To be shocked that Derek Draper didn’t qualify for NHS Continuing Healthcare

[Mum1976Mum]

Just sat down to watch the latest Kate Garraway documentary. I am absolutely shocked that Derek didn’t qualify for NHS Continuing Healthcare funding as his needs weren’t deemed high enough. This funding isn’t means tested so how much money they have isn’t relevant.

I have some experience of this as we had to claim for my grandad about 8 years ago. He had sarcoma and had to have his leg amputated. He had a prosthesis fitted and was actually pretty active! He could do a lot of things for himself but struggled with self care (showering) and he qualified for the funding.

I honestly thought that, should the worst happen, and someone needed a substantial amount of care that they would qualify. Watching the documentary, Derek needed help with absolutely everything! How on earth did he not qualify?

We get the society we deserve. I think it was Theresa May who proposed an insurance system for complex care needs in old age and it never made it through to policy?

We can’t have our cake and eat it. If you want to give your children an inheritance, do it whilst you’re still alive. And I don’t think the State should have been funding Derek’s care needs if they have multiple houses. I’d much rather live in a world where all care is high quality and free at point of use but no one will pay appropriate taxes, or responsibly address social problems that cause huge care bills.

The help dressing, not being able to cook his own meal, help getting in and out of the shower is what PIP is for. That's how they access points.

On a practical level how does this all work? Basically do NHS departments assess patients and then inform the tax department before death/when someone dies? I have never personally had involvement with this.

Its got a lot harder to qualify over the last few years presumably due to budget.

My dad technically qualified for it- he had dementia and Parkinson's and loads of health needs so not just social care- he required full time nursing care. On the assessment forms they told me him being aggressive to nursing staff "didnt count" because he wasn't doing it deliberately, it was a result of his illness! Thats not what the forms said, the forms asked if there was aggressive behaviour - there was. But they said he didnt mean to do it, therefore they were going to put "no" to that question. I challenged it legally but still lost. Its disgusting. They are very obviously lying the assessment forms.

@SloaneStreetVandal I'd say the opposite. Reading threads like this makes me all the more keen to try to put money aside so I can pay for care if I need it.

I see threads on MN where people say they plan to live it up, take holidays, "you can't take it with you" etc, expecting "the state" to fund their care in future. TBH, I look at the mess this country's in and think "good luck with that"

So after reading frightening examples above one must surely wonder when will euthanasia be legal in this country? I understand Dignitas is quite expensive but nothing compared to having to pay forced care costs. I don't really ''approve'' of suicide but do believe the old sick/very old should have a reasonable quality of life and care if they are legally required to continue living - without incurring huge financial costs.

She's having to sell her second home bless her cotton socks

Absolutely appalling.

She alluded to the fact that she brought him home on her own decision when being interviewed. She decided to fund home nursing whereas he was being cared for in hospital.

Chc is not a limitless budget, we were told our relative needed to increase to 24/7 so a care home was the only thing they would fund.

But @Voerendaal any money you do manage to save is to help you and pay for your care. It's lovely that you can help your daughter through University but she won't be planning her life and finances around inheriting from you.

Why should he qualify?! They have two million pounds plus houses!

You missed the point of the OP. It's not means tested but even if it was he still wouldn't have qualified as his needs weren't serious enough

I’m so very sorry about your mum’s death @saraclara
So what happened once her own assets ran out? Did family have to step in?
This thread worries me a lot.

We know how to keep people alive but we don't know how to care for them.

Why should he qualify?! They have two million pounds plus houses!

Because it's funded by the NHS- who are responsible for our health needs. Mega rich people can still get treated on the NHS if they break their leg or need an operation, they dont have to go private, they still get treated by the NHS because thats what they pay taxes for. Thats exactly the same as CHC funding. Fair enough if they want to make the NHS means tested but currently it isnt so therefore they shouldn't be lying and twisting assessment forms. If you would like NHS as a whole to be means tested then that may mean that next time you need an operation you may not qualify for it if you have assets/savings above a certain amount- are you ok with that?

I think this is the clincher really. With homes worth almost a combined £4m, poor old Doris down the road in her 1 bed council flat living on a pension and no savings and various medical needs is more likely to be the most needy. Derek was also quite the advocate that the rich should pay for their own healthcare.

We all know that when it comes to care it’s means tested. I’m sure Kate can cover the bills I’ll save my sympathy for those who can’t.

That’s not true though
my DD is not end of life care and gets 40 hours a week

I think whether you qualify is partly down to the assessor. We had a lovely former paramedic, he asked me lots of questions, he asked if they had savings (not significant but over £23k) if there was any assets other than the home (no, that had one of those lifetime mortgages on it too), who was caring now (90 year old) and he said on the spot she qualified with severe dementia (violent and kept escaping), doubly incontinent, etc. I handled the personal budget allocated (12 hours per day) until she needed 24/7 when they would only fund a care home. This wasn't that long ago, 6 years. But I think that they were living in a modest house, carer was elderly, and so on played into getting the funding. I can't be particularly sympathetic when people own 2 houses and own a substantial income way above normal, though I'm of course sorry for their loss and the whole situation, especially the kids, on a personal level because it's a horrible thing to have happened.

But there's a limited pot of money and a rehab facility or care home can be a better option for us to fund, tough as it is for families. Dsd lives in a small care facility so we are quite aware of the options out there

But people used to save for their old age - now it seems they save to pass it on to their children. But someone has to pay for old age - if you have assets, surely it should be you? Why should I pay more tax so people can pass on an inheritance, taking more out of my earned income to give unearned income to someone else's children? If you have substantial assets, then I think it is reasonable you pay for your care (not medical) needs. The NHS is a health service and regularly treats illness and saves lives. It was not set up to provide non medical care.

I feel terrible for the Garraways for all sorts of reasons. But why should taxpayers fund care when they have such significant assets?

Inheritance is nice to have for descendants to have - but not a right to be protected at the expense of the public purse.

my parents have a decent house + some savings. Should one of them require extended expensive care It would be very entitled of them to expect that the nhs should pay for their care so that I + my siblings get more money…

Its bleak that there isn’t more funding available for people that truly need it - PPs have described some harrowing stories - but I’m not sure the Garraways merit it…

Dreadful as it is I agree we can't just look at medical cost in isolation. There will never be enough money in the system to cover everything. If all the money needed is used for funded medical then there would be even less for education and other areas. Also some LA don't spend their budget well. I live close to Birmingham but in another county jurisdiction. I read in the local paper that many parents of children with SN were complaining their DC between ages of 16-18 would no longer get taxis everyday to take them to college and collect them. All councils do this up to 16. Then parents have to pay from 16-18. Apparently Birmingham has for years been continuing this funding from 16-18 too even though no statutory need too. Other councils issue a free bus pass if DC wants it. I have always driven my foster son with SN 49 miles a day so he can go to college only to find people 2 miles away have been given taxis for this.

It's crazy that you can own property like that from reading off an autocue

Except CHC is not means tested and never has been….my Nan got CHC funding due to the unpredictability of her needs….it was all free…..she had money to pay but was eligible so didn’t need to self fund

It isn't the severity of the need so much as the type of need.Continuing care is not for social care needs only nursing care.