# Nursing Home costs for my mum



## 4th estate (29 Jan 2010)

My mum is disabled and has other problems sadly.

She has been in a Nursing Home since 2001. The cost has risen steadily over the years, which is OK as inflation was rising too.

In the past week I have had a letter from the NH saying the fee has gone up to €4300 per month from €3740.

This is to do with the Fair Deal apparently. The NH will get a flat fee for care from HSE. The Fair Deal will cover that for those who qualify.

My mum doesn't qualify for anything from the FD.

Now you may say - well if she can afford it she's ok. Fair enough. She is lucky that my late father left her reasonably well provided for. The problem is, her income does not equal the NH fee. So her savings are depleting month by month. So eventually, when all her savings are gone, she might qualify for Fair Deal.

It would appear that this major increase in fees has arisen as a result of the Fair Deal, well that was intimated in the letter. So if Fair Deal was not introduced, mum would not have to pay such a big increase. I don't get that.

Look, I know we are OK. I just feel that if you work all your life, and provide for your old age, you get nothing, whereas, there are residents in the NH who pay absolutely nothing.

Forgive the rant, I am just raging that it costs so much to look after her.


----------



## Maverick (30 Jan 2010)

I can identify with your situation. The fair deal is an excellent scheme for many people, but unfortunately, if you have considerable assets, and there are not protected (as is the primary residence) then over the course of twenty years they will disappear totally.

In the next room to your mother, there will be a little old dear that smoked, drank, and ran loose with men with no assets and they'll pay 80% of thier pension, and nothing else, - but to the nursing home, it all the same amount of money


----------



## ali (30 Jan 2010)

Maverick said:


> I can identify with your situation. The fair deal is an excellent scheme for many people, but unfortunately, if you have considerable assets, and there are not protected (as is the primary residence) then over the course of twenty years they will disappear totally.
> 
> In the next room to your mother, there will be a little old dear that smoked, drank, and ran loose with men with no assets and they'll pay 80% of thier pension, and nothing else, - but to the nursing home, it all the same amount of money


 
Ran loose with men? You are kidding? Beyond antiquated, misogynistic and most of all TOTALLY irrelevant to the subject matter.

A.


----------



## Ann1 (30 Jan 2010)

I thought your mum could retain €36,000 in savings and still use the Fair Deal scheme.


----------



## z104 (30 Jan 2010)

Ann1 said:


> I thought your mum could retain €36,000 in savings and still use the Fair Deal scheme.


 

She can


----------



## twofor1 (30 Jan 2010)

There’s always going to be someone who contributes nothing and gets everything.

I think the Fair Deal is great. I have a family member in a nursing home costing €1200+ weekly, Fair Deal pays most of this.

My family member worked hard and paid taxes for 50 years, has a home and savings, but these fees are beyond even those considered well off.

It is very comforting to know my family members care is assured indefinitely, without Fair Deal this would not be possible.


----------



## Aurelia (31 Jan 2010)

I so agree Ali,I had to reread it to see if I was reading it correctly, okay smoking and drinking have to do with health issues and could be the reason why someone is in a nursing home but RAN LOOSE WITH MEN, pinch me please, I must be dreaming!!!!  Sexual diseases generally kill you off quickly or not at all, so it has no bearing on nursing homes


----------



## bullworth (31 Jan 2010)

Mavericks post is appalling and snobbish. Wealth or lack of it has no bearing on sexual promiscuity or alcoholism. Not even the daily tabloid reported antics of wealthy celebs can prove that.


----------



## Aurelia (31 Jan 2010)

emm, would you call it snobbish, I dont think I would give the remarks those kudus, I would call it as being very isolated from real life. and a little sad


----------



## Romulan (31 Jan 2010)

I think the little old lady remarks were meant as tongue in cheek.

I certainly read them as such.


----------



## vienne86 (5 Feb 2010)

I too was surprised when I saw the figures in the case of our mother who has been in a home for over seven years.  The amount she is having to pay, plus the amount the HSE is paying, is quite a bit more than we are currently paying.  I was really surprised to see this.  Two family members pay deeds of covenant to our mother, which counts as part of her income;  so the fact that we make payments to our mother saves the HSE some money!  But, for us, it is still a good deal.

And the above 'little old lady' comments seemed to me to be tongue in cheek!


----------



## RIAD_BSC (6 Feb 2010)

Ah for God's sake, will ye all lighten up!? Maverick's comments were clearly in jest, if a little sardonic. I still giggled, though.......


----------



## Eithneangela (6 Feb 2010)

Hi OP. Don't know if this helps but the fees you are talking about seem to be Dublin-type prices.  Have you considered moving your mother to a nursing home in the country - somewhere along a major roadway like the N11, M1, N7 etc.  The fees appear to be somewhat less outside the major urban locations.  Also, the homes are generally more attractive for long-stay clients - with more land to give views, facilitate walks or outdoor activities.  My mother was in a Nursing Home in Ranelagh for 4 years and while the staff and care were great, I thought the clients were like sardines, sitting in tiny rooms all day, nowhere outside for safe walks etc.  You ned to balance things in terms of your mother's care, the location as far as accessibility for visits, and the cost.  I wish you well on this.


----------



## browtal (15 May 2010)

The Fair Deal Scheme is fair to some and not to others as all schemes
Your relation cannot be made worse off as a result of the Fair Deal scheme the HSE has made this commitment.

Is they are in an approved private nursing home before the start of the scheme they can continue as before and get the same subvention arrangements.
If they apply for the new scheme and have been in the Nursing home for 3 years or more the financial assessment will only be based on income and assets other than the principal residence i.e. the three year cap will apply.
I agree with some of the contributors often the prudent will be punished as against the week by week spend all individual.
HSE have a very simple and useful brochure giviing all the details - Nursing Homes support Scheme.
Browtal


----------



## seantheman (16 May 2010)

4th estate said:


> Forgive the rant, I am just raging that it costs so much to look after her.


 
Perhaps you didn't mean to sound so cold with this sentiment, but it's the only part of your 'rant' that sticks in my memory


----------



## 4th estate (19 May 2010)

seantheman said:


> Perhaps you didn't mean to sound so cold with this sentiment, but it's the only part of your 'rant' that sticks in my memory



Oh my God, now that I look back at it I can see what you mean! 

No, never coldhearted, what I really meant to say was that I was raging that because my late father was a hard worker and prudent, and a planner, he left my mum in a good financial situation. And while that means she is now well looked after, it seems to me that if Dad had drunk or gambled his way through everything, and left nothing behind, mum would now qualify for the Fair Deal. I realise that those who do qualify are not all the result of profligacy during their lifetimes, before I get another rap on the knuckles!

Basically 5% of the residents in mum's home pay for themselves. The rest are fully or partially paid for by the State. 

By the time a few more years are up, all mum's capital will be gone. OK she has it to spend, but there is not much left over from her income to buy clothes, toiletries, a weekend away, visits, grandchildren and children's birthdays, Christmas etc. etc. So the capital (which is considered income for the Fair Deal test), is depleting at an alarming rate. However, when the capital is gone, she will qualify for Fair Deal, so I am trying to convince her to spend away - joke. BTW she is very generous to us all, just like my father was, nevertheless, despite us explaining that she will never be evicted, she is just afraid of having no means to support herself when her savings are gone. The old ethic thing.

So please don't think I am raging that the fee has to be paid, I am more raging at the disparity. That's all.


----------



## 4th estate (19 May 2010)

Ann1 said:


> I thought your mum could retain €36,000 in savings and still use the Fair Deal scheme.



Sorry, just one more point on the above. The fact is that €36,000 is NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT when assessing the amount the HSE will contribute. It does not necessarily mean you can salt that away.

For example, this is how FD it is worked out -

*Capital* - (savings, investments, property, shares etc.) LESS 36k and less the value of the family home, in her case anyway, think that's because she has been NH resident for more than 3 yrs. but maybe it applies to all. The Capital figure above after the allowances is X 5%.

*Income* - from all sources X 80%. Mortgage or borrowings on the family home are deductible, but what octogenarian would have a mortgage! It is net income, but Mum has no tax liability, because NH fees are deductible as Health Expenses.

So you add the two figures above, divide by 52 and if your answer equals or exceeds the HSE agreed weekly fee to said NH, you get no Fair Deal. If the answer is less than the agreed fee, HSE will pay all or the difference.

If anyone believes I have erred in the above please let me know. Thanks.


----------



## csirl (20 May 2010)

> No, never coldhearted, what I really meant to say was that I was raging that because my late father was a hard worker and prudent, and a planner, he left my mum in a good financial situation. And while that means she is now well looked after, it seems to me that if Dad had drunk or gambled his way through everything, and left nothing behind, mum would now qualify for the Fair Deal. I realise that those who do qualify are not all the result of profligacy during their lifetimes, before I get another rap on the knuckles!


 
Interesting point. I've always wondered whether or not Fair Deal is Constitutional considering the emphasis on "Prudence" in the Preamble to the Constitution. Same goes for many other means tested schemes. 

*And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured,.......... *​


----------

