Annuities Purchased by a Medicaid Applicant Must Name State as Remainder Beneficiary

The Georgia Supreme Court recently issued an opinion regarding the requirement that an annuity purchased by a Medicaid applicant must name the state as a remainder beneficiary.  The opinion, though, is instructive as much for its deference to CMS and state agency statutory interpretations, as it is for its holding. Reversing an appeals court decision, the court ruled that, because it finds that the federal statute is ambiguous, annuities benefitting a Medicaid applicant need to name the state as a remainder beneficiary in order to avoid a transfer penalty. Cook v. Glover (Ga., No. S13G1127, July 11, 2014).

Jerry Glover purchased an annuity for himself shortly before applying for Medicaid. He later refused to name the state as a remainder beneficiary on the annuity, the state approved his application but assessed a seven-month transfer-of-assets penalty against him.

Mr. Glover appealed, arguing he wasn’t required to name the state as a remainder beneficiary. After a hearing, an administrative law judge upheld the penalty, and a trial court affirmed the decision. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. Although agreeing that a plain reading of 42 U. S. C. § 1396p (c) (1) (F) standing alone clearly required that the state be named a remainder beneficiary of any annuity, the Court of Appeals interpreted subsection (G) to unambiguously remove actuarially sound annuities benefitting Medicaid applicants from the requirements of subsection (F) by removing them from the definition of “assets” with respect to a transfer of assets.  

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the penalty period is valid. The court examined the statutory language regarding annuities and found that the relationship between the two subsections is not clear and unambiguous.  Because the federal law was vague and ambiguous, the court ruled that the state Medicaid agency's interpretation, which is consistent with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' interpretation of the statute, is "reasonable and entitled to deference."

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s13g1127.pdf