Care Costs Cap

[El Cid]

5 hours ago, fools said:

Why is having your bottom wiped twice a day so expensive.

 

The solution is to find a willing student or two, and offer them free accommodation.

They are ill in most cases and they need care 24/7

 

Eligibility for continuing healthcare is not judged on a person’s diagnosis. So, even if a person has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or another degenerative condition, they may be assessed as not having a primary health need.
Instead, eligibility is determined by the assessment of the person’s day-to-day care needs and how those needs should be met.

If the assessment concludes that you have a primary health need then the NHS must, by law, pay the full cost of your health and social care and accommodation. It seems like they keep this quiet.

 

https://www.beaconchc.co.uk/five-things-need-know-eligibility-nhs-continuing-healthcare/

 

[Anna B]

33 minutes ago, El Cid said:

They are ill in most cases and they need care 24/7

 

Eligibility for continuing healthcare is not judged on a person’s diagnosis. So, even if a person has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or another degenerative condition, they may be assessed as not having a primary health need.
Instead, eligibility is determined by the assessment of the person’s day-to-day care needs and how those needs should be met.

If the assessment concludes that you have a primary health need then the NHS must, by law, pay the full cost of your health and social care and accommodation. It seems like they keep this quiet.

 

https://www.beaconchc.co.uk/five-things-need-know-eligibility-nhs-continuing-healthcare/

 

All the people are ill you say, and all have day to day care needs. So what is the crieria for continuing health care?

It sounds like catch 22 to me....

[Carbuncle]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

7 hours ago, fools said:

Why is having your bottom wiped twice a day so expensive.

 

The solution is to find a willing student or two, and offer them free accommodation.

They are ill in most cases and they need care 24/7

 

I think care needs vary hugely. It could be as simple as needing somebody else to change a light bulb because clambering up and standing on a chair is too risky. On the other hand, somebody could need the equivalent of four or more people working full time to be able to safely stay in their own home. That sounds like a lot of help but it's really somebody being present at all times and for most of the time they are present they might be doing little or nothing. You don't actually have to have that much in the way of health problems: irregular sleep patterns, occasional confusion and a propensity to falls would already be enough. Having a meaningful guarantee from the state that if you need help you'll get it  - and it won't break you or your family financially - is important.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

For some that is most certainly the case.  I consider myself to be a man of the people who mixes with  everyone rather than a Tory.  Because I'm  a man of the people I know both lazy and hard working people.  My observation is the hard working people I know live in much nice houses and areas than the lazy people I know.

Do any of the hard working people have houses which are worth less than other hard working people?

 

or do they live in a different part of the country where their house is worth less than a hard working persons elsewhere. 

[cuttsie]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

In my opinion it's fair to point out that people who own more expensive houses have more  than  likely paid more tax than people who don't own expensive houses which is a benefit to society.  The truth is the tax paid by owners of more expensive houses benefits the people living in less expensive houses and helps to pay for their social care.

Sounds like a John Cleese clip , you Know" I am above him because!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Anna B]

9 hours ago, cuttsie said:

Sounds like a John Cleese clip , you Know" I am above him because!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Except here we are talking about losing the value of your life's work through no fault of your own simply because you are the guy on the end with the flat cap. 

[Annie Bynnol]

On 24/11/2021 at 17:56, Anna B said:

All the people are ill you say, and all have day to day care needs. So what is the crieria for continuing health care?

It sounds like catch 22 to me....

Continuing Healthcare Plan  requires:

two or more domains selected severe(A) or

five or more domains selected in column (B) or

one selected in (A)and four in (B); or

one domain selected in column (A*)  with any number of selections in the other two columns.

 

 

Breathing*

Nutrition

Continence

Skin 

Mobility

Communication

Psychological/emotional

Cognition

Behaviour*

Drugs and Medication*

Altered state of consciousness*

 

Being terminally ill or with severe Dementia by themselves are not sufficient.

Most people in a 'home' are not eligible.

Proof of funding is an essential requirement for some types of Care Home ie have a CHP.

 

[Anna B]

8 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Continuing Healthcare Plan  requires:

two or more domains selected severe(A) or

five or more domains selected in column (B) or

one selected in (A)and four in (B); or

one domain selected in column (A*)  with any number of selections in the other two columns.

 

 

Breathing*

Nutrition

Continence

Skin 

Mobility

Communication

Psychological/emotional

Cognition

Behaviour*

Drugs and Medication*

Altered state of consciousness*

 

Being terminally ill or with severe Dementia by themselves are not sufficient.

Most people in a 'home' are not eligible.

Proof of funding is an essential requirement for some types of Care Home ie have a CHP.

 

They really do make it as complicated and difficult as they can don't they? And swamp it in obfuscation so nobody knows where they stand or how to counter it. And all this probably costs more time and money than it saves. Probably requires a couple of well renumerated lawyers to fight for it too. And as you say, most elderly people don't get it. 

All this, and food and lodging costs aren't even included. 

 

What people also probably don't realise, is that the family members of the cared for person (or sponsor) can be seriously affected too.  When the cared for's money runs out, (which it will, shockingly quickly,) the family may be 'invited' to pay/top up the fees, or their much loved elderly relative may be moved in to a cheaper care home, possibly at the other end of the country.  

 

All this could be avoided if the government would just step in and include  care within the NHS.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Anna B

[Annie Bynnol]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

They really do make it as complicated and difficult as they can don't they? And swamp it in obfuscation so nobody knows where they stand or how to counter it. And all this probably costs more time and money than it saves. Probably requires a couple of well renumerated lawyers to fight for it too. And as you say, most elderly people don't get it. 

All this, and food and lodging costs aren't even included. 

 

What people also probably don't realise, is that the family members of the cared for person (or sponsor) can be seriously affected too.  When the cared for's money runs out, (which it will, shockingly quickly,) the family may be 'invited' to pay/top up the fees, or their much loved elderly relative may be moved in to a cheaper care home, possibly at the other end of the country.  

 

All this could be avoided if the government would just step in and include  care within the NHS.

 

This Government is increasing National Insurance and Council Tax to pay for more but still inadequate funding.

They include the care needed by the over 25s (to 66) in their figure.

They want the carers to squabble over which group gets what.

This underhand approach to Care and the NHS is clear to all, yet we still vote for these Tory policies.

 

[Longcol]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

 

 

All this could be avoided if the government would just step in and include  care within the NHS.

 

It used to be back in the early  80's until funding was transferred to the DSS - and then the Tories shifted the responsibility (but by no means all the funding) to Local Authorities.

 

Under Labour - 97 to 2010 - LA's used to pay top up grants to some care homes jointly funded by the NHS.

 

Guess what happened from 2010 onwards................................