Despite Inability to Access Bank Account, Applicant Denied Medicaid

Medicaid is a legal system overly concerned with costs, rather than serving the best interest of those in need.  Proof of the truth of this characterization comes from an Indiana  court decision.  An Indiana appeals court recently ruled that a Medicaid applicant’s bank account is a disqualifying available resource even though the applicant was incapacitated and did not have the actual ability to access the account. Southwood Healthcare Center v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A-MI-1778, March 11, 2022).

Samuel Hill entered a nursing home and was declared by a doctor to be incapacitated with dementia. The nursing home, acting as Mr. Hill’s representative, applied for Medicaid benefits on his behalf. Due to the severity of Hill’s condition, a petition was filed seeking the appointment of a legal guardian over his person and estate. On April 1, 2020, Amanda Brookins of Compassionate Care Guardian Services, LLC, was appointed as Hill’s guardian.  The state denied the benefits due to excess resources because Mr. Hill had a bank account balance totaling $11,367.71.

Mr. Hill, through his guardian, appealed, arguing that due to his incapacity, he did not actually have the ability to access the funds in the bank account at the time of the application. The state denied the appeal, and the trial court affirmed. Mr. Hill appealed again.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the bank account is an available resource even if Mr. Hill did not have the ability to access the funds. According to the court, “because [Mr.] Hill’s right and authority over the funds remained intact, the funds were available to him.”  The Court's opinion does not divulge whether there was evidence that the guardian, likewise, was unable to access the account, and it appears that the Court considered only the very narrow issue of whether the account was legally a countable resource, despite the fact that the applicant's disability made the account inaccessible.  

One wonders why the system is a binary system with the only possible determinations being an approval or disapproval?  In this case, wouldn't an approval conditioned upon the asset being spent down for the applicant's nursing home care, and an adjustment of Medicaid's reimbursement to the institution have been a more expedient result?  As this matter played out, it is likely that legal expenses consumed the modest account.  Moreover, the institution may have been unreimbursed for some part of Mr. Hill's care. A system that creates additional losses for those who must rely on the system is not well-functioning.   

This case also serves as an example to those concerned with guardianship risks; institutional care often necessitates and therefore encourages court-appointed guardians.  Where necessary and functioning properly, guardians protect the rights of the ward.  But here, a guardian pursued a legal matter to no conclusion that benefitted the ward, and, in fact put the interests of the ward and his caregiver in conflict.  Properly functioning a guardian should be working to ensure the care of the ward, and that effort naturally benefits institutional care.  The guardian in this case pursued a course of action that may have resulted in an institution being forced to wait for payment, and eventually, to accept less than the institution might have received by timely application of Medicaid benefits.  This course of action risked the patient being dumped by the institution, thereby potentially jeopardizing the ward's consistent care.