Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:45 AM Mar 2014

Tell these 10 states: Don't let Medicaid take my house after I die [View all]

Tell these 10 states: Don't let Medicaid take my house after I die

Federal government doesn't like the idea but can't stop it

Thanks to the new health care law, millions more people now qualify for free health care under an expansion of the Medicaid program. Unfortunately, some of those people may end up having their homes seized by their state goverment after they die. Specifically, that risk applies to new Medicaid recipients 55 and older who live in 10 states: California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

Why? It goes back to an obscure federal law that allows states to pay themselves back for Medicaid benefits paid to some people after they die, drawing on the estates of those dead people. The law applies to everyone who gets Medicaid for nursing home care, but states have the option to extend it to all over-55 recipients of Medicaid—including, in the case of those 10 states, those taking advantage of the new expansion of benefits.

As the news of the threat of "estate recovery" has spread, some people are actually turning down Medicaid that they're entitled to. “We’ve heard of people having their children pay full premiums for private insurance because they want to leave their houses to their kids,” Michelle Lilienfeld, senior attorney with the nonprofit National Health Law Program, said...health advocates and state Medicaid agencies have been waiting for the federal government to issue “guidance” on whether it’s kosher for states to go after the estates of over-55 Medicaid expansion recipients. Finally the guidance has appeared—and changes nothing for the time being.

<...>

The one encouraging thing about the government’s guidance: if you’re getting expanded Medicaid, the state government can’t put a lien on your house while you're still alive, as it can for people whose nursing home bills are being paid by Medicaid. That means that once you’re off Medicaid and onto Medicare, and live in a state that’s still determined to take your house, you can get around it by signing it over to your children before you die.

- more -

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/02/can-medicaid-take-my-house-when-i-die/index.htm


Implementing Health Reform: Medicaid Asset Rules And The Affordable Care Act

by Timothy Jost Timothy Jost

<...>

From very early in the Medicaid program’s history, however, there has been a concern that people who could otherwise afford to pay for at least some long-term care services would voluntarily impoverish themselves, transferring assets to their children or to others to make themselves eligible for Medicaid. Congress and the states have therefore adopted laws and regulations to limit asset transfers by Medicaid recipients. These prohibitions were initially evaded through the use of trusts and other financial devices, resulting in the enactment of additional laws to bar these evasions.

<...>

The Affordable Care Act creates a new category of Medicaid recipients — adults with incomes under 133 percent of the poverty level. It also changes income and asset eligibility rules for parents, children, and pregnant women, who were already eligible for Medicaid. Eligibility for these categories of recipients is now calculated based on “modified adjusted gross income,” or MAGI. There are no asset requirements for persons who become eligible for Medicaid under MAGI rules. The question thus arises as to how existing rules regarding asset transfers, liens, estate recoveries, and post-eligibility income apply to persons eligible for Medicaid based on MAGI.... Although the federal and state law governing Medicaid liens and estate recoveries are primarily concerned with recipients who receive high-cost long-term care services, federal law that existed prior to the ACA allows states to recover from the estates of any Medicaid recipient age 55 or over for the cost of any Medicaid services, and a number of states have existing laws that would allow such recoveries. ACA opponents have been spreading the word that if people age 55 or over sign up for expansion Medicaid, the government will recover from their estate when they die. The Memorandum attempts to address these concerns.

<...>

Medicaid rules prohibit Medicaid coverage of LTSS for persons who have equity in a home that exceeds a certain value, which for 2014 is set at $543,000 (or, at a state’s option, at $814,000). Although, again, there are no asset restrictions on MAGI eligibility, the home equity requirement applies to eligibility for LTSS services, not for Medicaid, and thus applies to MAGI-eligible individuals who receive LTSS services.

Individuals who receive institutional and home and community-based LTSS services as traditional categorically- or medically-needy Medicaid recipients must generally spend all of their income on LTSS, except for a small personal needs allowance and funds necessary to maintain their spouse or family in the community, with Medicaid paying for the additional cost of the services. These post-eligibility treatment of income (PETI) rules do not explicitly apply to MAGI-eligible individuals. CMS recognizes, however, that it is inequitable to apply these rules to other Medicaid recipients but not MAGI individuals. It is contemplating rulemaking, therefore, to extend these rules to MAGI eligible individuals...most of the rules that apply to traditional Medicaid recipients with respect to LTSS (except for lien requirements) are likely to apply to MAGI-eligible individuals who receive LTSS. CMS intends, however, to take steps to avoid applying estate-recovery rules to MAGI-eligible individuals who do not receive LTSS to keep this from becoming a barrier to Medicaid expansion eligibility.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/02/24/implementing-health-reform-medicaid-asset-rules-and-the-affordable-care-act/
54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Mar 2014 #1
Wow-- there are lots of "blue states" in that group Art_from_Ark Mar 2014 #2
The practice is abhorrent, but ProSense Mar 2014 #3
Maybe that's the idea. Brigid Mar 2014 #7
"Yuppy Law" rules. nt adirondacker Mar 2014 #52
Wow. Thank you for posting this. theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #4
You're welcome. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #6
But doesn't this happen already newfie11 Mar 2014 #5
An owned residence is an asset like cash and must be used before Medicaid pays, yes. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #9
I don't know why it would YarnAddict Mar 2014 #12
It's because people want to be able to leave something for their children. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #13
My personal philosophy is YarnAddict Mar 2014 #15
At least make sure there is enough to pay for the funeral nobodyspecial Mar 2014 #31
That is something normal people like us... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2014 #48
This has been happening since the 80s. It was in answer to the practice of some rich people who jwirr Mar 2014 #14
I think it's been this way for years YarnAddict Mar 2014 #8
The difference here is that they aren't asked to spend down their asset. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #10
Understood. YarnAddict Mar 2014 #11
Living at home is less expensive than living in a nursing home. Then they pay for Medicaid after jwirr Mar 2014 #16
Yup, and that's the way it works. YarnAddict Mar 2014 #19
Yes. jwirr Mar 2014 #20
This isn't about nursing home residents. Moosepoop Mar 2014 #17
180 days in a nursing home is paid by Medicare. After that by your social security or by jwirr Mar 2014 #21
I didn't mean to imply that it did. Moosepoop Mar 2014 #22
Yea. Only the wealthy should be able to establish any form of inheritance for their children. adirondacker Mar 2014 #53
I think this happens in Missouri also WhiteTara Mar 2014 #18
every nursing home you look at asks immediately if they have a house. bettyellen Mar 2014 #23
Kick! n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #24
I am not understanding the objection. I am "land poor," meaning that I have little enough Mar 2014 #25
one problem is it is just one age group singled out questionseverything Mar 2014 #27
OK, don't sign up for Medicaid. Then, hospital and docs will take your house before you die. Hoyt Mar 2014 #26
Why should the taxpayers pay for your medicaid bills and not get reimbursed after kelly1mm Mar 2014 #28
I just don't ProSense Mar 2014 #29
By taking the asset to repay the taxpayers for the medicaid expenses paid out kelly1mm Mar 2014 #30
OK, a ProSense Mar 2014 #32
Yes to answer your question yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #33
Really? ProSense Mar 2014 #35
You are going further into your question yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #37
"We are not talking poor people here they owned a home." ProSense Mar 2014 #40
Ok you win the argument yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #43
Well, ProSense Mar 2014 #44
Thank You!!! adirondacker Mar 2014 #54
Yes, I would. Chan790 Mar 2014 #38
What ProSense Mar 2014 #41
Why do they get millions exempted in estate taxes? Chan790 Mar 2014 #45
Huh? ProSense Mar 2014 #46
Read. Chan790 Mar 2014 #47
Yes, I read that, and ProSense Mar 2014 #49
Regardless of precedent, I don't have an issue with it. Chan790 Mar 2014 #50
Do you think ProSense Mar 2014 #51
Yes. It is not their house. It is the person who passed house. If they had 200k in the bank kelly1mm Mar 2014 #34
The piece ProSense Mar 2014 #39
No, I would do not envision a single payer system doing that at all. That is not how any of the kelly1mm Mar 2014 #42
Yes. n/t Chan790 Mar 2014 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tell these 10 states: Don...