How can we avoid getting 'left behind' as the surviving spouse if dementia sets in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

Yes, it's chilling, but I having been at this a long time and having been in support groups and talking to my friends there is plenty of financial abuse, corruption and exploitation WITHIN families. In fact most of us are dealing with it and the person turns the elder against you, the one not taking the money.

Dementia is awful in every way and we really need to allow people the right to decide they don't want to go down that road. If my husband is gone, I would like the option to give my money to my kids and charity without descending into a paranoid, spiteful, angry, violent and irrational tyrant.

I rarely see stories about what dealing with angry, paranoid, hostile dementia does to family members. You don't even need the person living in your home. You can have hired caregivers and they will still call you up with accusations, threaten you and lash out when you visit and throw ever verbal spear they can at your heart. I should not have to chose my own method and hope for the best to pass with dignity if i get the diagnosis. I should have the right to do it medically and properly say goodbyes and make plans for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

Here's the problem:

"Hulse, like most patients over 65, was covered by Medicare. It pays the hospital by diagnosis, not length of stay, an attempt to stop excessive billing. Generally it pays a hospital $23,000 for an elderly stroke patient in Orlando, a sum that assumes a five-day stay. After that, a hospital starts losing money. A new patient in the same bed would bring in thousands of dollars a day."

Hospitals have every incentive to boot a Medicare patient out the door as soon as possible. If you don't have someone fighting to keep you in the hospital if necessary they WILL try to get you out of there. If they need to get a guardian declared to make that happen, that's what's going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

Here's the problem:

"Hulse, like most patients over 65, was covered by Medicare. It pays the hospital by diagnosis, not length of stay, an attempt to stop excessive billing. Generally it pays a hospital $23,000 for an elderly stroke patient in Orlando, a sum that assumes a five-day stay. After that, a hospital starts losing money. A new patient in the same bed would bring in thousands of dollars a day."

Hospitals have every incentive to boot a Medicare patient out the door as soon as possible. If you don't have someone fighting to keep you in the hospital if necessary they WILL try to get you out of there. If they need to get a guardian declared to make that happen, that's what's going to happen.

I think the article precisely made the point you are reiterating here.

My point was that abuse and misconduct by guardians is not new, but is not covered with the breadth, depth, and frequency as it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

Here's the problem:

"Hulse, like most patients over 65, was covered by Medicare. It pays the hospital by diagnosis, not length of stay, an attempt to stop excessive billing. Generally it pays a hospital $23,000 for an elderly stroke patient in Orlando, a sum that assumes a five-day stay. After that, a hospital starts losing money. A new patient in the same bed would bring in thousands of dollars a day."

Hospitals have every incentive to boot a Medicare patient out the door as soon as possible. If you don't have someone fighting to keep you in the hospital if necessary they WILL try to get you out of there. If they need to get a guardian declared to make that happen, that's what's going to happen.

I think the article precisely made the point you are reiterating here.

My point was that abuse and misconduct by guardians is not new, but is not covered with the breadth, depth, and frequency as it should be.

Here's another issue to think about. We have someone coordinating care for mom who insists on aging in place and sibling is going along with it. Mom has become paranoid and more agitated and when I pointed out concerns to the coordinator she turned it on me-that I need to to just discuss it with mom and not drag her in. As anyone who works with dementia knows they don't always have self-awareness and become combative. That is out experience. I have to push, push, push to make it clear these are concerns we want evaluated, but I noticed the service offers guardianship. I am starting to wonder if it's in their best interest to play good cop bad cop so the elder no longer trusts adult child and they can be the ones to get guardianship. On the other hand if the elder fires them and distrusts adult child, there is nobody providing care. So....another reason why it may be easier to work with a memory care that has rehabilitation and nursing home care too. If the person ends up in the hospital-there is a safe and familiar place to go for appropriate care and no need for a stranger to quickly become guardian.

[Anonymous]

OP, another concern for you is if your husband needs expensive care before you do. You need to know your rights as a spouse to keep some of your assets, so you are not left alive and destitute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

A lot of the states that allow the worst abuses of guardianship are minimal-government states, and the low COL and general FREEDUMB vibes are very appealing to people who think everyone should look out for themselves. When they can't, the abuse starts. It's one of the reasons I'd never move south in retirement. (Also climate change and giant bugs)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this article shocking. This is what I’d be worried about, and taking steps to prevent, if I was the OP.

https://wapo.st/3MsheUE

Chilling. While this is not a new story, glad that WaPo is reporting on it and will continue to do so.

A lot of the states that allow the worst abuses of guardianship are minimal-government states, and the low COL and general FREEDUMB vibes are very appealing to people who think everyone should look out for themselves. When they can't, the abuse starts. It's one of the reasons I'd never move south in retirement. (Also climate change and giant bugs)

totally agree. used to think maybe NC, but politics too volatile now.