To think that if you have the funds to pay for your care home needs then you absoloutley should?

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Interesting chat with a friend the other day about the extortionate costs of care homes and how if you live in social housing/rental and are on benefits then the government will pay for your care yet if you have "worked hard all your life and want to leave something for your kids" you are made to sell your home / use savings to pay for your care.

Friend is of the opinion that everyone who requires a care home should have it paid for by the government. So essentially a "hand out" yet also is of the opinion that those on benefits are getting "hand outs" and looks on them with scorn.

My personal opinion is that if you have the means to fund your own care home needs then yes; you absoloutley should pay for some or all of that. Why should the government fork out millions for every care home resident in the country so that a vast amount of them can then hand their properties and extensive savings down to their children?

It's simply not viable to fund 100% of care home needs across the country and if you are the kind of person who gets smug about "paying my way all my life" to the tune of living mortgage free in a 300k plus home with vast savings then you should be happy to continue "paying your way" til the end.

I also pointed out to her that as she will be funding her own care she will likely have more say in where she goes.

The end result was we both agreed the best solution was to swerve the care home altogether but I wondered whether I was BU to expect someone who can afford to pay for their care to actually pay for their care?

Perhaps not making that insurance compulsory? Just you'd have the say, £400k there and if you were a limit buster, you still lose your house. Pay more premium, have a higher limit? Shitty, I know, but at least it would be an option for people. Possibly it's available anyway.

The truth is that the amounts needed to fund your own residential care are so huge that spending on a few holidays, nice things etc here and there probably wouldn’t have made any difference to your ability to pay when the time came. What makes a difference is having one or more significant workplace pension and substantial equity in a home.

If you have either of these it makes sense to be required to pay for your care.

However because dementia is such a lottery (8 year life expectancy with average 4 years spent in residential care), it would make more sense for inheritance tax to be increased but hypothecated, so that the whole of IHT is used to fund social care.

I think people would understand the fairness of sharing the costs across everyone who has substantial assets, instead of just the unlucky few who end up needing long term care - after all, it could be you.

The more worrying thing is the demographic time bomb here. These generations are unique in a reasonable number of ‘middle income’ people actually having a decent workplace pension and equity in a home to fund social care. Not sure what is going to happen for the next generation, who are far less likely to have either of these.

Still reading the whole thread but for those against using their own assets to fund their care where do they think the money should come from?

Still reading the whole thread but for those against using their own assets to fund their care where do they think the money should come from?

Is it somebody else by chance?

Well you but who is that somebody?

CallmeAngelina

But is it the same care for free?

Yes, it’s exactly the same care.

It isn’t the same care if the care home only accepts self funders. More and more of them will do this as time goes on, they won’t need to accept LA reduced rates when they can fill their rooms at full whack. We’ve already reached that point where I live.

It is exactly the same care. Washing, cleaning, feeding and mobilisation are exactly the same regardless of finances. Just like the person who pays for a prescription gets the same medicine as someone who is exempt from paying for a prescription.

Do not get care confused with activities and entertainment.

If the homes won't take people who can't self fund , then where will they go?
This is such an important thread but it's all a bit depressing too!
I've not heard any politicians of any colour even mention any of these problems. Are they even aware of how bad it might become?

I can see it diverging as more people who self fund use separate facilities. The basic care might be the same but food, extra care and environment could be different. This will matter to some, maybe all, but it will be what self funders look for.

If this happens fewer state places will be subsidised.

People didn’t know to ask about subsidy but more and more they will.

can see it diverging as more people who self fund use separate facilities. The basic care might be the same but food, extra care and environment could be different. This will matter to some, maybe all, but it will be what self funders look for.

My experience with care homes is that nice food, a pleasant environment, care staff with the time to chat or provide gentle care instead of providing the bare minimum, some entertainment, and social contact/activities makes a massive difference that I think matters to everyone.

I think people are also vastly underestimating how very basic "basic" care is and can be.

My mum was self funding in a home that took a mix of state and self funders. this type of home is the most common IME, because self funders subsidise state funded residents.
The more up market private only homes are around double the cost, so the average self funder wouldn't be able to afford them.
Before she went into the home, she used to go to a day centre. She loved it. Lots of company, cheerful, engaged staff and volunteers, activities, crafts, hairdresser, manicures, hand and foot massage, chiropody etc.
As soon as she went into the home that all disappeared.
Most of the time the residents were sat in a living room area with only the staff choice of TV available. That was the 3rd home we had tried. Very boring for an intelligent, professionally qualified woman.
At £900 per week.

If it’s twice the price that is leaving a gap.

Why there aren’t purely self-funded homes that give you £1000 per week value without subsidising state places I wonder. This will still deliver more to that person than a mixed one.

This is indeed a timebomb and the system cannot carry on like this. It is unfair that someone who has worked all their life, saved etc is subidising others who havent. I do wonder if now that this is more known people will set their finances up so that they do not end up in this position/keep money in the family. What is to stop families providing the care and charging their relative if this work for their situation for example. We will certainly be downsizing and spending money on the children but hopefully euthanasia will be an option for us. I really don't want to be sat in a care home at 100's a week when I don't even recognise my own family.

I agree Milly.

Bookmark

Today 18:11 MarshaBradyo

There are - look at the grace well group homes. They only take self funders. No state or top up residents accepted. Prices start around £1200 per week.
No one subsidies state places. Either you pay a top up, to supplement the state payment or you end up moving to a home which asks the price the state is willing to pay - which varies from county to county but is usually around £500 per week for basic care.

endofthelinefinally

I’m sorry to hear what happened to your mum. Did they have a qualified, dedicated activities therapist? Too often people expect carers to provide entertainment. The sad fact is, they have neither the training, qualifications or time to provide activities beyond a basic chat and tv. And yes - it’s something which costs money and requires people to volunteer time, in addition to a paid activity therapist. People are quick to complain yet seldom volunteer to help.

I guess if you want the inheritance then you may need to consider taking the responsibility for caring for your parent(s) yourself...

Bargebill interesting

When you say
No one subsidies state places. Either you pay a top up, to supplement the state payment or you end up moving to a home which asks the price the state is willing to pay - which varies from county to county but is usually around £500 per week for basic care.

Do you mean just for that group or that no one subsidies state places across the UK at all?

Subsidises

Sick of means testing in this country meaning those that save and have decent work pensions, decent homes etc, get penalised.

If you are going to hand out free care to those that haven’t got anything you should hand it out to all that need it so that it isn’t a lottery whether you get to lose all your assets before you die and leave nothing or pass on a serious hefty inheritance to the next generation should you avoid care homes etc. All that does is lead to further inequalities in the next generation which causes a bigger gap between the haves and the have nots.

Personally I thing there needs to be a new tax to fund end of life care. That way everyone pays a bit and it is less of a lottery.

It won’t happen. We are obsessed with means testing in this country, penalising anyone who dares to earn a bit too much, taxing them more, but then denying them the privileges that tax pays for. I think I need to move to a Scandinavian country where the tax is high but everyone benefits whatever they earn.

From The Telegraph

The conclusion, highlighted in a separate report by charity Independent Age, also published this week, is that middle-class residents with modest property or other assets, who are thus forced to pay for their own care, are further subsidising those paid for by the public purse.

Not very up to date but hard to find stuff

Although if you’re saying that group only take self-funders but they then lose out on the state funding it’s not that great

Today 18:36 MarshaBradyo

Having both volunteered and worked and currently still working in the sector, for several firms and family run homes, as well as having had to use care homes for family members- it is my extensive experience that no one subsidies state funded places. So a home will not accept different prices for the same room dependant on wether it is self funded or state funded. If a state funded person is in the room which commands £850 per week, but the state only pays £500 the difference is paid by someone - usually family but could be a charitable foundation or other means of funding, to bring the payment back into that which a self funder will pay. This is for care - personal
services such as hairdressing, dentist, optician, chiropodist are always extra - self funding or not.
If no one will pay the difference then the resident will have to move to a home which will accept the council payment. The basic care will be the same. But the decor might not be the same level, food budget might not be the same, activity provision might not be the same, staff/resident ratios might not be the same. I say ‘might’ because, different owners and staff prioritise different things.

Exactly that Allegorical. I would willingly contribute.

I think the cost of cars is so expensive and the costs incurred to people who have few savings but have struggled to buy a property. It has inflated but it doesn't make them that well off itms, They have probably had high rates of interest payable in the 80s and it is a responsibility to pay a mortgage

Please don’t believe everything a newspaper says. It is very easy to make statistics say whatever you want. It’s a conclusion drawn from data which can be interpreted which ever way you want.
State funding isn’t a lot - around £500 per week. It does vary from county to county. Individuals may argue and get a small variance - but that’s very hard to achieve.
To provide high quality, persons entered care does cost. If care is treated like a price war between Tesco and Asda over the cost of baked beans - the quality of provision is also driven down.
There isn’t an easy answer - it is almost guaranteed though, that there will always be a perception that someone is getting more than someone else - because that’s human nature even if they are not.
Good care is dependant on getting the right staff with the right personality and ability, backed up with proper funding - wether that is provided by state of self funders. And yes - it costs.