The NHS

[bankoff]

When the banks have been finished off, how about a new Action Group for those of us who have elderly relatives who are being asked to sell their homes for Care Fees.

 

Under the Coughlan Court Case if would appear that most of them have a right to Continuing Care from the NHS.

 

Does anyone else have any experience of this situation.

[dave]

Noted.

 

Over the next few days you will notice other forums about all sorts of situations where consumers and the public are ripped off - at the moment, we don't know everything (and nor can we hope to), but forums such as the one you are suggesting may well be in the pipeline.

[bankoff]

This is a very useful site for anyone who is being asked to sell their home to pay for Care Fees

 

http://www.gpss.tripoduk.com/nhscare/

[Spiceskull]

I remember that it was suggested by the bank to one poster that they sell their house to pay...£200 bank charges! What is it with getting people to sell their houses un-necessarily?

[bankoff]

Well when your elderly relative is in hospital and they have severe dementia, (which is a recognised mental illness) they are called "bed blockers" by the NHS.

 

The nurse in charge then tells you, they will have to be moved out of hospital, Social Services come and visit you for a financial assessment, then tell you that the property has to be sold to pay for the care fees.

 

The person concerned is in need of 24 hour continuing care and as such is entitled to this from the NHS. "Coughlin case has already proved this"

 

See the above link, and read.

 

The did mention that as long as we agreed to putting the person in a home, we "could defer the payments"

 

If this government can't take it off you in Care Fees they will grab it in Inheritance Tax.

 

The rich get richer and the poor get nothing by the looks of it.

[Seminole]

It's actually more a case of the rich get richer (because they can afford to) and the middle classes get stuffed.

[rivendale0506]

We have always wondered about this - we didn't place my Dad in a NHS home, he was 48, had alzheimers and my sister and i visited so many but couldn't bring ourselves to put him in any one of them. So we found a private home, but at £500 a week we soon had to sell his house, and he was in there for nearly 13 years... We have found out since he died in 1999 that he should have been left with a certain amount of savings i.e. that we needn't have spent every last penny from the sale of his house on his care, but don't really know who to approach about this now..

[rivendale0506]

Just a footnote to my previous post - we did look at a lot of NHS homes, and most of them were awful, but the one or two that were fine wouldn't take my Dad because they said he was too young!! So we really had little choice but to put him in a private home. Don't get me wrong, we wouldn't change a thing, he was well looked after for 13 years, but it makes me very angry and sad for people who are forced to sell wrongly.

[bankoff]

Have a look at the thread I posted, if you watched Panorama the other week you would have seen that people have actually taken the NHS to court and won back their money.

 

Your father's case is obviuosly one of those. If I were you I would go for the lot before it is too late to claim.

[Bookworm]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here big time, please don't yell at me, I'm really just trying to understand this:

 

If a person has to go into care for the rest of their days, and there isn't a spouse living there, why shouldn't it be sold to pay for the care? Surely, the only people to benefit if the house isn't sold are the potential heirs, and what have they done to deserve a share of the house?

 

I mean, you have Grandpa in an institution, and his house is sitting there for 15, 20 years for what? So that the heirs can get a lump sum after he died? I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Yes, the NHS, yes, NI contributions, but what I don't get is why, if the costs of care are so much higher, it can't be offset that way. After all, there are plenty of people who won't have a house to be sold, and who will be carried by the collective taxpayer burden, as it is, and making it the same for all so that the kids have something to inherit is a patent absurdity to me.

 

I am paying for my house. In 15 yrs or so, it will be ours. My kids know it's our nest egg, and not to expect to inherit it. We havent worked our backsides so that they get something nice out of it once we're dead, hell no. And if it means selling it so we can have a more comfortable way of life in our twilight years, that seems to be perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Am I missing something? Does this actually go beyond the heirs' sense of outrage? If so, please explain it to me. Politely, please, I asked politely.

[Seminole]

This year the NHS is costing £97billion or the equivalent of about £5,000 for every household. This is grotesquely expensive for a service that is pretty poor at delivering health services but very good at getting mired in bureaucracy.

 

We're told that we should be eternally grateful for the NHS because it is "free at the point of use" but, in reality, this often means that the service we need can't be provided. I can well understand the anger of families who are required to sell property to pay for a service that the recipient has already paid for through their taxes but in reality can't be delivered because so much of it has been wasted.

[dave]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here big time, please don't yell at me, I'm really just trying to understand this:

 

If a person has to go into care for the rest of their days, and there isn't a spouse living there, why shouldn't it be sold to pay for the care? Surely, the only people to benefit if the house isn't sold are the potential heirs, and what have they done to deserve a share of the house?

 

I mean, you have Grandpa in an institution, and his house is sitting there for 15, 20 years for what? So that the heirs can get a lump sum after he died? I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Yes, the NHS, yes, NI contributions, but what I don't get is why, if the costs of care are so much higher, it can't be offset that way. After all, there are plenty of people who won't have a house to be sold, and who will be carried by the collective taxpayer burden, as it is, and making it the same for all so that the kids have something to inherit is a patent absurdity to me.

 

I am paying for my house. In 15 yrs or so, it will be ours. My kids know it's our nest egg, and not to expect to inherit it. We havent worked our backsides so that they get something nice out of it once we're dead, hell no. And if it means selling it so we can have a more comfortable way of life in our twilight years, that seems to be perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Am I missing something? Does this actually go beyond the heirs' sense of outrage? If so, please explain it to me. Politely, please, I asked politely.

 

But the point is that you are paying twice for the same thing.

 

You paid taxes and NI for services. You paid your mortgage for your house.

 

Why should you pay your mortgage for services as well?

[Bookworm]

But the point is that you are paying twice for the same thing.

 

You paid taxes and NI for services. You paid your mortgage for your house.

 

Why should you pay your mortgage for services as well?

 

 

Because what else am I going to do with it once I'm dead?

[rivendale0506]

Bookworm, I totally agree - we could have put my Dad in an NHS home (well one of the ones that might have taken him!) However, we chose to put him in a private home, it was our choice, and we knew that we would have to sell his house to pay for it. I know we did the right thing by him, but I know that all his life (well the 48 good years he had) it was his dream for us kids to not have to struggle like him and my Mum did -over the 12 years we paid something in the region of £300,000 for his care - If I could ask him now I know what he would have said - he would have said "you should have put me in the NHS home, Hell I wouldn't have known any different!" - and my answer would have been "yes, but WE would". As I said in my previous posts, I have absolutely no regrets about doing what we did, but if someone (and I can't work out quite who) has taken money that legally they shouldn;t have, (i.e. the legal amount of savings that a person has to be left with) then hell i want some of that back for his grandchildren. (And no, I didn't produce any grandchildren for him, so I am not asking for myself)..

[breadline]

Ok i am in the belief that family should look after each other and if its the old dears homes that children are hoping to get, then i think they should care for that parent in that parents own home, so that they can keep thier dignity, the worse thing i have seen is elderly people leaving thier life long homes and nose dive into ill mental health due to the sheer anxiety of it all.

 

Elders used to be respected much more than they are now.

They have put in so much through life and its all taken away so easily.

 

My heart goes out more so to the elderly of 70 years as most of the hard earned money they have put in to help and aid thier families in the future as promised, has been wasted on 6 course MP's dinners , jags and contry mannors.

 

oh dear ive spoke my mind, i always get into trouble when i do that, am i going to get yelled at fingers in ears, i am sensative can i ask for a feather light knuckle wrapping ;-)

[Bookworm]

No, no yelling, I promise.

 

But I do believe your answer is maybe a bit over-simplistic.

 

My mum died 5 months ago, after 2 yrs of hell for her and her family. The burden of caring for her fell on my stepfather, also in his 70s.

 

Because she was terminal, they wouldn't keep in hospital (this was in France, btw), but as her body functions shut down, it was left to my stepdad and my seriously-damaged-backed sister to care for her.

 

The only way to get her professional care would have been a rest home. Which would have had to be paid for, no or little state care. The only way for that to get financed would have been for my stepfather to sell HIS home. When I asked where he was supposed to live then, there was no answer.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes, the families can't care. And in that case, it is better for the person to be cared for professionally.

Even if I had been near, there was no way I could have cared for my mother with my own family and problems. And I certainly would never want to be a burden on my children, even if they told me they wanted me there.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit tonigt.

[rivendale0506]

Ok i am in the belief that family should look after each other and if its the old dears homes that children are hoping to get, then i think they should care for that parent in that parents own home, so that they can keep thier dignity, the worse thing i have seen is elderly people leaving thier life long homes and nose dive into ill mental health due to the sheer anxiety of it all.

QUOTE]

 

In an ideal world I cannot imagine that children would not do this, but when you have a parent who is suffering from dementia/alzheimers, it is very difficult, if not impossible to look after them at either your home (because they get violent towards people, even their grandchildren), or in their home, because they need 24 hour care - my Dad used to go walkabouts in the town at 3 in the morning.... Believe me it was the hardest thing to do to feel like you are throwing in the towel and putting your 48 year old Father in a home, but there was no other option - it was the only place that he would be safe and where they had the 2 or 3 people needed to lift, bath, and ensure he wasn't a danger to himself or others.

 

So no knuckle rapping from me... had I not been put in the position I was I would probably still hold the same view as you...

[bankoff]

Well, sorry I opened up a hornets nest here.

 

I did care for my mother, she has dementia, and we paid for private care, she lived with me for over three years.

 

I was very upset when she went into hospital, but it was taking its toll on me, trying to continue to work as well as looking after her.

 

She is still in hospital, because she was not given the promised rehabilitation that she needed to get her back home again.

 

We are now trying to establish how they are going to provide care for her at home with me.

 

There is not much hope of it, it is too unrealiable, but I am waiting to see what they come up with.

 

We were questioned about where she lived, did she own her own house, etc the minute she went into hospital.

 

Is this the way to treat already stressed relatives.

 

My mother worked until she was nearly 70, she has paid into the system, she deserves better than this.

 

What about the young people who's lives are wrecked by drugs, they live off the state, with housing and benefits given to them for most of their lives, they never contribute anything.

 

My mother may not live for much longer, but she is made to feel like a parasite, just because she is one of the unfortunate ones to get dementia.

 

Think I have said my piece now.

[breadline]

The state instead of placeing people in hospital and selling thier homes should be providing care for them in thier own homes.

 

As a child i lived in teh top flat of a residential home or 3...

 

The residents did not need alot of care and now adays would not be classed as needing to be hospitalised or rehomed.

 

Many of the residence children came to visit twice a year, this was very sad. As many of these people could of been with thier familys.

 

It is possible that the unecessary strain on the funds then is what is showing now. One lady who has kept intouch between the age of 92 and 94 she was moved 3 times. I couldnt do that now at 40. We have now lost contact with her and are trying to locate her as she was moved with little notice again.

 

My mum retired and was asked to establish 2 Alzhiemiers support groups, and although it had its rewards it was again deeply sad. 70 year olds, washing and nursing 70 year olds at 3am.

These groups where funded by churches and donations, and was the only respite these partners where getting, 1 day a week.

 

I suppose what im trying to explain is i do have a sympathetic view, and i have seen much, but the system is wrong.

 

Why when these poeple paid so much into teh world do they get so little back, Bank Off you hit the nail on the head, abuse of the system. there is enough money spent on the drunk fights that end up and A and E each weekend and drug addicts who know the road they are entering.

I hope this explains a bit better what i was writting before. I do belive as long as possible that people should have thier comforts and after they should have the care, but no longer away from thier familys as necessary.

 

Thank for reading me gain.

Jules

[Bookworm]

The state instead of placeing people in hospital and selling thier homes should be providing care for them in their own homes.

 

How?

 

If you have 1 person, say with Alzheimers, you need someone there 24 hrs a day. Which means you need at least 2, ideally 3 people for 24 hr care. 2 for day shift, 1 for night shift. Then you need at least 1 more staff to cover for holidays, sickness. And you'll need the odd social worker, physiotherapist as well on a regular basis.

 

If the incapacitated person is heavy, violent, you'll need 2 people on shift.

 

And of course, each of those homes will have to be equipped according to each specific need. Ramps, or stairlifts, or lift up baths, pulleys etc for beds, respirators, oxygen canisters, the list is endless. Safety equipment as well. Need I go on?

 

Let's not forget that the vast majority of the same people who think poor Mr X shouldn't be carted off to a home will be the first ones to complain about the noise/smell/general nuisance when Mr X deteriorates. (And if you think I'm cynical, you're right. Doesn't make me wrong, though).

 

So I chose an extreme case. Works with more able people too, though. Can you be sure that independent spright Mrs X. who only needs minimal care, is not going to slip and break her hip in the middle of the night?

 

Ok, so we have now equipped the house to suit Mr X's home. We now have 4 to 7 staff to care for him round the clock. In 1 month, 1 year, 10 years, Mr. X dies. We now have to remove all the specialist equipment, (some can be removed and reused, some can't) so as to render the home habitable.

 

So, I'm going to ask again: How? How can it be realistically done? At the risk of coming across incredibly callous, are you seriously telling me that the amount of taxes/national insurance paid for during Mr X's lifetime (some of which will have been used up in his younger days, let's not forget) is anywhere near the costs incurred for the individual care as described above?

[bankoff]

Hi Bookworm

 

I know what you mean here, but in my case I tried very hard to keep my mother at home, the authorities offered me little help, we therefore had to get our own help instead.

 

When I asked them for certain equipment it was not forthcoming, so we bought our own.

 

I know that a person with Altzheimers needs far more care than someone with Dementia, and agree it is not practical to keep them at home.

 

There are far more cases out there where the elderly person concerned could be looked after in their own home or with a relative, but the back-up/help is not there. It is supposed to be, but its not.

 

I think it can also depend on where you live. AND no-one tells you what help you can get, you have to seek it out.

 

Also, I don't really think keeping someone in their own home is a bad thing, it certainly costs a lot less than keeping them in a Care home, despite your assumptions of the cost.

 

I think they way we treat our elderly in this country is dreadful, you only have to see the amount of pension they get to realise that.

[Bookworm]

I know what you mean here, but in my case I tried very hard to keep my mother at home, the authorities offered me little help, we therefore had to get our own help instead.

 

My comments were not meant as a criticism, I promise. I know far too well how easy to feel guilty and hear every 2nd word as a reproach. It really is not.

 

There are far more cases out there where the elderly person concerned could be looked after in their own home or with a relative, but the back-up/help is not there. It is supposed to be, but its not.

 

I think it can also depend on where you live. AND no-one tells you what help you can get, you have to seek it out.

 

As the mother of a disabled child, I can assure you that it's not exclusive to the elderly. All the information I got, from benefits to schools, I got from books and online support groups. AND not only was there no help forthcoming from my local council, they actively tried to stop giving any help and I had to fight them all the way.

 

Also, I don't really think keeping someone in their own home is a bad thing, it certainly costs a lot less than keeping them in a Care home, despite your assumptions of the cost.

 

Only true if the care is not totally professional. It's not an assumption, btw.

 

I think they way we treat our elderly in this country is dreadful, you only have to see the amount of pension they get to realise that.

 

It's not just in this country, and it's not only the elderly. At least here, if you need medicine for the kids or to go to the drs, you don't have to first check if you have enough money to pay.

[breadline]

The elderly that are still alive now, lived in the day of "Great" Britain, with the promises of a supportive and comfortable future.

 

This is what was promised.

 

No one can predict the future but politicians try to, and are usually wrong.

 

I am under no ilussion's that i will have no support from my country when I am old. Its something i am lucky to have (fingers crossed and unlike these people)20 years to ponder this over and make my own decisions, these people did as they where guided and asked as a country united, so trusted in the procedures.

 

The NI was taken the government was in control, it is not for the indivduals now to suffer through the long term neglegence of the government.

 

our children suffer our parents suffer, our buisnesses suffer and all i see is a country pooring money into bricks and morter in a desperation to be something again.

 

They cant even get a Stadium finished, what a waste of money. Sure they can fit a few beds in there eventually though.

 

Where im based they are erecting a shopping centre worth millions..that could provide exstensive hospitals and many many beds.

 

Yet they have just closed 2 of our much needed hospitals.

 

one day it has to turn around, it cant go this way for ever, eventually some one in charge will want to sleep at night.

 

jules;)

[ROBBO]

errrrrrrr yes i think you are missing the fact that `grandpa` has probably worked for the last 50 yrs of his life and therefore contributed in tax and national insurance

 

Why should the elderly be discriminated against because they need care ? Alzeimers is a recognised medical condition and the the N HS is supposed to be free they are entitled to free freatment in whatever form this takes .

[lynzpower]

I speak from a difficult position.

Personally, I agree with Bookworm, in my old age, Id expect my kids to flog everything I own to put me in the best care we could muster.Leaving a pile of bricks is no use to me whne im 6 feet under.

 

Conversely, I work in an older peoples social work team, and we are well resourced ( in comparison to pretty much every other london borough) and we are encouraged as social services to provide whatever we can to enable people to stay at home, whilst maintaining independence for older people wherever possible. While I appreciate not everyone has the same experiences of local authorities, I believe that we provide a very good service.

 

I set up care packages often in the absense of meeting the client ( ie organising over the phone with the client, discussing with family, next of kin district nurses etc) and provide A LOT of care for "free" ( ie paid by the taxpayer) Just today, I set up 17 hours a week care, with no contribution from the family, as I had no time to do organise a financial assessment. That 17 hours a week, roughly costs to "buy in" £442 per week ( not including my time & overheads etc) . This isnt unusual, I deal with care packages like this day in day out. Youd have to have had a bloody amazing salary to have ever contributed this much into the system when you were working. Much of the time I do wonder whether this is improving the quality of life for the person themselves, or whether the punishing regime of changing carers, constant hospital visits and so on, is really positive for many. Regardless, I provide these services in line with the law, and to the clients requests.

 

Only yesterday, I spoke with a lady over the phone who lived in a 4 bed townhouse in a very expensive part of London. I estimate her home must be worth 2 million, if not way more. Shes requesting a night carer to just sleep there ( no medical intervention or nursing) for comfort to the tune of 750 a week, plus the daytime and weekend carers ( approx 750) a week, We will probably pay it. BUt shes sat on a massive asset there, and other people in poorer local authorities inevitably miss out.

 

Im sure the system is not perfect. I think direct payments are a very welcome chice for older people and thier families, it can mean paying someone relliable and you already trust, without the need for changing carers as happens in local authority home care packages. I urge anyone caring for older people at home to look into this, it seems to be able to be paid to carers in addition to carers allowance (I was advised today)