Bullet: Let's Fight Back !
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
LTC Comment: Medicaid
planners are bashing Congressmen unfairly about the DRA.
Let's fight back.
LTC BULLET: LET'S
LTC Comment: Remember
when the Deficit Reduction Act was under consideration and its opponents made
outrageous claims? They said . . .
-- millions of elderly Americans will be denied critical
-- people will be punished for donating to charities
-- birthday gifts to grandchildren will cause "transfer of assets" penalties
It was all untrue then.
And it remains untrue now that the DRA is the law of the land.
But that has not stopped Medicaid planners who make
lucrative livings by twisting Medicaid rules to qualify their affluent clients
for the welfare program's long-term care benefits.
Two lawyers in particular are attacking one Congressman in
particular and he's asked for our help. (No
names for now as we mobilize.)
The Congressman has invited me to come to his district in
order to (1) engage in public debate with the lawyers who have been assaulting
him in the media for his principled position on the DRA, (2) to testify at a
planned Congressional hearing, (3) to publish articles on the problem of
Medicaid estate planning and its solution, and (4) to meet with public officials
in his state to see what can be done to discourage abuse of Medicaid and
encourage private long-term care financing alternatives to relieve the fiscal
burden on Medicaid.
Why should you care? By
joining this battle of ideas in one Congressional district, we can help every
honorable legislator, federal or state, who is under attack.
We can show them they have the support of people who care about
preserving Medicaid, encouraging personal responsibility, and improving
long-term care. We can attract
valuable media coverage to this critical topic.
Plus: the Medicaid
Commission is meeting nearby the same week.
Heaven knows it needs close monitoring by your Center for Long-Term Care
Reform. And an extra bonus, I'll
generate some very interesting and informative "LTC Embed" reports
from the long-term care policy front.
Bottom line, I'm going.
We've already found partial funding for the trip, but the Center for
Long-Term Care Reform could sure use your help to finance the remaining cost.
So, here's a special offer.
Contribute an extra $250 to the Center earmarked for
"Steve's Campaign," and we'll acknowledge your contribution in a Bullet
and extend your membership a year.
Contribute an extra $500 and get a Bullet sponsorship and
an added year of membership.
Contribute an extra $1,000 and get a one-year corporate
membership, a Bullet sponsorship, and have me address your group in the
greater DC area during my visit. If
you aren't located near DC, I'll do your program next time I'm in your area for
no extra charge.
Or if you don't like any of the above, but would like to
help, make us an offer. What would
make it worth your while to support this project?
Let me know ASAP at firstname.lastname@example.org
If we can't stand up and fight on behalf of the members of
Congress who bravely voted for the DRA, how can we expect them to stand and
fight with us in the future for responsible long-term care reform?
Here's sally number one in our battle for a rational
long-term care debate in one important Congressional district.
The following is an op-ed I published last Saturday, with the able
assistance of the Congressman's aides, in a newspaper in his district.
A. Moses, "Long-Term Care: Just
Who Should Pay," Herald-Mail.com, June 10, 2006.
series of letters to the editor by a pair of lawyers and [a U.S. Congressman]
(March 25, April 4, and April 16) illustrate that our country has a severely
dysfunctional, welfare-financed, nursing-home-based long-term care system that
serves no one well, least of all the poor.
in the world did we get into such a mess in the wealthiest country in the world?
the question is "Who should pay for long-term care?," the average
person will answer, "Anybody but me." Next best, they'll say,
"Everyone should pay."
they'll say, "me."
1965, Medicaid came along and started paying for nursing-home care. A new
practice of law, Medicaid estate planning, evolved to impoverish people
artificially so they could qualify for Medicaid without spending down their own
assets for care.
have been the consequences? The vast majority of all formal long-term care
services are financed by taxpayers. With expenditures topping $300 billion and
rising 8 percent annually, Medicaid is a huge entitlement - larger even than
Medicare. State governors in particular are howling that their share of the
overall costs - 43 percent - are burning through state budgets uncontrollably.
care is Medicaid's biggest single cost - and many recipients of this largesse
are anything but poor. One reason is that, for purposes of Medicaid nursing home
eligibility, people are allowed to retain unlimited income as long as their
medical expenses - including long-term care - are high enough.
big reason is that they can also keep unlimited assets in the form of home
equity (up to $500,000), a business and other kinds of exempt wealth. Why buy
insurance or use your home equity for long-term care if the government is so
willing to pay?
theory, once they die, the government is required to recover Medicaid costs from
their estates. However, many loopholes allow individuals, especially those
advised by Medicaid planning attorneys, to qualify for Medicaid long-term care
benefits without spending down their own wealth for care and without having to
pay back Medicaid from their estates. In the past, most of this wealth
disappeared, often in gifts to family members.
passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) to help stop abuse of Medicaid by
lawyers who artificially impoverish their clients to qualify them for public
of the most egregious abuses were curtailed and the safety net was strengthened.
Congress extended the look-back period for improper asset transfers from three
to five years. The date for imposing a penalty was changed.
prior law, the penalty began running as of the date of the gift, which meant
that the penalty period could expire before the person applied for Medicaid.
Now, the penalty will begin after the person has applied for Medicaid.
DRA did not change the procedure for evaluating intent to deplete one's assets.
The new law is aimed at preventing people from depleting their assets with the
intent of making taxpayers pay for their nursing home care.
changes eliminate the incentive to give away assets to qualify for Medicaid.
Even so, Congress strengthened the safety net for any senior who is penalized.
Under the new law, states must provide a hardship waiver process to ensure that
no senior will be deprived of needed medical care, food, clothing, shelter or
is extremely misleading for anyone to say that seniors can no longer give to
their church, charity, children and/or grandchildren without being penalized.
is outrageous, and simply wrong, to say that gifts as small as $1 could trigger
a penalty. To cause an eligibility penalty, asset transfers, including gifts and
donations, must be made for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid.
can take steps to prevent misinterpretations of your intent when you give gifts
or contribute money to your church or charity. First, you should keep all health
and financial records (including tax records). Second, you can pressure your
state to make sure it appropriately evaluates gifts. If you are penalized, you
can apply for hardship waivers.
these changes is harmful. Members of Congress who voted for the Deficit
Reduction Act took important steps to give Medicaid back to the people it was
originally intended to serve - the poor and underprivileged. Seniors should be
reassured that reasonable gifts to family members and moderate contributions to
charities will not threaten their access to long-term care.
A. Moses is president of the Center for Long-Term Care Reform in Seattle,
Washington. The Center's mission is to ensure quality long-term care for all
E-mail him email@example.com.