Who should pay for home health care? Patient or children of patient?

I think parents should pay for their own care. While I think it's great if a child is willing and able to pay, said child will also need to think about his/her own old age as well. Who is going to pick up the tab when the child is elderly and possibly in need of long term care if the child spent his/her own life savings paying for their parents' care? Is the cycle continued by having that child's children pick up the tab, and so on and so on? When does it end?

If you're Bill Gates, then you're morally responsible to pay for their care. If you have trouble paying your own bills, you're not obliged.

I think a person of some means should take care of her family's needs and reasonable wants first, and then contribute to the parents' care and well-being. If the parent is truly eligible for Medicaid, and the rest of the family is not rolling in big bucks, go for Medicaid. And save for your own retirement.

I'm not sure if this question is being asked from a "who do YOU believe should pay?" standpoint or from a "legally, who is required to pay?" standpoint.

So, assuming the first is the case, here's my POV ...

Parents are morally and legally (as they should be) responsible for all costs of medical care (including long-term and home care) needed by their minor children. This is entirely fair and appropriate, as the parents chose to bring those children into the world, and in doing so, agreed to care for them until they could care for themselves.

Parents are not legally responsible for the costs of medical care for their adult children.

No child of any age is morally (or should be legally) responsible for covering the costs of medical care for their parents. Such costs should be paid by insurance first, if it exists. Then by the patient's assets until exhausted. Then Medicaid.

If a child volunteers to step in and cover costs, he or she is free to do so, to the full extent of his/her desire and ability to pay. Many of us have done or are doing this for one or both parents. But it is in no way fair or moral to REQUIRE a child to do this. No one is born into lifelong servitude or financial responsibility for another. Children do not ask to be born, and cannot therefore morally be obligated to a "contract" they never agreed to make.

Home healthcare is available under medicare for short term health issues. The client must be homebound. This is a medicare rule. Homebound means they are able to go out to dr. appointments, to have their hair done or go to church. It does not allow for the client to go to a son/daughter's home to visit, go to dinner etc. Some insurance policies have home healthcare benefits but every policy is different. Some of these benefits do not have the homebound rule medicare does. There is no long term benefit for home health care under medicare. If a client has little to no assets, they may qualify for medicaid and programs that your state may provide such as the frail elderly waiver here in Iowa. Your agency on aging in your county should have information about programs that are available.

Insurance if applicable, patient's assets, Medicaid if appropriate

Whoever is in the position to pay for it. Patient first, then children (if they can), and then medicaid if no one has the resources.

The pay should DEFINITELY come from the patient's assets, and then when it runs out, children will need to contribute in one way or the other.

If you parent has the money to pay, I think that money should be spent first. Often, the money will run out and the children will have to pick up the costs. I pay for my mom's assisting living care out of her account. I pay for her supplies, treats and clothes with my money. Eventually, her money will be gone and it is not likely that she will live long enough to qualify for medicaid. At that time, I will take full financial responsibility for her care.