Sheffield council care home fees

[Phili Buster 10]

Of course they wont. But dont kid yourself into thinking money grabbing reletives wont stick granny in a crap hole so they can have more money when they shuffle off. All homes should (should being the opertive word) be of a deecnt standard - and in my limited experience there were still a decent number at a "par" price.

 

 

Think 'granny' is allowed about £16,000 in assets. That's property, belongings and cash.

 

If below that then subsidised funding applies with 'granny' receiving about £25 per week as pocket money from her income (pension, investments, interest etc) with remainder of income going to fund care. Rest is subsidised by council social services up to set amounts (certainly not £1000 per week). Relatives to provide additional funding if the selected care home charge is above the subsidised limits.

 

If above that (about £16,000) then 'granny' is self-funding and pays all costs until assets fall below about £16,000 when above will apply. I believe, again, that 'granny' receive about £25 per week pocket money.

 

There are two subsidised limits depending upon whether full nursing care is needed or not. Some care homes charge at these limits, some above these limits.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Think 'granny' is allowed about £16,000 in assets. That's property, belongings and cash.

 

If below that then subsidised funding applies with 'granny' receiving about £25 per week as pocket money from her income (pension, investments, interest etc) with remainder of income going to fund care. Rest is subsidised by council social services up to set amounts (certainly not £1000 per week). Relatives to provide additional funding if the selected care home charge is above the subsidised limits.

 

If above that (about £16,000) then 'granny' is self-funding and pays all costs until assets fall below about £16,000 when above will apply. I believe, again, that 'granny' receive about £25 per week pocket money.

 

There are two subsidised limits depending upon whether full nursing care is needed or not. Some care homes charge at these limits, some above these limits.

 

That's different to Derbyshire county council which is why I'm very keen the border between the two local authorities remains.

[Anna B 1,414]

Think 'granny' is allowed about £16,000 in assets. That's property, belongings and cash.

 

If below that then subsidised funding applies with 'granny' receiving about £25 per week as pocket money from her income (pension, investments, interest etc) with remainder of income going to fund care. Rest is subsidised by council social services up to set amounts (certainly not £1000 per week). Relatives to provide additional funding if the selected care home charge is above the subsidised limits.

 

If above that (about £16,000) then 'granny' is self-funding and pays all costs until assets fall below about £16,000 when above will apply. I believe, again, that 'granny' receive about £25 per week pocket money.

 

There are two subsidised limits depending upon whether full nursing care is needed or not. Some care homes charge at these limits, some above these limits.

 

The last £16,000 might well disappear too if you don't keep an eye on it, and it's the devil's own job trying to get it back. Keep your own accounts.

[Detetcive 10]

That's different to Derbyshire county council which is why I'm very keen the border between the two local authorities remains.

 

The rules are the same across the country. There is something called the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines issued by the Dept of Health which apply in England and Wales

[Margarita Ma 10]

Call me an old cynic, but these days some charities are nothing of the sort, and are simply a tax dodge.

 

I'm not saying this one is, but there's a lot of money to be made in having 'charitable status.'

 

Well as it appears that there is not a lot of money to be made in caring for the old, and not well heeled. I would agree that this is not one of those tax dodge things but a creation that allowed the council to transfer staff to the new provider who may have had to compete, not that there is much competition for the residents who do not have a substantial amount of money to pay for their care. My experience is that the staff at the main home my father had to go to (because he needed 24 hour care and family could no longer cope) were so badly paid they mostly did not care much about anyone but themselves, but that was many years ago. I would like to think that things are better now but I remain to be convinced.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Margarita Ma
added text.

[Anna B 1,414]

Well as it appears that there is not a lot of money to be made in caring for the old, and not well heeled. I would agree that this is not one of those tax dodge things but a creation that allowed the council to transfer staff to the new provider who may have had to compete, not that there is much competition for the residents who do not have a substantial amount of money to pay for their care. My experience is that the staff at the main home my father had to go to (because he needed 24 hour care and family could no longer cope) were so badly paid they mostly did not care much about anyone but themselves, but that was many years ago. I would like to think that things are better now but I remain to be convinced.

 

IMO it's the quality of the staff that make the most difference in a care home, not how much you pay for your surroundings.

Lovely, kind and caring staff that are prepared to go the extra mile are worth their weight in gold in these institutions. It's about having the right attitude rather than qualifications, although proper, top quality training is essential.

 

However most are on minimum wage and badly overworked due to minimal staffing levels=more profit. Also because qualifications are unnecessary it's considered a job 'anyone can do' and therefore some wholly unsuitable people are pushed into it.

 

It's certainly not the job for just anyone, a certain vocation for this kind of work is required, and management should help by providing support and adequate staffing levels for what is a very demanding job. Sadly that is often lacking because they too are tied by budget constraints.

When 'profits' come into the picture, everything else flies out of the window.

[tinfoilhat 11]

IMO it's the quality of the staff that make the most difference in a care home, not how much you pay for your surroundings.

Lovely, kind and caring staff that are prepared to go the extra mile are worth their weight in gold in these institutions. It's about having the right attitude rather than qualifications, although proper, top quality training is essential.

 

However most are on minimum wage and badly overworked due to minimal staffing levels=more profit. Also because qualifications are unnecessary it's considered a job 'anyone can do' and therefore some wholly unsuitable people are pushed into it.

 

It's certainly not the job for just anyone, a certain vocation for this kind of work is required, and management should help by providing support and adequate staffing levels for what is a very demanding job. Sadly that is often lacking because they too are tied by budget constraints.

When 'profits' come into the picture, everything else flies out of the window.

 

Id agree with most of that - in fact one question that should be asked to any care home manager is staff to resident ratios. The homes that charge the big bucks arent just in nice places but are well staffed, and well run by magement too - they will also be the ones with a waiting list. The worst ones, by definition have poor front line staff and poor management and plenty of vacancies!