Your care home stories have helped make change happen

I think it is unfair that those people who are self funding are having to subsidise those paid for by the local authority. The rates paid by the L A are so miserly in comparison and the homes say they need to make up the shortfall somehow. Where I live, all the L A homes are being closed down.

[Sorry, your comment has been removed to align with our community guidelines. Unfortunately, we do not allow promotional content. https://conversation.which.co.uk/commenting-guidelines/. Thanks, mods.]

The NHS Continuing Health Care system is the biggest disgrace. The government is dragging its feet dealing with the unfairness in the way many people who are entitled to have their care paid by the NHS are refused.

I am on the waiting list and I am worried if I will be able to afford my stay.

Excellent news a very well done, I am a pensioner myself and I do worry about my future especially as I live by myself.

My step father has been in a care home for 5 years and is self funding He is 92 yrs old.His money is running out . If he is to stay where he is ,then I will have to make up the difference [between the council funding, or moving him to another care home ]even though he married my mother when I was 25 yrs old and i never lived at home .I am a pensioner myself.. I feel it is unfair that he has spent nearly £100,000 already out of his own money .[my mother died 10 yrs ago]

Much of the problem with care homes is down to a lack of local authority funding. My authority is looking to save money.

“Do you want better council services?

There’s a way to free up £18m every year which can be reinvested in things like road and pavement repairs, schools, affordable housing, parks and libraries. ( no mention of care homes).

So, instead of five highly-paid senior management teams, there’d be just one.”

Well, I’d rather we had no highly paid senior management team, just one that was sensibly paid. 🙁

The National Insurance scheme was never intended to cover adult social care. Provision of last resort was made by local authorities, generally in their own establishments. Everyone else had to survive on their own or their family’s resources. The state has provided medical care free at the point of delivery under the National Health Service but that is limited to making people better who are ill rather than keeping people alive through continuing care. The medicines that elderly people require are free of charge but the administration of them and the ongoing welfare of the client are a private responsibility. Unfortunately this has become extremely expensive, especially if it goes on for a long period. I don’t think there would be much difference in the overall cost whether it was done by the NHS [and recharged to taxation] or, as at present, through commercial or charitable provision and sometimes partly funded by the local authority, sometimes funded through an insurance plan, or taken straight from the recipient’s own financial resources, but there would be a difference in the impact on individuals. If the costs were rolled into general taxation they would effectively be equalised [except that the burden would fall almost entirely on the working population]. There is no simple way of gauging how long any individual will live and what their continuing care costs will be, although actuarial formulae no doubt exist. It is largely a matter of luck and circumstances. The government needs to recognise this in its forthcoming Green Paper on adult social care and identify an equitable way of making it possible for people to fund their care without ruining them financially, although it has to be said that those who need the most care and for the longest duration will inevitably have to pay the most. This distresses families who see their relative’s assets drawn down to fund the provision. But is there any realistic alternative if the client does actually have the resources to do so? My mother used to argue that it was unfair that many people could be provided for by the state at no cost to themselves because they had made no financial provision for their old age, whereas people like her who had modest savings would receive no support until their funds were depleted to a low level. I have never found a rational answer to this and perhaps we should accept that there isn’t one – it is part of the unpredictability of life itself and we should not complain about relative inequalities. To stay alive is the objective and arguing about who pays and how much and for how long is unhelpful. Can we put a price on an extended life? Can we really penalise those who are not in a position to fund their care? Only a compulsory means-tested state-managed insurance system both collecting the charges throughout all adults’ lives and providing a universal standard level of care [leaving people free to opt out of the care but not out of the premiums if they can fund their care independently]. I think I would prefer to stick with the system we have but made more appropriate for today’s conditions and longevity rates.

I did post the following in a previous Convo:
“ According to a 2011 report, the average length of stay in a care home for the over 65s was 909 days. 2.5 years. At, say, £1000 a week that costs £130 000. Government statistics show 3.2% of the population over 65 are in care homes, and the figure is fairly stable. So if all the population over 65 had saved £4160, that would have paid for the care of those 3.2% (actually, less because around a third are self payers, many of whom may have the requisite means to self fund). So if we all save £2 a week during our working life we could fund our possible need for care in old age. Is that too big a price to pay?”