rest homes

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Many nursing homes and assisted living facilities will not take Medicaid patients.

Usually assisted living facilities won't take Medicaid. Some nursing homes won't, but most do. There are some fancier nursing homes that will keep a person who is on Medicaid, after he has paid for at least two years privately.

At the rate of $100,000/year and a period of time of 2 years,
the patient will either be dead or will have exhausted most of his money and thus be elegible to Medicaid.

Many private pay patients will not go to a nursing home that has Medicaid patients.

0 Replies

Was thinking of Elizabeth Cottage when I read this thread, hamburger. The site says "no pets" but I seem to remember reading that there was a resident house cat. It sounds like a terrific option for the independent elderly -- of course we are fortunate to have universal health care here so that's not as much an issue.

0 Replies

We're fortunate to not have "universal health care" here, and as a result, I can often get a same-day appointment with my physician, should I need one.

With Universal health care, the wait time could be any thing from 4-12 months for an ordinary internal medicine visit.

0 Replies

Quote:

At the rate of $100,000/year and a period of time of 2 years,
the patient will either be dead or will have exhausted most of his money and thus be elegible to Medicaid.

Many private pay patients will not go to a nursing home that has Medicaid patients.

True, but there are people who have amassed a few hundred thousand, and will pay for as long as they can, and then go on Medicaid. I know this from personal experience. My ex was in one of the top nursing homes in the US. He paid until his money ran out, and then he went on Medicaid.

0 Replies

It's sad to lose all of your money because of a nursing home.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

It's sad to lose all of your money because of a nursing home.

Hey, I look at it this way. The nursing home IS taking care of you. If a spouse in involved, there are ways that a person can insure that he/she is not left holding the bag if you have to go into a nursing home. Long term care insurance is one thing that I have mentioned before. If a person has money, but not a lot of it, he/she should talk to a lawyer, years before the need arises, about ways to protect your assets.

0 Replies

We've a compulsary nursing care insurance here, which pays partly (depending on how you are "classified") for the nursing care - both at home and/or in senior residences.

Top residences cost up to $4,000 per month (plus extras), but you can get the very same service a lot cheaper as well.

If you run out of money, it's taken over by the local social welfare department.

0 Replies

walter wrote :

Quote:

Top residences cost up to $4,000 per month (plus extras), but you can get the very same service a lot cheaper as well.

If you run out of money, it's taken over by the local social welfare department.

it's somewhat similar here in ontario - and it may even vary from city to city , since it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government - but they do provide "block grants" .

a friend of mine needed to go into a care facility after a serious stoke .
the best facility - operated by the city - told his wife that they had a rather long waiting list . when she told them that they would be happy to pay the full price , he had a room within two weeks .

by getting as many full-paying residents as possible , they can subsidize those that cannot pay the full charge .

the cost of a private bedroom with a semi-private bathroom (each bathroom is shared by two occupants) was about CAN $ 3,000 .
he could have gone into a private facilty at a lower cost , but that facility was not nearly as modern .
(our friend walter passed away in february after having been there for a year - he was 83 and had lived a very good life . his wife and his friends miss him very much but we all knew that the end was coming and noone , including his wife , wanted him to suffer for a long time . i guess that's life ) .
hbg

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

It's sad to lose all of your money because of a nursing home.

Considering the cost of health care, what better use of one's money than covering the costs of their care? It's not like they'd have use for it beyond the rest home. While I don't advocate allowing a surviving spouse to lose their home or become otherwise unable to meet their needs, I can't imagine what else the money should be used for.

If there are children in the family who feel the elderly adult is burning through their inheritance, he/she can always have mom or dad live with them and save the cost of a rest home.

What do you mean by, "lose all of your money", Miller?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Top residences cost up to $4,000 per month (plus extras)...

Top nursing homes ( where there are actually RNs on staff!) can cost well over $10,000/month.

Medicare does pay for a nursing home for 90 days.
After that, you're on your own ( one way or the other ).

0 Replies

Quote:

What do you mean by, "lose all of your money", Miller?

This was in response to Phoenix's comment about a Senior paying $200,000 for two years in a nursing home prior to being eligible for medicaid, when the sole assets of the Senior amounted to $200,000.

0 Replies

I realize that, but if someone is lucky enough to have $200,000 to pay for their care and needs (without putting a surviving spouse into financial ruin) then why would such a use be considered a loss?

0 Replies

miller wrote :

Quote:

With Universal health care, the wait time could be any thing from 4-12 months for an ordinary internal medicine visit.

since we live in ontario , we are covered by what you may call "universal health care" - there are certainly some medical costs that are NOT covered by the plan , but they are either small incidental costs , such as asperin and also some extremely expensive and usually experimental drugs and procedures .

as seniors we have a standing appointment once a month with our physician but if we are sick , we usually get an appointment the same or next day , of course , we also have the choice to go to the emergency department at one of our two hospitals (that is for a city of 120,000) .

my wife needed a cataract surgery and had a wait-time of six months - her first surgery was two weeks ago .
the chief eye-surgeon had suggested to her that she have one of his other surgeons perform the operation . she could have had it done in a month.
but since chief operates only two mornings a week - he teaches both here in toronto - she had a longer wait-time .

i'm sure "universal health care" is not the absolutely perfect solution for everyone , but we know that we will get care without having to go broke in the process - or perhaps get sub-standard care or none at all ?
hbg

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I realize that, but if someone is lucky enough to have $200,000 to pay for their care and needs (without putting a surviving spouse into financial ruin) then why would such a use be considered a loss?

There are some parents who will go through all sorts of machinations, so that they will have money to leave their kids. That is great, if there is enough to go around after mom and pop are cared for. I can't see a person stinting on long term care, simply so that they can leave their kids some money.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I realize that, but if someone is lucky enough to have $200,000 to pay for their care and needs (without putting a surviving spouse into financial ruin) then why would such a use be considered a loss?

If they had consulted an attorney, who specializes in Elder Law, ways could have been found that allowed the Senior to sequester their $200,000, not pay it to the nursing home and still qualify for Medicaid.
This is a common practice.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

If they had consulted an attorney, who specializes in Elder Law, ways could have been found that allowed the Senior to sequester their $200,000, not pay it to the nursing home and still qualify for Medicaid.
This is a common practice.

Very true. But as you know, there are homes (usually the better facilities) who would not take someone off the bat if all they had was Medicaid. I would much prefer that a loved one spend spend their money, and leave the kids less, then end up in a substandard place.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Miller wrote:
If they had consulted an attorney, who specializes in Elder Law, ways could have been found that allowed the Senior to sequester their $200,000, not pay it to the nursing home and still qualify for Medicaid.
This is a common practice.

Very true. But as you know, there are homes (usually the better facilities) who would not take someone off the bat if all they had was Medicaid. I would much prefer that a loved one spend spend their money, and leave the kids less, then end up in a substandard place.

Very true.

0 Replies

The nursing home may be betting on the patient not living beyond their assets prior to the start of their medicaid payments.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

The nursing home may be betting on the patient not living beyond their assets prior to the start of their medicaid payments.

Absolutely. I remember reading somewhere that the average nursing home stay is just around 2 years.

0 Replies

Sorry, Miller -- but you're pushing one of my hot buttons. Why should taxpayers pay for the long term care of an elderly person who then ends with lower quality care so that their money can be sequestered for use by others? I am fully in favor of taxpayer supported health and elder care for those who cannot otherwise afford it, but not when it's the result of working the system in such a way.

Common practice or not, saving for one's elder needs is admirable. Getting sub-standard care at taxpayer expense so that their children can reap the benefit of their savings in not, IMO.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know