LTC Bullet: Who Gets Medicaid LTC?
Friday, March 28, 2014
Seattle—
LTC Comment: Is Medicaid a long-term care safety net for the poor, the
middle class, even the affluent, all of the above? Questions remain, but
answers abound.
LTC BULLET: WHO GETS MEDICAID LTC?
LTC Comment: Last week’s “LTC
Bullet: LTC Embed Report from the Policy Front at ILTCI ’14 Orlando”
highlighted a presentation at the recent 14th Annual
Intercompany Long-Term Care Insurance conference titled “Feder and
Warshawsky: Long-Term Care Financing Perspectives and Solutions: An
in-depth conversation with two of the nation's most knowledgeable
long-term care experts, Mark Warshawsky and Judith Feder.”
During that presentation, Dr. Feder of
Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy—who has had a
long and distinguished academic career focused on long-term care financing
issues—stated that most people who receive Medicaid nursing home benefits
did not possess much wealth 10 or 15 years before qualifying for public
assistance. That statement didn’t surprise me. Too few Americans have
accumulated sufficient retirement savings so naturally “most” of them who
end up in Medicaid nursing homes will have had small estates a decade or
more earlier. What gave me pause, rather, was her implication that this
fact meant problems raised in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed
titled
Millionaires on Medicaid
by her interlocutor, Mark Warshawsky of the
American Enterprise Institute, himself an accomplished and
well-regarded scholar in the field, somehow didn’t matter.
So I asked Dr. Feder what her source was for that conclusion. She
responded by referring me to Rich Johnson’s testimony before the LTC
Commission. Check it out: “Income
and Wealth of Older Adults Needing Long-Term Services and Supports,”
Statement of Richard W. Johnson, Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute,
before the Commission on Long-Term Care, August 1, 2013. I encourage
everyone to read his full testimony. What follows are selected quotes and
my comments. My closing comment addresses the more general question of
why so many academics choose to conduct only research that supports a
public financing bias and avoid addressing facts that challenge that bias.
Quote: "As the focus on Medicaid intensifies, questions grow about
exactly who receives help from the program in later life. Has the program
morphed into a middle-class entitlement for nursing home care? I have been
examining the income and wealth trajectories of older adults who end up in
nursing homes. My principal conclusion is that most older people who
receive Medicaid-financed nursing home care have low incomes and very
little wealth, not only while they are in the program but also for at
least a decade before they enter a nursing home.” (p. 1)
LTC Comment: OK, as I acknowledged above, that’s obvious given
Americans’ well-documented failure to save adequately for retirement.
Quote: "These results suggest that efforts to promote individual
saving for long-term care, while laudable, may not move many people off
Medicaid or save the program much money, because most Medicaid nursing
home residents never had the means to save much in the first place. These
findings thus underscore the importance of Medicaid for some of the
nation's most vulnerable citizens." (pps. 1-2)
LTC Comment: Whoa! Wait a minute. First, no one has challenged
“the importance of Medicaid for some of the nation's most vulnerable
citizens.” What’s at issue is whether Medicaid should provide long-term
care to people who could have, would have and should have planned
responsibly to pay for their own care if it were not for perverse public
policy incentives that discourage responsible LTC planning. Let’s first
see if Johnson’s data and analysis support his conclusion that more
responsible LTC planning wouldn’t save Medicaid much money.
Quote: “It can be difficult to tap into home equity to cover the
cost of long-term services and supports and other living expenses, and
states do not always pursue beneficiaries' housing wealth when trying to
recoup some of the cost of Medicaid-financed nursing homes. Consequently,
nonhousing wealth-defined as total household wealth excluding the value of
home equity-is another useful metric of financial well-being.” (p. 4)
LTC Comment: Hard to tap home equity? No it’s not. That’s what
reverse mortgages do. The
National Council on the Aging (NCOA)
encourages their use as a funding source for long-term care. Home
equity, the biggest asset aging Americans possess, goes largely unused to
fund long-term care because Medicaid exempts the home and all contiguous
property up to a minimum of $543,000 in most states and a maximum of
$814,000 in the rest. People face a strong disincentive to tap the equity
in their homes to fund home care or to supplement their income so they can
afford private LTC insurance. Furthermore, the fact that state Medicaid
programs fail to pursue estate recovery of housing wealth means that home
equity is not only exempt for recipients going onto assistance, it is
protected as a “windfall of Medicaid subsidies” for their heirs as the
HHS Inspector General explained in a 1988 report (pps. 47-48).
Johnson’s conclusion that “nonhousing wealth” bears considering as a
measure of financial well-being is therefore unfounded. Nonhousing wealth
doesn’t amount to much in the first place and, in the second place, it is
very easy to eliminate from Medicaid spend down liability by purchasing
exempt assets including home equity but also an automobile, an
income-producing business, term life insurance, an IRA, and prepaid burial
insurance.
The first section of the testimony titled "Current Financial Status of
Older Americans with Disabilities" (pps. 2-5) is not relevant as the
disabled could not have insured and likely would not have been able to
save for long-term care. The second section, titled "Midlife Financial
Status among Those Who Develop Disabilities in Later Life" is more
relevant (pps. 5-7)
Quote: “The limited income and wealth of older adults with
disabilities suggests that few can afford to spend much out of pocket on
long-term services and supports. However, financial shortfalls in later
life may reflect long-term care expenses and are not necessarily reliable
indicators of lifetime economic status or the ability to have saved
earlier in life for future care needs. Moreover, some older adults with
disabilities might have recently transferred assets to family members to
qualify for Medicaid. To improve our understanding of the potential
capacity of adults to save for future spending on long-term services and
supports, the analyses described in this section examine income and wealth
for people in their fifties in the early 1990s, and compares financial
well-being for those who develop disabilities by their seventies and those
who do not. Estimates are restricted to those who reported no ADL
limitations in their fifties and were not yet retired at that time, so
that the analyses do not confound the financial effects of retirement with
the effects of future disabilities. (p. 5)
LTC Comment: This is too short a span of years to permit valid
conclusions. People in their 50s who develop disabilities only 20 years
later by their 70s were likely poorer and more prone to health problems
than people who did not develop disabilities in that short time span. We
would need to compare the financial condition of people in their 50s with
their financial and health conditions at age 85 or older, which is when
the need for long-term care spikes upward. Unfortunately the data source
used for this analysis does not cover such a long span of time. It would
be very interesting to have an insurance actuary analyze this data.
Quote: “Disability-related disparities in household wealth are
even more stark than disparities in household income. Median household
wealth in 1992 for adults ages 52 to 60 was nearly twice as high for those
who did not develop any disabilities by ages 70 to 78 than those who
developed two or more ADL limitations (figure 2). Total household wealth
did not exceed $13,300 for one in four of those who became disabled. Half
of those who became disabled held less than $111,300, and three-quarters
held less than $238,900. Household wealth approached $700,000 or more for
only 1 in 10 adults in their fifties who became disabled by their
seventies. (p. 6)
LTC Comment: Ditto my previous comment. But really, half of those
who became disabled had $111,300 or more in household wealth and one
quarter had $238,900 or more in their 50s when they were still working and
accumulating more wealth? They sound like candidates for savings or
insurance who could have prepared better for their future disabilities
(and possibly delayed or avoided welfare dependency) had they had stronger
incentives (and fewer disincentives) to do so.
The key section in Dr. Johnson’s testimony is the next one, titled
“Financial Status of Older Americans Receiving Nursing Home Care” (p. 7).
Quote: "The analysis in this section follows a sample of HRS
respondents for up to 17 years, from 1993 until 2010. The respondents were
ages 70 to 75 in 1993, when all were living in the community, and
survivors were ages 87 to 92 in 2010. The analysis compares 1992 income
and 1993 wealth for those who received some Medicaid-financed nursing home
care over the period, those who received some nursing home care but were
never covered by Medicaid, and those who never received nursing home care.
"Adults who eventually obtained nursing home care paid at least in part by
Medicaid received substantially less income before they entered a nursing
home than those who never entered a nursing home and those who obtained
nursing home care that was never paid by Medicaid. Median annual per
capita household income in 1992 was about $14,200 (in 2012 constant
dollars) for those who eventually received Medicaid-financed nursing home
care, compared with $21,500 for those who never received nursing home care
and $25,500 for those who received nursing home care but were never
covered by Medicaid (figure 4). Only a quarter of those who eventually
obtained Medicaid-financed nursing home care received annual per capita
income in excess of $20,000, and only a tenth received income in excess of
$31,800." (p. 7)
LTC Comment: How is this relevant? By the time they're in their
70s their incomes have already declined because they are no longer
employed. We need to know their incomes and wealth in their 50s when they
could have saved or insured. But again, as above, the data source used
for this analysis does not have the longitudinal reach it would need to
have to span people’s financial and health conditions from their 50s, when
their income and wealth are higher and still growing, through their 90s
when they’re most likely to need expensive long-term care.
Quote: “Household wealth varies sharply by future nursing home
care. Among community-dwelling adults ages 70 to 75 who eventually entered
nursing homes, the median household wealth for those who never received
Medicaid was more than five times as high as for those whose nursing home
care was at least partly paid by Medicaid ($255,000 versus $49,600, figure
5). Median wealth for those who never entered nursing homes was more than
three times as high as for those who received Medicaid-financed care. A
quarter of those who later received Medicaid-financed nursing home care
held less than $2,700 in total household wealth at ages 70 to 75, while
only a quarter held more than $151,700 in total household wealth and 1 in
10 held more than $260,600.” (p. 9)
LTC Comment: Ditto my comment above about the inadequate
chronological span of this data. Furthermore, that quarter of folks with
more than $151,700 and the one in 10 with over $260,000 sure sound more
like candidates for private-pay LTC instead of Medicaid, yet that’s where
they ended up. The more important question is how much of their wealth
was actually used to fund long-term care? How much was lost to asset
exemptions, Medicaid planning, and estate recovery evasion?
Quote: "About half of our 1993 sample of adults ages 70 to 75 who
eventually received Medicaid-financed nursing home care entered a nursing
home within 10 years. Some of these people may have spent much of their
wealth on paid home care, and some may have transferred some of their
assets out of their own name to qualify for Medicaid because they expected
to need nursing home care soon.
"To account for these possibilities, figure 7 examines household wealth in
1993 for community-dwelling adults ages 70 to 75 who did not enter nursing
homes until 2003 or later (at least 10 years in the future). Even among
members of this group, who seem less likely to have been able to
anticipate their future nursing home admissions and may have spent less on
other care and medical expenses than those who entered nursing homes
sooner, very few of those whose eventual nursing home stays were at least
partly paid by Medicaid had accumulated much wealth. Half had less than
$59,600 in total household wealth in 1993, and a quarter had less than
$9,900. Only 10 percent had more than $286,800." (p. 10)
LTC Comment: Ditto my comment above about the inadequate
chronological span of this data. Furthermore, it is naïve to think people
are unaware of Medicaid planning opportunities to shelter or divest
assets. Do an internet search for “Medicaid planning in Your State” and
see what you get. Word gets out fast among the aging on the “wheel chair
telegraph.” Potential heirs have their ears to the ground as well. Still,
half had more than $59,600 and one in 10 had over $286,800? Isn’t there
something these folks and their families might have done to avoid welfare
dependency if public policy had encouraged them to do so instead of
providing a slippery slope into public assistance? Before Medicaid
intervened half of nursing home residents were private pay; now 63% reply
on Medicaid; 14%, on Medicare; and only 22% depend on “other” sources.
Those other sources include private long-term care insurance, other
medical insurance, other public coverage and, finally, last and likely
least, the old-fashioned, write-the-check every month kind of private-pay
which is rapidly disappearing.
Quote: “It is worth noting some of the limitations of this
research. For example, income, wealth, and Medicaid coverage are all
reported by older respondents themselves or their proxies (usually their
spouses or adult children), and the information they provide is not always
accurate. The sample of older adults with disabilities on which the
analyses are based is relatively small, which limits confidence in the
estimates. Additionally, we observe Medicaid coverage only through ages 87
to 92, and some people do not receive Medicaid-financed nursing home care
until even older ages. Those who do not obtain Medicaid coverage until
they reach their nineties may have had more wealth when younger than those
who obtain coverage sooner.” (pps. 11-12)
LTC Comment: “Worth noting some of the limitations”? I should say
so. Data provided by elderly respondents, and by their heirs with a stake
in potential inheritances protected by Medicaid, is dubious. Missing ages
over 92 years drops the most costly long-term nursing home expenditures
from the analysis as Mark Warshawsky points out and DeNardi, et al.
observed in their
seminal paper for the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank. Finally “big
data” is notorious for misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise.
Quote: “Despite these caveats, it is clear that Medicaid provides
a vital safety net for older adults with disabilities. Most older adults
who end up on the program would never have been able to earn enough income
or accumulate enough wealth to cover their nursing home costs. It seems
likely that Medicaid will continue to play an important role in long-term
care financing as long as those with long-term care needs are
disproportionately those with limited financial resources.”
Closing LTC Comment: Most is not all. The fact that “most older
adults who end up on the program” would not have been able to save, invest
or insure sufficiently to avoid Medicaid is not at issue. Nor is
Medicaid’s future role in providing long-term care to the indigent. What
is at issue is whether Medicaid should be readily available for middle
class and affluent people without significant spend down and whether or
not the fact that it is so available results in fewer people saving,
investing or insuring for long-term care and more people unnecessarily
dependent on the program.
That is the issue so many academics evade. They continue to write that
“Medicaid requires impoverishment” and only “low income” people qualify
for the program’s long-term care benefits. Such statements are
demonstrably false. Income level rarely interferes with eligibility.
Assets are virtually unlimited because of Medicaid’s many exemptions.
Actual unlimited wealth can be divested five years ahead of applying
without penalty. Numerous other means of sheltering assets are available
from elder law advisers without planning half a decade ahead. Estate
recovery is weak in most states, easily avoided in the rest, and of course
cannot recapture wealth that was jettisoned in the first place.
All these facts are well documented
here. They explain why a few brave academics have been able to
discover and publish results that contradict the conventional academic
wisdom that Medicaid LTC requires impoverishment. They explain why the
Chicago Fed found “that even higher-income retirees benefit from
Medicaid.” They explain why
Brown and Finkelstein discovered that Medicaid crowds out 65% to 90%
of the potential market for private long-term care insurance.
What remains unexplained is why most academics and the reporters they
supply with expert advice still ignore the facts of Medicaid eligibility.
They continue to seek answers in giant data bases and tiny samples, but
almost never ask Medicaid eligibility workers how the program really works
or consult actual Medicaid case files for answers. I’ve done both for 30
years and I’ve reported the surprising results in publications for the
Health Care Financing Administration (1985), the
HHS Inspector General (1988), the
Gerontologist (1990), the
Journal of Accountancy (1993), the
Journal of Financial Planning (2001), the
Cato Institute (2005) and in dozens of trade journal articles and
think-tank sponsored reports available
here. So, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.
The Center for Long-Term Care Reform’s latest research goes beyond
documenting the easy access to Medicaid LTC benefits and its crowd out
effect on responsible planning. We’ve begun to explore the likely
consequences of a wider range of factors dragging down the prospects for
future long-term care financing. Our “Index of Long-Term Care
Vulnerability” gauges the likelihood that long-term care service delivery
and financing as it exists in the United States today can survive the
ravages of aging demographics, morbidity, economic and fiscal challenges,
inadequate private financing alternatives, and the “entitlement
mentality.” Our three latest reports apply this “Index” to Virginia, New
Jersey, Georgia and the USA. Read them
here at the section titled “The Center’s latest state reports.”
It may be already too late to save America’s dysfunctional long-term care
system, but it’s never too early to wake up, smell the coffee, debunk the
myths, and confront the reality.
_____________
The Center for Long-Term Care Reform, Inc. is a private institute
dedicated to ensuring quality long-term care for all Americans. Please
visit our website:
WWW.CENTERLTC.COM
This e-mail is the latest installment of "LTC
Bullets" - the Center's periodic online news service covering the latest
information and trends in long-term care financing. We welcome responses
to the material presented. All past issues of LTC Bullets may be read on
the Center's web site at
http://www.centerltc.com
If you get value from our LTC Bullets, our web site,
our reports, our speeches and our public policy advocacy, please consider
contributing. Visit our website at
http://www.centerltc.com/needhelp.htm or contact us at
mailto:info@centerltc.com or 206-283-7036 for more details.
You can show your support for the Center by
subscribing to our Members-Only Zone through a secure server connection at
http://www.centerltc.com/support/index.htm . Please refer to
http://www.centerltc.com/DOZ_info.htm for more information on the
Zone.
*** REFERRALS and SUBSCRIPTIONS: If you know
somebody who would be interested in this publication, please recommend us
by clicking here
http://www.centerltc.com/bullets/recommendus.htm. If you have
received this edition as a forward, and would like your own subscription,
you may subscribe here
http://www.centerltc.com/bullets/subscribe_to_bullets.htm. ***
*** Unsubscribe by simply using your reply button to
send a request. Please include your e-mail address, name and
"unsubscribe" in the body of your message. Your e-mail address will be
deleted from the Center's mailing list before our next mailing. We
apologize for any inconvenience. We do not intend our "LTC Bullets" to
reach anyone not interested in receiving them. ***
Please direct any questions or requests to
mailto:info@centerltc.com
Thank you for your time and interest.
Center for Long-Term Care Reform, Inc.
2212 Queen Anne Avenue North, #110
Seattle, WA 98109
Ph: 206-283-7036
Fax: 206-283-6536
E-mail:
mailto:info@centerltc.com
Web:
http://www.centerltc.com |