Am I right that most elderly people must self-fund care if they have assets?

[Coffeeisnotmycupoftea]

People telling me time and again that my mum could get care home fees paid for by the government and I am certain they are wrong.

Mum is in the advancing stages of Alzheimer's having suffered now for 8 years. Between my father, my sister and I we have been caring for her ourselves. We now have a team of carers coming in 3 times a day as we are trying are best to keep her at home, for as long as possible.

We really don't want to put mum into a home if we can help it even though it is becoming a struggle (more for dad as he feels he has no life). This is not because of the fear of losing money as it's costing over £1k per week for the home carers as it is. It's more that we can keep an eye on her care at home and have yet to find a home we like the look of (have been viewing quite a few of late) but the truth is that mum will more than likely need to go into a care home within the next 6 months to a year as her care needs progress.

My parents have assets. I have looked into everything for them and have had SS round to do assessments etc and each and every time we are told care would need to be paid for in full by my parents (with AA and pensions included) because they have well over the £23,250 threshold. My parents FA has also given this information to us. We are fine with this and fully aware if you have any assets you need to pay for your care.

However, so many people we know tell us that mum should and would qualify for 'free' care. They seem to believe that continuing healthcare is really easy to get and I keep hearing their stories that their mum or dad are getting getting care home fees paid for free despite them owning property or having lots of savings etc. My sister is now pushing for us to find out more because someone she works for is telling her we absolutely must not pay for care home fees as we can get it paid for (??).

I am fed up telling them that isn't the case for a large percentage of people and most will have to fund their own care fees whether that is at home care or in a care facility.

I am right, aren't I? That most people with substantial savings and/or a home of their own will need to fund their own care? (I understand a house can not be sold whilst a spouse is living there but if they die the house will need to be sold to pay for the fees?)

This is useful for people but there really is no point in doing it unless the wills are also updated. Updating wills is likely to cost more than £500 plus vat per person since that is about an hour's work for a solicitor and meeting with the client alone will take that amount of time. You're probably looking at closer to £750 plus vat (so £900 in total for the consumer) for basic wills nowadays and in most cases where the will maker is sophisticated enough to be considering changing the way in which they hold their property it will be more, particularly if there are competency issues for one party. I'd still budget a few thousand - but it can save hundreds of thousands.

I don't understand ....in the UK you have money, you pay for care home. You don't have money, you are sent to one of their choice and they pay it for you

I fear we are sitting on a timebomb, unfortunately. The population is getting older and sicker. The nation is virtually bankrupt. How on earth are we going to fund the costs of care for all the frail, sick, elderly people in the decades to come?

I agree. Especially with fewer people owning their own homes these days.

I know someone who has successfully claimed CHC.Her care in a home has so far been funded for 18 months. It's not means tested so her income is increasing. She has cash assets of almost £1m which she receives monthly interest and dividend income on. She also receives rental income as well as her State Pension. So basically her beneficiaries are going to do very well indeed as whilst the state is funding her care, she isn't spending any money. I know all of this because I do her Tax Return.

Yes, that's basically how it works. The only difference with self funded care is that you have more choice. It works with at home care too.

My mum had a fall and spent 6 weeks in hospital last summer, as part of the NHS discharge care package most people in her position will qualify for 6 weeks of free care at home, following the hospital stay, this is regardless of savings/assets. In our experience (and others we have since spoken with) the care was simply awful, the carers were all lovely but they were under a lot of pressure working for these care companies which charge the NHS a small fortune and pay their workers NMW and expect them to work very long hours. We could not chose what time of the day they came so often it would be at 6am then again sometime between 11am-3pm and again anytime between 6pm-11pm. Sometimes they were putting mum to bed at 5.30pm. We had a few times where they just didn't turn up which is a disaster as mum is double incontinent.

We had to let them go after 3 weeks as it was just not working but as my parents have savings we chose our own carers and the time they come. It's very expensive but far less stressful than with the LA funded care company.

Having witnessed what my parents are going through I am so fearful of old age and I do worry how on earth we will all be looked after. It really concerns me.

A home is always disregarded for financial assessment if a spouse or dependent adult over 55 lives there.
It cannot and will not be ‘taken’ for fees later on.

Well, with tongue in cheek... ish... when AI takes all the jobs, it will free up people to care for multiple generations at home (as no one will be able to afford to move out)

I agree with paying for my care, but it totally pisses me off that fees of self-funders are inflated to cover those of LA clients.

Even if the spouse dies and the partner is still in a care home and the house has been left to them or at least half?

If the house is left to the care home resident it IS taken into account fully

The person you were responding to who said:

"It cannot and will not be ‘taken’ for fees later on."

Was wrong. In the scenario you give, then yes, the house (or her share of the house) will be treated as capital from the date of death of the spouse, but not before that date.

So, depending on the value of her share of the home she will need to self-fund from the date of death of her spouse onwards.

Yes, that's basically how it works. The only difference with self funded care is that you have more choice. It works with at home care too. - there is of course the option for someone to top up. Whilst awaiting the CHC appeal for my late OH I paid the difference between what the LA were prepared to pay and the actual cost. It was laughingly called a "top-up", but in fact I was paying about 7/8 of the bill from our joint funds. Luckily he got the CHC on appeal and everything I had paid out was refunded to me.

Even if the spouse dies and the partner is still in a care home and the house has been left to them or at least half? - if the spouse living at home dies and the residential/nursing home resident inherits, then this becomes their asset and will be taken into account, the expectation being that the house will be sold. Once it is the LA can recoup any money they have paid out from the moment of inheritance.

As @Mischance says. But beware some will writing companies will tell you otherwise to.try and sell expensive trusts. We kicked one out because he was telling out and out lies and trying to sell a complicated will at a cost of £2500+ each. Fortunately we already had experience if the actual rules.

That sounds like MHA Section 117 funding and is quite different from CHC.

You are correct. Any application for State funded care will be "means tested".

Why should the people who had the foresight to save money (and potentially deprive themselves of luxuries in the process as my grandma did - I have never known anybody as frugal) have to pay when those who didn’t bother get their care funded??

If I had my time over I would use a solicitor to get paid care if it's for medical reasons. SS just say "no" as a matter of course.

You need to apply for continuing care. This is for people who need nursing care rather than residential care. It sounds as though mum might be eligible and it is non means tested.

My mum had dementia and had to fund her own care for the 10 months she was in her care home as she had too much in savings and a house to sell. The nurses applied for continuing care funding about half way through, but it was refused because her care needs weren’t deemed to be high enough. The final week of her life was covered retrospectively because by then she was ill enough that she needed a greater level of care.

If you have medical needs, it's the NHS who assess, not SS.

If someone is assessed for and awarded Continuing Healthcare Funding (CHC) their fees are paid by health authority funding without the need for personal contribution.

Not saying I disagree but interested in your. Views on the equity of a system that allows the following

2 couples both earn the same amount each year. Couple 1 do t go on many holidays / don’t eat out much and save as much as they can to buy a house and pay off their mortgage. The house appreciates and they have a significant asset
couple 2 spend a lot on holidays / nights out / smoking etc . They never quite save a deposit so pay rent their whole lives.
why should the taxpayer form the continuing healthcare of couple 2 - and why are couple 1 penalised for saving nd being frugal ?

my fil had continued care vascular dementia which was paid for, he didn’t have savings to the amount of 23k but had an annuity with 37k (which he left to his children after his death)
His wife stayed in the house (400k) she is now also in a home with psychotic dementia, she has continual care and her son (who was her carer ) lives in the bungalow.
Their borough is Cheshire