Pay

Councils pay care homes DOUBLE to take Covid patients



a group of people sitting in a chair talking on the phone: MailOnline logo


© Provided by Daily Mail
MailOnline logo

Care home chiefs fear deadly mistakes made at the peak of the coronavirus pandemic risk being repeated as councils offer them extra cash to take Covid-positive hospital patients.

More than 15,000 people died of the virus in care homes earlier this year, according to official figures, after it was reported that many elderly residential facilities were flooded with Covid-19 patients returning from hospital.

Now, despite a Government pledge to place a ‘protective ring’ around vulnerable residents, care homes in Cumbria are being offered £1,500 – double the local weekly fee – to take Covid-positive patients from hospital.

Birmingham city council has been offering £1,000 incentives for months while Morecambe Bay clinical commissioning group wrote to care homes offering them extra cash only last month.

Trafford council in Greater Manchester has also warned care homes to ready themselves for a fresh wave of hospital discharges, telling them to expect Covid-positive patients within just two hours of their discharge from hospital.



a man and a woman sitting on a table: TEST RESULT WARNING: Nadra Ahmed, of the National Care Association said: ‘In the Government’s winter plan they talked about making discharges safe. We have had reports from providers who’ve taken people from hospital with negative test results and they’ve tested them on arrival and their tests come back positive.’


© Provided by Daily Mail
TEST RESULT WARNING: Nadra Ahmed, of the National Care Association said: ‘In the Government’s winter plan they talked about making discharges safe. We have had reports from providers who’ve taken people from hospital with negative test results and they’ve tested them on arrival and their tests come back positive.’

Eileen Chubb, from the whistleblowing charity Compassion in Care, said: ‘It’s the same attitude to elderly people all over again – rushing them into care homes. They’re sacrificing people needlessly.’

Roger Waluube, manager of Pelham House care home in Folkestone, Kent, said: ‘It is completely unacceptable to transfer people from the hospital into the community when you think they could pose a risk to others.’

In April, hospitals were told to stop sending untested patients to care homes following a

Continue Reading

Hanford contractors agree to pay $58 million fine for fraud

Two companies that do work at a former nuclear weapons production plant will pay fines of nearly $58 million for improperly billing the federal government for thousands of hours of work that were not performed

SPOKANE, Wash. — Two companies that do work at a former nuclear weapons production plant will pay fines of nearly $58 million for improperly billing the federal government for thousands of hours of work that were not performed.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday afternoon announced the settlement involving the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a Manhattan Project-era facility near Richland, Washington, that is the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site.

The settlement was reached between Bechtel Corp. and AECOM Energy & Construction Inc., which for years have been constructing a giant nuclear waste treatment plant to clean up the Hanford site, which produced most of the plutonium for the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

“It is stunning that, for nearly a decade, Bechtel and AECOM chose to line their corporate pockets by diverting important taxpayer funds from this critically essential effort,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Harrington said in a news release.

As part of the agreement, the contractors denied any liability in regard to further legal actions.

“As a company, we felt it was in the best interest of the project and our customer to resolve this matter so that we can avoid the distractions and expenses of a protracted legal proceeding,” Barbara Rusinko, president of Bechtel’s Nuclear, Security & Environmental global business unit, said in a press release.

Hanford was created during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project effort to create an atomic bomb. Plutonium produced at Hanford was used in the atomic

Continue Reading

I moved into my in-laws’ home. My husband wants to pay his parents’ mortgage, but it will come out of my income. How can I protect myself?

Dear Moneyist,

I got married recently and moved into my husband’s house that he shares with his parents. (His name and his parents’ name are on the deed.) Currently, we pay a small amount for rent, but my husband hopes to take on the mortgage of the house over the next couple of years. I am the breadwinner, and so the majority (or even all) of the money that would go towards the mortgage would be coming from me.

Before fully committing to this, are there any precautions I need to take? Or what are the risks I could be facing? I am worried about what would happen if I end up paying off their home, and they want to sell it or my in-laws pass away, or if they decide to give their share of the house to my husband’s sister, or if my husband and I separate (which is more of a worse-case scenario).

In all those cases would I be entitled to anything with the house? Unfortunately, you can sometimes get screwed over dealing with family. How can I prevent this from happening? I do want to help pay the mortgage. I would like to think my husband and his family would not do anything untoward, but I still would like to take precautions. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Thank you for your help.

Daughter-in-law

The Moneyist: My sister-in-law moved in with her mother, changed her will, set up a new trust and inherited everything. Is it too late to claim what rightfully belongs to us?

Dear Daughter-in-law,

It’s not a good idea to use marital funds to pay off your in-laws’ mortgage, particularly given all of the potential scenarios you lay out. There are probably a few more that you have not thought

Continue Reading

Home Remodeling – Does It Pay to Spend Less?

It pays to spend less whenever you can, right? Well, not necessarily. There are some cases where the “less is more” principle doesn’t work.

Being cheap cuts costs for the moment, but usually cause you to incur additional greater expenses in the long run. That ends up being the antithesis of frugality. In other words, you’re throwing money down the toilet.

Here are a few instances where thriftiness can backfire:

1. Couponing

10% off, free plans, free sink, free toilet, free granite, free $500 upgrade, free, free, free. This is couponing.

Are you saving money? The answer is no. Let me ask you a simple question: Do you know of any store that allows you to walk inside, take something off the shelf, and happily walk out the door with it? Nothing is free. People can’t pay the mortgage, pay the utilities, or put food on the table by giving stuff away for free. You’re paying for it somewhere. The problem is you don’t know where. It’s hidden. That’s dishonest, deceiving, and just plain wrong. Is this the type of person that you trust in your home with your family? Is this the type of person that you trust you’re hard-earned dollars with?

The moment of truth always comes once the job is started and out comes the change orders, ever-increasing demands for cash to “buy materials”, things don’t get done that were promised and materials you thought you were getting are not what’s installed. Worse, you can’t see the work that was done behind the walls – and this is what’s going to get you big time down the round – and boy will it cost you. Of course, the cell phone number of the person who did the work is no longer in service – how convenient! That’s …

Continue Reading