Extortion of the elderly

[Anna B]

I've just visited a very mediocre looking care home, usual set up, residents sat dozing in the lounge, nothing going on.

Out of curiosity when I got home I looked it up on its webpage. I was shocked at some of the reviews which mention bed sores,  falls, refusing beverages, and general poor care. (To be fair there were some good reviews too)

But what really shocked me was the cost. 

 

£1,450 per week!

 

That's £5,800 per month, or £69,800 per year!

How can this possibly be justified?

 

Further investigation showed this to now be what care homes are charging.  Almost £70,000  per person per year for very lacklustre care. 

Just compare that for a moment to the weekly old age pension of £180 per week which is supposed to cover living costs for pensioners' living  in their own  homes.

 

Your thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

[pfifes]

4 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I've just visited a very mediocre looking care home, usual set up, residents sat dozing in the lounge, nothing going on.

Out of curiosity when I got home I looked it up on its webpage. I was shocked at some of the reviews which mention bed sores,  falls, refusing beverages, and general poor care. (To be fair there were some good reviews too)

But what really shocked me was the cost. 

 

£1,450 per week!

 

That's £5,800 per month, or £69,800 per year!

How can this possibly be justified?

 

Further investigation showed this to now be what care homes are charging.  Almost £70,000  per person per year for very lacklustre care. 

Just compare that for a moment to the weekly old age pension of £180 per week which is supposed to cover living costs for pensioners' living  in their own  homes.

 

Your thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

Where is the money going?

 

Not to the care assistants I suspect.

[crookesey]

I was listening to R/S in the car yesterday, a woman was talking about age, she sounded very old, my guess was in her 90’s, actually she was 72 which is five years younger than me. I wondered if the generally accepted definition of ‘elderly’ being over age 65 had run it’s course. 

[Al Bundy]

Care homes are an extremely lucrative business. It's now obvious why.

[crisispoint]

I find it interesting that care homes are free if you have no savings and are renting but you're charged if your home is yours and your savings will be used, by the care home.

Obviously there may be a difference in the quality of care and environment.

[Annie Bynnol]

   Care Homes offer different levels of care/nursing/medical support and residents may or may not have funding from the Council and or the NHS. For example Alzheimer's/Dementia attracts NO funding on its own. 

   All long term care in Sheffield is Commercial or Charitable- but that does not effect costs and lack of staff.  Staffing was badly hit by Brexit and Covid. Younger carers particularly are not attracted for reasons of low pay and poor career prospects.

   Investors do not find "Care homes... extremely lucrative business" at all, resulting in few new builds and less competition. Large investment companies are very reluctant to be involved in the care business. They are interested in 'retirement estates' who offer no care facilities at all. 

 

  

   

[Resident]

This may surprise you but the Conservative government were due to introduce new rules regarding the how care homes are paid for.

The new rules were due to benefit poorer OAPs by moving the thresholds.

Having already set a care cap of £86,000 (the max amount an OAP would pay for their own car) in 2021

The first part of these new rules was increasing the upper and lower thresholds for local authority-funded care in England. The lower threshold was due increase from £14,250 to £20,000, while the upper threshold would have increased from £23,250 to £100,000.

Here's how the rules would have worked from October 2025, had they been successfully introduced. If your savings and income were:
 

Worth more than £100,000 - You’d be classed as a self-funder and would pay for your own care

Between £20,000 and £100,000 - You'd pay whatever you could afford, along with a means-tested ‘tariff’ contribution from your assets

Less than £20,000 - Your local authority would fund your care. In this case, you might still need to have made income-based contributions towards the cost of your care.

A financial assessment would determine the total value of your savings and income (and assets if you require care in a care home).

NHS continuing healthcare and NHS-funding nursing care wouldn't have been affected, and you could still have qualified for one of these benefits, depending on your or your loved one’s care needs.

Now for the shocking part

Since taking power, Labour have scrapped both the new rules AND the care cap. 

Edited September 28 by Resident

[Annie Bynnol]

10 minutes ago, crisispoint said:

I find it interesting that care homes are free if you have no savings and are renting but you're charged if your home is yours and your savings will be used, by the care home.

Obviously there may be a difference in the quality of care and environment.

  Care homes are never 'free',  all assets (current and historical), property and income(including pensions and benefits) are included in the financial assessment. Care homes do not accept residents unless they have a financial plan in place- and this leads to a limited or no choice. You are correct in saying that some people with assets/income will see these being used for their care up to a point, then they all are in the same boat.    

 

[Annie Bynnol]

19 minutes ago, Resident said:

This may surprise you but the Conservative government were due to introduce new rules regarding the how care homes are paid for.
The new rules were due to benefit poorer OAPs by moving the thresholds.
Having already set a care cap of £86,000 (the max amount an OAP would pay for their own car) in 2021
The first part of these new rules was increasing the upper and lower thresholds for local authority-funded care in England. The lower threshold was due increase from £14,250 to £20,000, while the upper threshold would have increased from £23,250 to £100,000.

Here's how the rules would have worked from October 2025, had they been successfully introduced. If your savings and income were:

Worth more than £100,000 - You’d be classed as a self-funder and would pay for your own care

Between £20,000 and £100,000 - You'd pay whatever you could afford, along with a means-tested ‘tariff’ contribution from your assets

Less than £20,000 - Your local authority would fund your care. In this case, you might still need to have made income-based contributions towards the cost of your care.

A financial assessment would determine the total value of your savings and income (and assets if you require care in a care home).
NHS continuing healthcare and NHS-funding nursing care wouldn't have been affected, and you could still have qualified for one of these benefits, depending on your or your loved one’s care needs.
Now for the shocking part
Since taking power, Labour have scrapped both the new rules AND the care cap. 

     Tory reality was very different. 

     Planned in 2021 the Tory plans were delayed by the Tory leaders by FIVE years to avoid a future election as it was such a disastrous Policy for their core voters. 

     14 years of Conservative rule and six election manifesto all promises broken.

     Tory plan after plan abandoned and never introduced as they would have hit their voters hardest. The theme for all their promises was that the full amount of care would be paid for if House +Assets was greater than £100 000 then patient pays all. As most over 65+ own their home with an average value of £400 000.  Tory voters did the maths and told their MP's "NO"

     So instead the Tories make those least able to pay, pay more. Have we forgotten  the Council Tax rises to pay for care?

 

      

 

     

[cressida]

Can you transfer ownership of your home to your children?