power of Attorney, and if so, whether they are acting for sound financial reasons - for example if the funding source won’t sustain the level of expense. If you or DD are sure of the facts it might be worth reporting to SS as a safeguarding concern. If the family does have her Lasting Power of Attorney, they have to include her in all decisions as far as possible and any decisions they make on her behalf have to be in her best interests, and where possible, with her agreement. If whoever is acting as her Attorney is going against her wishes, they could end up in serious trouble. If you know there is an LPA in place and you have concerns, report it to the office of the public guardian, and they will investigate. If an attorney is acting improperly, the court will appoint an independent guardian to act for her.

Credit cards!!!

she is paying for it, with HER money- and then the sale of her home, which is VERY valuable. I can only imagine they want her to move to a cheaper home so there is more left eventually.

Fleurpepper

Talking about care homes, one DD has been looking after her ery elderly neighbour throughout the pandemic and beyond. She had a fall a couple of months ago, and was taken to hospital and then to a Care Home. Fiercefully independent, she has found it hard to adjust, but is finally settling in the care home where she was placed. Her AC thinks the care home is too expensive, so wants to move her again to a cheaper one. She is distaught about this. When she dies, the AC will inherit of a house and very large plot in one of the most expensive places in the UK, and sell for a couple of millions or more!

Makes my blood boil.

Wow. So who’s paying for the care home ? It would be beyond most ordinary people without either the sale of their home to fund the care, or input from LA - which wouldn’t be until private funding has been exhausted.

My children can't foresee owning property until they get their inheritance from us or careers change. I wouldn't say they are frivolous but they spend money ensuring their children have a great childhood

Fleurpepper

One huge worry is that so many people nowadays have put off having a pension pot for far too long. to have more money to spend on other things, and realise too late that they will have to work into their 70s and beyond. Some will be OK because they will inherit from parents and sale of house, others ?????

DHs happily works into 78th year, must be an anomaly.

Talking about care homes, one DD has been looking after her ery elderly neighbour throughout the pandemic and beyond. She had a fall a couple of months ago, and was taken to hospital and then to a Care Home. Fiercefully independent, she has found it hard to adjust, but is finally settling in the care home where she was placed. Her AC thinks the care home is too expensive, so wants to move her again to a cheaper one. She is distaught about this. When she dies, the AC will inherit of a house and very large plot in one of the most expensive places in the UK, and sell for a couple of millions or more!

Makes my blood boil.

One huge worry is that so many people nowadays have put off having a pension pot for far too long. to have more money to spend on other things, and realise too late that they will have to work into their 70s and beyond. Some will be OK because they will inherit from parents and sale of house, others ?????

Grantanow

Care homes are run to make a profit. And residents who have to pay are usually cross-subsidizing those whose Councils are paying. The weasel Johnson claimed he had fixed the care system but I see no sign of change whatever. My mother aged 103 is still paying and when her money runs out I guess the local Council will insist she moves to a cheaper room or a cheaper care home as I can't afford to supplement.

The weasel Johnson claimed he had fixed the care system but I see no sign of change whatever.

Grantanow, in all fairness, the changes weren't due to come in until 2023 so you wouldn't see any change yet. However, I have a horrible feeling that this will all disappear with the change in leadership.

caretobedifferent.co.uk/how-relevant-is-the-coughlan-decision-today/
Local Authorities have never managed care homes for people with nursing needs, only homes for people who needed residential care. The need for residential care homes has drastically reduced with the advent of care in the community models, as people prefer to live in their own homes as long as possible.
What you are suggesting Doodledog would be a complete revolution in care management arrangements, as well as the taxation proposal, so a whole new service would be required. I’ve enclosed an explanation of funding arrangements and how they came about in case anybody is interested.

Care homes are run to make a profit. And residents who have to pay are usually cross-subsidizing those whose Councils are paying. The weasel Johnson claimed he had fixed the care system but I see no sign of change whatever. My mother aged 103 is still paying and when her money runs out I guess the local Council will insist she moves to a cheaper room or a cheaper care home as I can't afford to supplement.

On top of the £1400 per week we pay for nursing care, we have to pay for her nappies, podiatry services, hair cuts, toiletries, low sugar and fat yogurts, etc. Her nappies used to be prescribed but now she has a catheter fitted she is only on a couple a day for bowel incontinence so doesn't fit the criteria.

I am not against privatisation of services per se, if it can be demonstrated empirically that they are better and more cost effective, but decisions seem to be made on an ideological basis of “small state” and money saving, rather than a proper evaluation and comparison of cost and quality. I’m also concerned about regulation, accountability, training and fair pay.

When jobs of NHS cleaning staff were put out to tender to private companies many years ago (to save money) standards declined, along with wages and conditions. Privatisation has since accelerated without independent evidence to show that it is superior.

I agree Doodledog. I think the very notion that anyone should make a profit from the care of our most vulnerable people, whether they are older people, those with disabilities, or children is sickening and a terrible indictment of the type of society we have become.

Well if care were returned to LAs their figures would be audited and (presumably) available to the public. The charges would not include payments to shareholders or profits to business owners, so would save on those at least.

I am not suggesting that private homes should not exist, nor that they should not make profits. I am saying that after a lifetime of contribution to society people should be entitled to a dignified old age, and that there should be an option available to anyone who wants and needs care to get it provided out of taxation.

Katie59 You have missed my point I was asking people to think about the costs of having the care you get in a care home, if you had it at home. No, of course no one at home would be buying in all that care and would probably have all sorts of care provided by family. But when complaining about care home costs you need to compare it with paying others to provide the same level of care at home, including home maintenance, fuel bills, home insurance etc etc.

I think the costs would be frighteningly similar.

It need not cost a massive amount at home if you have family to help, certainly not £1000 a week.
Father lived in his own annex, at the end 2 ladies shared the daytime caring, and did cooking and washing too, LA carers came in twice a day to help, then 2 sons shared nighttime caring
Worked well

I forgot to include rates and taxes.

Once again the costs of running a care home are enormous. the one my aunt and uncle were in had an almost 1: 1 resident to staff ratio. We were there when a fire practice took place.

As well as carers( there was a 24/7 roster, so there were always carers on dduty) there were: catering staff, laundry staff, gardeners, maintenance man, cleaners, two clerical staff, manager. There were also activity organisers who came in.

Then there are the costs of owning the building, mortgage interes and the like, the cost of getting builders, electricians, central heating maintenance and repair people in to make sure the building is in good order. There are furnishings and equipment for helping residents; bath lifts, specialist frames to help staff move people around in dignity, all of these also need regular servicing, then, of course there are supplies: food, cleaning materials, the cost of meeting regulatory standards, insurances of many kinds.

Living in care is in fact very expensive and if corners are cut the results can be catastrophic.

Try and imagine the cost of paying for everything in your own house, the carer to be always in the house 24/7, then a cleaner, sending all washing out to a laundry, a cook coming in to provide meals, the cost of having the house kept in good order by tradespeople;, no worn upholstery, proper hospital bed, all the necessary servicing done, specialised equipment to help you move around, have a bath and so on. All this would quickly take the cost of your care at home over £1,000 a week, oh, I forgot the gardener, hairdresser, activity organiser, who would drop in 2 or 3 afternoons a week.

Doodledog

I meant that it can’t cost the care home as much as that, not that people aren’t charged that sort of money, Teacheranne. There has to be a lot of profit being made, given the low wages of care staff.

Mum was in a not for profit home, no shareholders or owners wanting a profit so I think costs were probably kept to a minimum. But it was a nice place, well looked after, decent sized single rooms with an en-suite, higher staff ratios than required by the QCQ and staff paid the living wage with good benefits. Everything mum needed was provided, no extra costs for toiletries, special diets or incontinence pads etc.

Obviously the organisation made some profits but they were ploughed back into the homes which were regularly refurbished or updated.

Casdon

It doesn’t cost that much. I just looked it up, according to Care UK the average weekly cost of living in a residential care home is £704, while the average nursing home cost is £888 per week across the UK.

Yes it does, my mum died two months ago and was paying £1100 a week to a care home which was run on a not for profit basis ie had no shareholders.

I could show you her bank statements if you don’t believe me! Care UK are quoting average costs across the country, mum was in a home here in the south part of Greater Manchester. Care homes in N Manchester or the NE are cheaper because property prices are lower, homes in the Home Counties or London are even more expensive.

volver

It was you who used the phrase people who haven’t made provision for themselves. Which to me suggests that you think there are people who haven't behaved as you would like them to.

Maybe somebody can explain this to me....

Apparently the nice homes accommodate people funded by the LA who didn't make provision for themselves. But people who can't pay for themselves get moved to other, not-so-nice homes.

It doesn't add up, does it? Both can't be true.

Some homes will accommodate residents at LA rates once their own funds run out, others won’t.

It’s a good idea to ask the care home when you are looking at it what their policy is about such situations. We did and that’s when we found out that Mum would not be evicted if her money ran out. Some care homes insist that new residents have at least two years of funding before they will admit them!

I meant that it can’t cost the care home as much as that, not that people aren’t charged that sort of money, Teacheranne. There has to be a lot of profit being made, given the low wages of care staff.

Doodledog

It can't cost £1600 a week to keep someone in a care home, can it? Particularly as medical care would be given in hospital where it is free at point of need. Yes, nursing costs are high, but we all know that care workers are shamefully underpaid, and most homes use carers rather than nurses. Even with gourmet food, trips out to exotic places and luxury accommodation £1600 a week to look after an old person must include a lot of profit.

Yes it does! And can be more in certain parts of the country especially if nursing care is needed.

My mum, in a not for profit care home, was paying £1100 a week and I’d just had a letter saying the fees were increasing by 10% to £1210.

Doodledog

icanhandthemback

The "unfairness" of the care system is much murkier than people with subsidising people without. If you need to be in a home with medical needs and you can jump through the hoops that the CHC system puts you through (with each local authority interpreting the rules differently) you can get all your care free regardless of savings. CHC has almost become impossible to get but in her area, the few people who have successfully applied are people who have professional qualifications and the ability to fight the system up to the Ombudsman.
I don't mind my mother having to pay for her care which is due to her medical needs if everybody has to if they have money. I do object to only those who have the wherewithal to fight to get their care fees paid despite their wealth. I also object to people who have had the same income/inheritance/lifetime earnings as her getting their care fees paid because they lived the life of Riley whilst she was taking care to provide for old age. I just don't think that is equitable but I don't know how you allow for it unless you tax for care at source so the money can't be frittered away.

Yes, the sharp-elbowed, those with clued-up solicitors, those who somehow hide their savings (no idea how, but still), and those who spend as they go all get free care, as well as the poor. The rich will often not need it, as they can pay for in-house care, or have enough of a cushion to spend without missing it, so it's Mr and Mrs Ordinary who lose out.

I think taxing at source (and not just PAYE, but any source of income) is a fair way of doing it. It's too late for we older lot, but an additional ring-fenced tax proportionate to income would mean that nobody had to worry about getting old and in need of care. I think only one in four of us need care, so as the cost would be borne by everyone it needn't be ruinous, and anyway it would be a progressive tax, meaning that higher earners would pay more.

Yep. This. All day long.