Medicaid Applicants & Home Care: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Clarifies Penalty Period Start Date

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has clarified when a transfer penalty begins for Medicaid applicants who are seeking home and community-based services. The penalty period begins when the applicant would begin receiving services were it not for the penalty period.

Brian Raphan, P.C.

After Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), CMS issued a guidance letter that a penalty period would not start to run until the date the “individual is eligible for Medicaid and is receiving institutional level of care services” [emphasis added]. But home and community-based services only become “services” once applicants are enrolled in the state’s waiver program and Medicaid is providing coverage. This caused a “Catch-22” for Medicaid applicants who were applying for home and community-based waivers: The penalty period would not begin to run until the applicants began receiving waiver services, but the applicants could not begin to receive waiver services until the penalty had run.

On April 17, 2018, CMS finally issued a new guidance letter, changing the start date of the penalty period to the date the “individual is eligible for medical assistance under the State plan and would otherwisebe receiving institutional level [of] care services” (emphasis added). This means that an applicant for home and community-based services will be eligible once the applicant meets the financial and non-financial requirements for Medicaid eligibility and the level-of-care requirements.

8 Common Mistakes in Medicaid Planning>

 

Proving That a Transfer Was Not Made in Order to Qualify for Medicaid

Medicaid law imposes a penalty period if you transferred assets within five years of applying, but what if the transfers had nothing to do with Medicaid? It is difficult to do, but if you can prove you made the transfers for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid, you can avoid a penalty.

You are not supposed to move into a nursing home on Monday, give all your money away on Tuesday, and qualify for Medicaid on Wednesday. So the government looks back five years for any asset transfers, and levies a penalty on people who transferred assets without receiving fair value in return. This penalty is a period of time during which the person transferring the assets will be ineligible for Medicaid. The penalty period is determined by dividing the amount transferred by what Medicaid determines to be the average private pay cost of a nursing home in your state.

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 4.16.25 PM

The penalty period can seem very unfair to someone who made gifts without thinking about the potential for needing Medicaid. For example, what if you made a gift to your daughter to help her through a hard time? If you unexpectedly fall ill and need Medicaid to pay for long-term care, the state will likely impose a penalty period based on the transfer to your daughter.

To avoid a penalty period, you will need to prove that you made the transfer for a reason other than qualifying for Medicaid. The burden of proof is on the Medicaid applicant and it can be difficult to prove. The following evidence can be used to prove the transfer was not for Medicaid planning purposes:

  • The Medicaid applicant was in good health at the time of the transfer. It is important to show that the applicant did not anticipate needing long-term care at the time of the gift.
  • The applicant has a pattern of giving. For example, the applicant has a history of helping his or her children when they are in need or giving annual gifts to family or charity.
  • The applicant had plenty of other assets at the time of the gift. An applicant giving away all of his or her money would be evidence that the applicant was anticipating the need for Medicaid.
  • The transfer was made for estate planning purposes or on the advice of an accountant.

Proving that a transfer was made for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid is difficult. If you innocently made transfers in the past and are now applying for Medicaid, consult with your elder law attorney. Medicaid Planning without a qualified attorney can lead to costly mistakes. To read more about common Medicaid Planning mistakes people make visit my website by clicking here.

Regards, Brian

 

What’s the Difference Between Medicare and Medicaid in the Context of Long-Term Care?

Although their names are confusingly alike, Medicaid and Medicare are quite different programs. Both of these programs provide health coverage, but Medicare is an “entitlement” program, meaning that everyone who reaches age 65 and is entitled to receive Social Security benefits also receives Medicare (Medicare also covers people of any age who are permanently disabled or who have end-stage renal disease.)

Medicaid, on the other hand, is a public assistance program that that helps pay medical costs for individuals with limited income and assets. To be eligible for Medicaid coverage, you must meet the program’s strict income and asset guidelines. Also, unlike Medicare, which is totally federal, Medicaid is a joint state-federal program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive federal money, which pays for about half the state’s Medicaid costs. (The state picks up the rest of the tab.)

Medicare and Medicaid Coverage of Long-Term Care

The most significant difference between Medicare and Medicaid in the realm of long-term care planning, however, is that Medicaid covers nursing home care, while Medicare, for the most part, does not. Medicare Part A covers only up to 100 days of care in a “skilled nursing” facility per spell of illness. The care in the skilled nursing facility must follow a stay of at least three days in a hospital. And for days 21 through 100, you must pay a co-payment. (This is generally covered by Medigap insurance.) In addition, the definition of “skilled nursing” and the other conditions for obtaining this coverage are quite stringent, meaning that few nursing home residents receive the full 100 days of coverage. As a result, Medicare pays for less than a quarter of long-term care costs in the U.S. In the absence of any other public program covering long-term care, Medicaid has become the default nursing home insurance of the middle class. Lacking access to alternatives such as paying privately or being covered by a longterm care insurance policy, most people pay out of their own pockets for long-term care until they become eligible for Medicaid. The fact that Medicaid is a joint state-federal program complicates matters, because the Medicaid eligibility rules are somewhat different from state to state, and they keep changing. (The states also sometimes have their own names for the program, such as “Medi-Cal” in California and “MassHealth” in Massachusetts.)

Both the federal government and most state governments seem to be continually tinkering with the eligibility requirements and restrictions.

This is why consulting with your elder law attorney is so important. As for home care, Medicaid has traditionally offered very little — except in New York, which provides home care to all Medicaid recipients who need it. Recognizing that home care costs far less than nursing home care, more and more states are providing Medicaid-covered services to those who remain in their homes. It’s possible to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Such recipients are called “dual eligibles.” Medicare beneficiaries who have limited income and resources can get help paying their out-of-pocket medical expenses from their state Medicaid program.

READ THE TOP 8 MEDICAID PLANNING MISTAKES>

Helpful and Free easy-to-read Legal Guides for Senior Citizens.

Written in easy to understand language

free legal guides

New Protections for Nursing Home Residents

Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 5.27.05 PM

New Obama-era rules designed to give nursing home residents more control of their care are gradually going into effect. The rules give residents more options regarding meals and visitation as well as make changes to discharge and grievance procedures.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid finalized the rules — the first comprehensive update to nursing home regulations since 1991 — in November 2016. The first group of new rules took effect in November; the rest will be phased in over the next two years.

Here are some of the new rules now in effect:

  • Visitors. The new rules allow residents to have visitors of the resident’s choosing and at the time the resident wants, meaning the facility cannot impose visiting hours. There are also rules about who must have immediate access to a resident, including a resident’s representative. For more information, click here.
  • Meals. Nursing homes must make meals and snacks available when residents want to eat, not just at designated meal times.
  • Roommates. Residents can choose their roommate as long as both parties agree.
  • Grievances. Each nursing home must designate a grievance official whose job it is to make sure grievances are properly resolved. In addition, residents must be free from the fear of discrimination for filing a grievance. The nursing home also has to put grievance decisions in writing. For more information, click here.
  • Transfer and Discharge. The new rules require more documentation from a resident’s physician before the nursing home can transfer or discharge a resident based on an inability to meet the resident’s needs. The nursing home also cannot discharge a patient for nonpayment if Medicaid is considering a payment claim. For more information, click here.

CMS also enacted a rule forbidding nursing homes from entering into binding arbitration agreements with residents or their representatives before a dispute arises.  However,a nursing home association sued to block the new rule and a U.S. district court has granted an injunction temporarily preventing CMS from implementing it.  The Trump Administration is reportedly planning to lift this ban on nursing home arbitration clauses.

In November 2017, rules regarding facility assessment, psychotropic drugs and medication review, and care plans, among others, will go into effect. The final set of regulations covering infection control and ethics programs will take effect in November 2019.

To read the rules, click here.

Medicaid Benefits – House Transfer: Deed Does Not Conflict

Reservation of Power of Appointment in Deed Does Not Conflict With Conveyance of Property to Children

house transfer

A Massachusetts appeals court rules that as part of Medicaid planning, a woman could reserve a power of appointment in a deed conveying property to her children while reserving a life estate for herself. Skye v. Hession (Mass. App. Ct., No. 16-P-282, Apr. 28, 2017).

Margaret Hession sought legal assistance to protect her house in the event she might need Medicaid benefits. As part of the Medicaid planning, she executed a deed transferring her house to her children. The deed reserved a life estate for her and granted her a special power of appointment that allowed her to appoint the property to any person except herself, her creditors, her estate, or her estate’s creditors. Ms. Hession decided her daughter Deaven Skye should inherit less than her other children. She wrote a will that exercised her power of appointment and reduced Ms. Skye’s interest in the property from one-third to 5 percent.

After Ms. Hession died, Ms. Skye objected to the will and argued that the power of appointment was void. The trial court dismissed Ms. Skye’s objection and admitted the will to probate. Ms. Skye appealed, arguing that the provisions in the deed granting the remainder interests and reserving a power of appointment are irreconcilably repugnant to each other.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals, rules that the reservation of the power of appointment is consistent with the other provisions of the deed. According to the court, “because of the reservation of the life estate, the deed conveyed not present possessory estates but rather remainder interests; and, because of the reservation of the power, the remainder interests were defined, in part, by this limitation.” The court specifically does not express a “view on the effect of the reserved power of appointment on [Ms. Hession’s] strategy of avoiding MassHealth look-back period regulations.”

READ THE TOP 8 MISTAKES IN MEDICAID PLANNING HERE>

A Medicaid Applicant’s Purchase of Life Insurance Policy Is Transfer for Less Than Market Value

mp

An Illinois appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s purchase of a life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value because the applicant did not receive any benefit from the policy. Moore v. State of Illinois (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., No. 4-16-0414, April 11, 2017).

Nursing home resident Elda Buckley applied for Medicaid. On the same day, she purchased a whole life insurance policy for $15,000 that named Christine Moore as the beneficiary. The state approved Ms. Buckley’s Medicaid application, but it determined that the purchase of the life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value and imposed a penalty period.

Ms. Buckley appealed, arguing that she purchased the life insurance policy for fair market value, so the transfer should not be subject to a penalty period. The state and the trial court affirmed the penalty period. Ms. Buckley appealed.

The Illinois Court of Appeal, 4th District, affirms, holding that the purchase of the life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value because Ms. Buckley did not receive the benefit of the policy. According to the court, the “apparent purpose of [Ms.] Buckley’s purchase of the insurance policy, of which she would receive none of the proceeds, was to shelter assets from Medicaid while ensuring [Ms.] Moore received the benefits of her assets.”

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/4thDistrict/4160414.pdf

 

READ THE TOP 8 MEDICAID PLANNING MISTAKES HERE>

Top 10 Elder Law decisions of 2016

Below, in chronological order, is ElderLawAnswers’ annual roundup of the top 10 elder law decisions for the year just ended, as measured by the number of “unique page views” of our summary of the case.

gavel17

1. Medicaid Applicant’s Irrevocable Trust Is an Available Resource Because Trustee Can Make Distributions

An Alabama appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s special needs trust is an available resource because the trustee had discretion to make payments under the trust. Alabama Medicaid Agency v. Hardy (Ala. Civ. App., No. 2140565, Jan. 29, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

2. Trust Is an Available Asset Because Trustees Have Discretion to Make Distributions

A New York appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s trust is an available asset because the trustees have discretion to make distributions to her. In the Matter of Frances Flannery v. Zucker (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 4th Dept., No. TP 15-01033, Feb. 11, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

3. Medicaid Applicant Who Transferred Assets in Exchange for Promissory Note May Proceed with Suit Against State

A U.S. district court holds that a Medicaid applicant who was denied Medicaid benefits after transferring assets to her children in exchange for a promissory note may proceed with her claim against the state because Medicaid law confers a private right of action and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the claim. Ansley v. Lake (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Okla., No. CIV-14-1383-D, March 9, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

4. Mass. Court Bridles at Allegations in Request for Reconsideration in Irrevocable Trust Case

In a strongly worded response to a Medicaid applicant’s request for reconsideration of an unsuccessful appeal involving an irrevocable trust, a Massachusetts trial court strikes the applicant’s pleadings after it takes great exception to the tone of the argument.  Daley v. Sudders (Mass.Super.Ct., No.15-CV-0188-D, March 28, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

5. Caretaker Exception Denied Because Child Did Not Provide Continuous Care

A New Jersey appeals court determines that the caretaker child exception does not apply to a Medicaid applicant who transferred her house to her daughter because the daughter did not provide continuous care for the two years before the Medicaid applicant entered a nursing home. M.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-0790-14T3, May 13, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

6. State Can Place Lien on Medicaid Recipient’s Life Estate After Recipient Dies

An Ohio appeals court rules that a deceased Medicaid recipient’s life estate does not extinguish at death for the purposes of Medicaid estate recovery, so the state may place a lien on the property. Phillips v. McCarthy (Ohio Ct. App., 12th Dist., No. CA2015-08-01, May 16, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

7. Attorney Liable to Third-Party Beneficiary of Will for Legal Malpractice

Virginia’s highest court rules that an intended third-party beneficiary of a will may sue the attorney who drafted the will for legal malpractice. Thorsen v. Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Va., No. 150528, June 2, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

8. Nursing Home’s Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Resident’s Sons Can Move Forward

A U.S. district court rules that a nursing home can proceed with its case against the sons of a resident who transferred the resident’s funds to themselves because the fraudulent transfer claim survived the resident’s death. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Estate of Barbara Nyce (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., No. 5:16-cv-73, June 21, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

9. Irrevocable Trust Is Available Asset Because Medicaid Applicant Retained Some Control

New Hampshire’s highest court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s irrevocable trust is an available asset even though the applicant was not a beneficiary of the trust because the applicant retained a degree of discretionary authority over the trust assets. Petition of Estate of Thea Braiterman (N.H., No. 2015-0395, July 12, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

10. NY Court Rules that  Spouse’s Refusal to Contribute to Care Creates Implied Contract to Repay Benefits

A New York trial court enters judgment against a woman who refused to contribute to her spouse’s nursing home expenses, finding that because she had adequate resources to do so, an implied contract was created between her and the state entitling the state to repayment of Medicaid benefits it paid on the spouse’s behalf. Banks v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Pt. 5, No. 452318/15, Aug. 8, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

Feel Free to contact me to see how any of these decisions may affect your personal situation.

-Brian A. Raphan, Esq. 

Will Gifting a Car Cause a Medicaid Penalty Period?

The answer is probably “yes,” but it depends on the circumstances. Are we talking about a 10-year-old Toyota Corolla or a brand new Mercedes?

There will be more scrutiny for the latter. Is your mother buying a new car, or stopping driving altogether? If she’s still healthy and alert enough to drive, you have a good argument that the gift has nothing to do with Medicaid planning. Does your mother have substantial assets other than the car, or is that her major asset? If the transfer doesn’t affect her eligibility because she still has a lot more to spend down, it’s less likely to be a problem. Unfortunately, this is one of those gray areas where the answer depends on whether you can convince the Medicaid intake worker that the gift to your daughter was not for Medicaid planning purposes. It will depend on the circumstances, on how such a transaction is treated in your state, and perhaps on the particular intake worker.

READ THE TOP 8 MEDICAID PLANNING MISTAKES: click here: 

NY Court Rules that Community Spouse’s Refusal to Contribute to Care Creates Implied Contract to Repay Benefits

medicaid planning, appeal
http://www.raphanlaw.com

A New York trial court enters judgment against a woman who refused to contribute to her spouse’s nursing home expenses, finding that because she had adequate resources to do so, an implied contract was created between her and the state entitling the state to repayment of Medicaid benefits it paid on the spouse’s behalf. Banks v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Pt. 5, No. 452318/15, Aug. 8, 2016).

Evelyn Gonzalez’ spouse was admitted to a nursing home and received $28,235.56 in Medicaid benefits from the Department of Social Services of the City of New York.  At the time of her spouse’s Medicaid application, Ms. Gonzalez’ assets exceeded the community spouse resource allowance.  However, she signed a declaration refusing to make her income or resources available to pay for her spouse’s care.

After a letter to Ms. Gonzalez demanding repayment of the cost of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of her spouse went unanswered, the agency filed suit.  Ms. Gonzalez did not respond to the summons and complaint nor to the agency’s motion for default judgment.

The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, grants the motion and enters default judgment against Ms. Gonzalez for the cost of benefits provided to her spouse.  The court notes that in cases such as this where Ms. Gonzalez has the income and resources but refuses to contribute to her spouse’s care, state law creates an implied contract between her and the state allowing recovery of the cost of the benefits provided during the preceding 10 years.

FOR MORE MEDICAID ARTICLES FROM OUR BLOG CLICK HERE>