Veterans Service and Non-Service Connected Benefits

The  Senior Veterans Service Alliance is kind to publish the following summary of benefits available to senior veterans through the Veterans Administration:

Non-Service Connected Disability Benefits

Veterans who served during a period of war or their surviving spouses may be eligible for additional income from the Department of Veterans Affairs to help pay for their long term care, out-of-pocket costs.  These benefits are called Pension and Survivors Pension.  They are also misnamed the “Aid and Attendance Benefit.”

Pension benefits are subject to income and asset restriction tests which VA scrutinizes closely during application and even years after veterans or their survivors are on claim.  Pension and Survivors Pension represent only about 9% of all individuals who are on claim for all disability income categories.  

Potential incomes up to the following upper limits are possible:

• Disabled veteran with spouse – $2,230 a month;
• Single disabled veteran –  $1,881 a month;
• Single disabled surviving spouse – $1,209 a month;
• Healthy veteran with a disabled spouse – $1,477 a month

 Service-Connected Disability Benefits

Service-connected disability benefits are available to any veteran or surviving spouse with no income or asset restriction tests.  For these benefits, the Department of Veterans Affairs does not care how much money these veterans or their survivors make or what their assets are.  The benefits listed below represent the other 91% of veterans or survivors who are on claim for disability income. 

•  A surviving spouse could be receiving DIC at $1,319.04 a month or $1,599.13 a month based on the particulars of the veteran’s death.  For a surviving spouse receiving DIC and receiving long term care services, VA will pay an additional $326.77 a month – bringing the total to $1,645.81 or $1,925.90 a month.  Some surviving spouses should be receiving a monthly income from DIC but they are not.  The Senior Veterans Service Alliance can help certain surviving spouses with applications for entitlement to DIC.
• A retired veteran on Disability Compensation at 60% or more for one rating or 70% or more combined rating – with at least one of the underlying ratings at 40% – can be paid at 100% for individual unemployability.  Disability Compensation for a veteran at 60% pays $1,113.86 a month.  A veteran receiving Compensation income for individual unemployability and paid at 100% will receive $3,057.13 a month.  A senior veteran who is housebound and being paid at a 100% rating, due to individual unemployability, could apply for an additional income allowance for being housebound – bringing the total income to $3,421.90 a month.
• An older veteran receiving Disability Compensation at a 100% rating receives $3,057.13 a month.  This 100% rated veteran who is receiving long term care services could qualify for additional income allowance for long-term care bringing total income to $3,804.04 a month.

Vietnam Era Veterans, Who with Aging, Have Developed Conditions Such As Diabetes, Heart Disease, Certain Forms of Cancer and Parkinson's Disease

A veteran, who is one of 2.2 million living veterans who served in-country in Vietnam, can get additional income.  By showing evidence of one or more of the conditions above, a Vietnam veteran can receive additional income starting at $140.05 a month and going up to the possibility of $3,057 a month.

Older Single Veterans with Worsening Hearing Loss or Tinnitus

Service-connected hearing loss or tinnitus starts at $140.05 a month and goes up to the possibility of $3,057.13 a month for an older senior veteran who qualifies.  A rating for hearing loss/tinnitus of 10% or more will entitle the veteran to Veterans Health Care which is entirely free except for inexpensive prescription drug costs.  This person can then receive free hearing aids, free hearing aid batteries, free eyeglasses and substantial discounts on prescription drugs.

New Law Helps Prevent Wandering of Impaired Adults and Children; Provides Aid Locating the Lost

Congress recently passed bipartisan legislation to help families locate missing loved ones with Alzheimer’s disease, autism and related conditions.  Kevin and Avonte’s Law (S. 2070), named in honor of two boys with autism who perished after wandering from safety, also supports training for caregivers to prevent and respond to instances of wandering. In response to the massive search and tragic death of Avonte Oquendo in New York City, Lori McIlwain, co-founder of the National Autism Association, assisted Senator Schumer’s office in drafting legislation that would help to prevent similar cases in the future. 

The following press release was sent from the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“The feeling of dread and helplessness families must experience when a loved one with Alzheimer’s or autism goes missing is unimaginable. But when communities are empowered to lend a hand, these terrifying situations can have positive endings and even be prevented altogether. This bill, named for two boys – one from Jefferson, Iowa, and one from New York City, improves access to technologies that advance the search for missing children.  It also expands specialized training for caregivers and first responders to help prevent wandering by vulnerable individuals. I’m grateful for all of those who worked together to get this important bill on the books to honor Kevin and Avonte and prevent future tragedies,” Grassley said.

“Families and caregivers should have the support they need to keep their loved ones with Alzheimer’s, autism, and other developmental disabilities safe. This legislation will help to educate and train caregivers to prevent wandering and provide our law enforcement officers with the tools they need to help recover missing loved ones,” Klobuchar said.
“I’m pleased Kevin and Avonte’s Law will become law so we can help save lives and give families a greater peace of mind. This legislation has a deep personal meaning for me, as I was a caregiver for my grandmother during her battle with Alzheimer’s disease. I want to thank Chairman Grassley for his tireless efforts to support this law that will help families and caregivers reunite with loved ones who wander and disappear. Kevin and Avonte’s Law will truly make a difference in preventing tragedies,” Tillis said.

“Making voluntary tracking devices available to vulnerable children with autism or adults with Alzheimer’s who are at risk of wandering will help put countless families at ease. After Avonte Oquendo ran away from his school and went missing, I learned just how prevalent wandering is among children with autism and other development disorders. I am proud to have continued to speak up for those who cannot and to have co-authored this important bill, which will help Avonte Oquendo’s memory live on, while helping to prevent other children and teens with autism from going missing,” Schumer said.

Information on the introduction of this legislation is available here, a bill summary can be found here, and full text of the legislation can be found here.

Oregon Court Orders DHS to Restore In-home Care- An Object Lesson in a State's Lack of Commitment to Home and Community Based Care

When state and federal agencies proclaim support for aging in place and home based care, there is reason to doubt their resolve.  A recent example can be found courtesy of a court case against the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS).  A court has ordered Oregon DHS to restore previous levels of in-home care services, at least temporarily, to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a federal lawsuit contesting recent cuts.

DHS determines every year how many hours of in-home care someone with an intellectual or developmental disability is eligible to receive.  Disability Rights Oregon, an advocacy organization that filed the suit last week, objects to how those decisions are made, saying the process lacks clarity.

The lawsuit alleges that under federal law, the agency violated the civil and due process rights of Oregonians receiving these services, as well as the Medicaid requirement that the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services must provide such services “as needed.”  Last year, the agency implemented a new assessment method on a rolling basis, which the lawsuit argues resulted in a reduction of in-home care hours for many people — although the amount of help they needed at home had not changed.  Not all people receiving in-home care services have yet felt reductions, because the changes have been implemented gradually.

In 2013, after the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and a specific federal funding option called the Community First Choice Plan that provided funds so people with disabilities could access community-based services, there were significant increases in those eligible for in-home care — and in costs to the state.  In 2015, Oregon legislators agreed to pay for the unanticipated costs in the upcoming budget cycle, but asked DHS to come up with a way to contain the rate of cost growth in the future. That became the method that advocates are now contesting in court.  Cost of care

The Department of Human Services makes up a significant chunk of the state’s approximately $20 billion general fund budget, which lawmakers are busy trying to balance in the face of an approximately $1.6 billion shortfall.  Reducing in-home care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by 30 percent, as DHS had planned prior to the court order, would have saved the state’s general fund a comparatively paltry  $6 million in the upcoming two-year budget.  

Cost considerations, i.e., saving $6 million of a $1.6 billion shortfall, could send people with intellectual and developmental disabilities currently being treated at home to foster care, group homes, and skilled nursing facilities.  To put this in context,  a state audit found that Oregon Health Plan caseworkers were “knowingly” extending benefits to illegal immigrants and unqualified people. Also, 4,400 people who were above the income limits still received benefits. The total cost to Oregon taxpayers is $4.3 million a year.   Further, an Oregonian survey helped to unveil $1.4 billion in uncollected debts to the state. It appeared that most state agencies have a collection problem and the actual cost may be even higher than $1.4 billion. Among the examples was a business that bought $50,000 of supplies made by blind workers under the State Commission for the Blind, for which they never paid. 

Home and community based care, it would seem, is a too-easy target for money-grubbing administrators.   

This article is heavily reliant upon the article found here.

Contesting Guardianship or Challenging Guardians Is Problematic

Nina A. Kohn, Associate Dean for Research,  David M. Levy,  Professor of Law at the Syracuse University College of Law, and Catheryn Koss, Founder and former Executive Director of the Senior Law Resource Center, have written an excellent and revealing article describing the challenges for seniors and the disabled in obtaining counsel in modern guardianship cases. The article, "LAWYERS FOR LEGAL GHOSTS: THE LEGALITY AND ETHICS OF REPRESENTING PERSONS SUBJECT TO GUARDIANSHIP, is published in the Washington Law Review.

The article begins by describing the landmark guardianship battle fought in 2012 by Jenny Hatch, a 28-year-old woman with Down syndrome. Ms. Hatch was placed in a group home by her parents, who were appointed as her guardians. Ms Hatch grew despondent about the restrictive placement, the loss of her independent lifestyle, and that she was no longer permitted to work at a local thrift store. She retained an attorney to challenge both the existence of the guardianship and the appointment of her parents as guardians.

She prevailed. In a landmark decision, a Virginia court removed her parents as guardians, appointed Ms. Hatch's close friends in their place, and held that the guardianship itself would terminate after a year. A year later, she was legally reincarnated, restored from being a ward of the state to full legal personhood. The Hatch case was reported on this blog.

The authors next describe why the Hatch case was so extraordinary:

Jenny’s story captured national attention in large part because it is so unusual. Few persons subject to guardianship are able to change the terms and conditions of their guardianships, let alone regain legal capacity after a court has determined that they lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. Jenny [Ms. Hatch] was able to do both.  

A key factor in this success was that Jenny had access to legal representation. Unfortunately, many people in Jenny’s position do not. A major factor contributing to this lack of access is that attorneys are unsure whether they may legally and ethically represent a person subject guardianship.  Attorney reluctance to undertake such representation is understandable.  [emphasis added]. A person subject to guardianship has, by definition, been judicially determined to lack legal capacity and his or her decisions have been delegated to a third party... Through this process, the person has not only been declared by a court to be incapable of directing his or her own affairs but has typically been stripped of the capacity to enter into a legally binding contract. Both may appear to be insurmountable barriers [to effective legal representation]. Attorneys generally can only represent clients who have the capacity to enter into a contract to hire the attorney and the capacity to direct the attorney during the course of the representation. Moreover, in some jurisdictions, probate courts have taken the position that they can prevent a lawyer from representing a person subject to guardianship who wishes to challenge the guardianship.

The authors agree that, especially under these circumstances, guardianship can be a devastating result with significant consequence.  The abstract to the article explains:

Stripped of legal personhood, the individual becomes a ward of the state and his or her decisions are delegated to a guardian. If the guardian abuses that power or the guardianship has been wrongly imposed — as research suggests is not infrequently the case [emphasis added] — the person subject to guardianship may rightly wish to mount a legal challenge. However, effectively doing so requires the assistance of an attorney, and persons subject to guardianship typically have not only been declared by a court to be incapable of directing their own affairs but have been stripped of the capacity to contract. As a result, those who wish to challenge the terms and conditions of their guardianship, or even merely to exercise unrelated retained rights, can be stymied because attorneys are unwilling to accept representation for fear that it is unlawful or unethical.

The aging of the population means the number of persons potentially subject to guardianship is likely increasing. Although precise figures are unknown, estimates suggest that about 1.5 million adults are subject to guardianships in the United States. Many of these are older persons who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia. The number of persons subject to guardianship may grow as the number of persons with such conditions increases.  The number of older individuals over age sixty-five in the United States diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease is projected to reach more than seven million by the year 2025, a forty percent increase over 2014 figures.

"Perhaps more importantly, there is a growing recognition that many guardianships have been wrongly imposed or are overbroad."  This recognition, encouraged in part by the United Nation’s adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), has, according to the authors, led to increased interest from the disability rights community in restoring the rights of persons subject to guardianship by challenging judicial determinations of incapacity.

For more information regarding guardianship, see the following articles:

• Estate Plans Should Consider and Attempt to Resolve Guardianship;
• Illinois Permits Guardian Authority to Petition for Termination of a Ward's Marriage; 
• GAO reports on Guardianship Abuse;
• National Groups Acknowledge Need for Guardianship Reform;
• Report on Abuse by Guardians and the Guardianship Process Released;
• Another Reason for Guardianship Planning: Guardian Convicted of Homicide in Death of Ward 

National Guardian Life First Insurer to Enter U.S. Market In a Decade

The National Guardian Life Insurance Co. is starting to market EssentialLTC, a new stand-alone long-term care insurance policy.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based life insurer is the first insurer to enter the U.S. market for stand-alone long-term care insurance products in more than 10 years. The policy will pay for facility-based long-term care services, such as nursing home care, and comprehensive home and community-based long-term care services.

National Guardian Life, a policyholder-owned mutual insurer, is best known as a seller of insurance policies that help the purchasers cover funeral costs and related costs.

The LifeCare Assurance Co. of Woodland Hills, California, is acting as the administrator for the program.

Long-term care insurance issuers have been struggling with more than decade of low interest earnings on invested assets, poor underwriting results and, in some cases, applications for premium increases of 50 percent or more.

Jim Glickman, an actuary who serves as president of LifeCare, has been active in making the case that the problems with old blocks of long-term care insurance policies are mainly because of the original issuers' lack of understanding of how insureds would behave, and lack of understanding of how long interest rates could stay at very low levels. He has argued that new issuers that enter the market with access to solid long-term care insurance experience data should get much better results.

National Guardian Life says it will use a full medical underwriting process. The process will include a medical exam for applicants ages 66 and older and for some younger applicants.

The company will start by offering a policy with a two-year or three-year benefits period base. Purchasers of the three-year policy can pay to extend the benefit period. A lifetime benefits option is available.

Other options include 3 percent and 5 percent compound inflation protection.

Buyers can make all premium payments for lifetime coverage at once, through a single-pay option; make premium payments for the full period that the coverage is in effect; or pay for lifetime coverage by making annual payments for 10 consecutive years, through a 10-pay payment option.

National Guardian Life is starting by getting the product licensed in the states that participate in the Interstate Compact, a state regulatory group that simplifies the product filing process. The product is now available in Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington state, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Source: LifeHealthPRO, "Long-term care insurance market gets first new issuer in 10 years"

Care Providers for the Disabled Get Reprieve From New Wage Rule

Disability providers are getting extra leeway as the Obama administration moves forward with a new rule that many worried could force service cuts for people with special needs.

The U.S. Department of Labor said this week that it’s finalizing a rule that will require far more American workers to receive extra pay for working over 40 hours per week.

Currently, salaried workers earning at least $23,660 are exempt from overtime pay. Under the new rule, which will take effect Dec. 1, that threshold will double to $47,476 with automatic increases in the future.

But heeding widespread concerns from providers of home and community based services to people with developmental disabilities, the administration is committing to delay enforcement of the new mandate for such providers through March 17, 2019.  The Labor Department said that the non-enforcement period will apply to providers of Medicaid-funded services to people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in residential homes and facilities with 15 or fewer beds.

The special exemption comes after intense lobbying by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, or ANCOR, a trade group that represents over 1,000 private agencies providing disability services across the country.

The group argued that the new rule could prompt service cuts for people with developmental disabilities, because many of the agencies’ workers would be newly eligible for overtime under the rule.  Medicaid payments, however, which account for the agencies’ main source of income have not adjusted to account for the new wage mandate. 

For more information, click here. 

Columbus Dispatch Exposes Abuse and Exploitation of the Disabled

The Columbus Dispatch, in a series of articles culminating in last Sunday's article “Abused and Ignored,” detailed heartbreaking examples of young people being abused and prostituted by family members, and contained shocking statistics about the prevalence of abuse and crime among people with developmental disabilities. Among them:

• About 70 percent of developmentally disabled people report being physically and sexually assaulted, neglected or abused; about 90 percent of them reported multiple occurrences. Yet fewer than 40 percent of people reported this abuse to authorities, and those who did saw an arrest rate of less than 10 percent.

• Disabled people nationwide are three times as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted as the general population, with younger people and those with several cognitive disabilities at highest risk. An Ohio reporting system for the developmentally disabled received more than 2,000 reports of sexual abused from 2009 to 2014, but less than 1 in 4 of those cases was substantiated.

Fortunately, the paper discovered that Ohio has among the best reporting systems protecting the disabled, and prosecution success is common.

"Contrast these statistics to those in Summit County," the article reads. "Under Deputy Sheriff Joe Storad, the county tripled the number of police investigations involving disabled victims in the past two years. While the overall numbers are relatively small, it has achieved a 100 percent success rate for prosecutions: 31 out of 31 cases.  In neighboring Stark County, Deputy Sheriff Rocco Ross also pushes for vigorous prosecution of crimes against the disabled.  In just the past nine months, Ross says he has seen 560 potential criminal cases of this type, about half of which will be investigated for potential prosecution.  Ross told The Dispatch that it was a “very eye-opening experience” when he first became involved with investigating these cases. “I had no clue there were this many incidents against disabled individuals,” he said.

To read the Dispatch article, go here.

To read about a national reporting website for abuse against the disabled, go here. 

To read about the results of the reportage, go here.

First National Website Aims to Reduce Abuse of People with Disabilities

The Vera Institute of Justice has launched the first national website aimed at curbing abuse of people with disabilities.

The Vera Institute said people with disabilities are "victimized at alarming rates," and are three times more likely than the average population to experience sexual and violent assaults.

The website was developed by Vera’s Center on Victimization and Safety with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women. It offers an interactive map of people, programs, and projects nationwide.

“For many people with disabilities, their needs aren’t being met when they reach out for help, or their requests are met with skepticism, dismissed, or outright ignored,” said Reynoldsburg resident Nancy Smith, head of the victimization center. “Others may not understand what happened to them or be able to put a name to the pain and abuse they have survived. This website aims to ensure that survivors’ experiences are acknowledged and respected, and their needs are attended to.”

To read the Press Release accompanying the announcement, go here.  

Read Ohio Dad's Tear-Jerking Letter to Newlywed Daughter With Down Syndrome

Just in case you missed it, please go here.  

Understanding "Third Party" Special Needs Trusts

There are three types of special needs trusts: first-party special needs trusts, third-party special needs trusts, and pooled trusts.  All three are designed to manage resources for a person with special needs so that the beneficiary can still qualify for public benefits like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid.  While first-party special needs trusts and pooled trusts hold funds that belong to the person with special needs, third-party special needs trusts, as the name implies, are funded with assets that never belonged to the trust beneficiary, and they provide several advantages over the other two types of trusts.

Third-party special needs trusts are set up by a donor – the person who contributes the funds to the trust.  A typical donor is a parent, grand-parent, or sibling of the special needs beneficiary.  These trusts are typically designed as part of the donor's estate plan to receive gifts that can help a family member with special needs while the donor is still living and to manage an inheritance for the person with special needs when the donor dies.  Third-party special needs trusts can be the beneficiaries of life insurance policies, can own real estate or investments and can even receive benefits from retirement accounts (although this process is very complicated and not typically recommended unless there aren't other assets available to fund the beneficiary's inheritance).  There is no limit to the size of the trust fund and the funds can be used for almost anything a beneficiary needs to supplement her government benefits.  Upon the beneficiary's death, the assets in a third-party special needs trust can pass to the donor's other relatives as the donor directs.

One of the key advantages of a third-party special needs trust is the ability of the donor to direct the assets available upon the beneficiaries death without risk of resource recovery-the right of the state to recover assets to pay the state back for benefits paid during the beneficiary's life.  Because the funds in the trust never belonged to the beneficiary, the government is not entitled to reimbursement for Medicaid payments made on behalf of the beneficiary upon her death, unlike with a first-party or pooled trust.  This allows a careful donor to benefit her family member with special needs while potentially saving funds for other people who don't have the same needs.

Whereas first-party special needs trusts can only be established by the beneficiary's parent, grandparent, guardian or a court, anyone other than the beneficiary can set up a third-party special needs trust.  First-party trusts must be established for the benefit of someone who is younger than 65, but third-party trusts don't have age limits.  In some states, first-party trusts must be monitored by a court, but third-party trusts almost never have to go through this same process, especially while the donor is still alive.  In addition, while the donor is living, funds in the trust usually generate income tax for the donor, not for the beneficiary, avoiding the complication of having to file income tax returns for an otherwise non-taxable beneficiary and then explain them to the Social Security Administration.

Although a third-party special needs trust has many advantages, it is not always a viable option for families of people with special needs.  One of the major drawbacks of a third-party trust is its absolute inability to hold funds belonging to the person with special needs.  So if the trust beneficiary receives an inheritance that wasn't directed into the special needs trust to begin with or if she settles a personal injury case, the funds have to be placed in either a first-party trust or a pooled trust, since even one dollar of a beneficiary's own money could taint an entire third-party trust.  But even with these restrictions, most people trying to help a family member with special needs are going to at least need to strongly consider drafting a third-party special needs trust.  Your attorney can help you understand how these important trusts fit into your other estate planning goals.

Some Senior Living Facilities Discriminating on the Basis of Disability

Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) sound like a great idea, and in many ways they are.  They offer residents access to the entire residential continuum -- from independent housing to assisted living to round-the-clock nursing services -- under one "roof."  Residents pay an entry fee and an adjustable monthly rent in return for the guarantee of care for the rest of their life.

But while the transition from one level of care to another may be advertised as seamless, anyone considering a CCRC should be aware that moving to a higher level of care could mean losing access to privileges and amenities they once enjoyed and took for granted.  Depending on its policies, a CCRC may mandate separate facilities and activities for those requiring different levels of care. Although such restrictions may be illegal, they are not uncommon.

For example, the New York Times recently reported on the case of Ann Clinton, a resident of a CCRC in Huntsville, Alabama, who found herself barred from her cherished bingo games when she moved to the facility’s nursing unit while rehabilitating after back surgery. 

Clinton and her husband moved to the CCRC in 2012, paying a deposit of $351,424, and about $4,600 a month in fees.  Mr. Clinton shifted to the assisted facility unit and then to the nursing unit, where he died in September 2014. Through it all, Ms. Clinton, 80, looked forward to her weekly bingo game with friends and other residents of the CCRC’s independent living unit.

After her back surgery, Ms. Clinton was still able to attend the games using her motorized scooter.  But to her shock and surprise, she was eventually barred from them because she was living in the nursing unit.  

This isn’t the first time the Times reported on such a policy. In 2011 it covered the controversy that erupted when a CCRC in Norfolk, Virginia, declared that a popular waterfront dining room was off-limits to those in the assisted living and nursing units, and could be used only by independent living residents.  Suddenly longtime friends and even some married couples could no longer eat together because they lived in separate parts of the facility.  After residents contacted a lawyer and the news media, the CCRC reversed its policy.

The same thing had happened to the Clintons, according to the Times.  After Mr. Clinton moved to the CCRC’s assisted living wing, he was denied admission to the main dining room to eat with his wife, who was still in the independent living section.  The facility eventually changed its policy, allowing assisted living residents to use the dining room if independent living residents invited them.  

The CCRC has since suspended the bingo game that Ms. Clinton was barred from attending.  Ms. Clinton’s son says he plans to file a lawsuit on his mother’s behalf and is looking for a lawyer.

Attorneys who advocate for the elderly believe that excluding residents based on the level of care they require violates anti-discrimination laws like the Fair Housing Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Admittedly, CCRCs may be trying to segregate residents in the belief that some residents would prefer not to have contact with those who are more incapacitated. 

“But that’s why we have anti-discrimination laws,” Eric Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, told the Times. “You don’t want to capitulate to people’s prejudices.”

For more about CCRCs, click here. 

For more about senior living options, click here.

A Holiday Gift from an ABLE Congress!

Sara Wolff (center) calling on Congress to allow disabled
 Americans to save and still receive benefits like
 Social Security Disability Insurance payments and Medicaid

The following is a reprint from the blog of Michael Morris, the Executive Director of the National Disability Institute (NDI) in Washington:

Last night, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed (76-16) the Achieving Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act. The bill now goes to President Obama for signing into law. Not since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 has Congress moved forward with a change in public policy as important and unprecedented as ABLE. The ABLE Act represents the first time there is clear recognition and sensitivity to the extra costs of living with a disability for children and adults with significant disabilities and their families. Every day, all across America, parents raising a child with a disability are confronted with costs not covered by insurance and various public assistance or benefits. The costs are as varied as modifying a home to be more accessible to using adaptive equipment and assistive technology that enhances learning, mobility, hearing and the ability to use a computer, all which improve quality of life experience. 

For adults with significant disabilities, extra costs can also include additional hours of personal assistance support to get out of bed, help with cooking and other daily living needs, as well as accessible transportation, housing and employment supports. 

The ABLE Act responds to these significant daily and weekly out-of-pocket expenses by creating, for the first time, a tax-advantaged savings account (an ABLE account). This account would cover the extra costs of living with a significant disability without adversely affecting continued eligibility for government benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid (health care). 

No piece of legislation before this Congress had more cosponsors – 380 House Members and 74 Senators – or received more bipartisan support across both the Democratic and Republican parties. ABLE is, above all, about fairness. Families raising children with significant disabilities do not want a handout and public assistance that comes with a life sentence in poverty. The disability community wants a hand up so they can be included in the economic mainstream as productive and valued members of inclusive workplaces and communities. ABLE offers, for some individuals and families (eligibility is limited to age of onset of disability by 26 years of age), an opportunity to plan for the future by setting aside up to $100,000 for expenses that may accrue over a lifetime, without the interest being taxed when the funds are removed. For some five million plus individuals and families who are likely to establish an ABLE account in the future, it is truly an early holiday present.

Thank you to Congress for passing the ABLE Act and improving the financial security of millions of Americans with significant disabilities and their families.

The National Disability Institute is a national not for profit corporation that is dedicated to "changing thinking and behavior that advance the financial stability and economic strength of persons with disabilities across the country.  Leveraging public and private resources, NDI is uniquely and singularly focused on promoting REAL ECONOMIC IMPACT for persons across the full spectrum of disabilities."  NDI's Real Economic Impact Blog is just one part of that mission.

Let us all join in the growing chorus of voices thanking Congress for this holiday gift.  You can read more about the ABLE Act here.  This blog will later carry a final description of the law as signed by the President.

Hasbro Creates Online Program for Children With Disabilities

Hasbro, Inc.,  creator of Mr. Potato Head, Play-Doh, Monopoly, and Connect 4, is releasing a series of online videos and other tools to help children with disabilities effectively engage with both toys  and other children.

The project, “ToyBox Tools”, “is designed to help kids learn what each toy is all about, how to put the item together and presents children with alternative ways to engage independently or with peers,” according to an article on DisabilityScoop.com. According to the Hasbro website:

"Hasbro’s fundamental mission is to bring joy and play to children and their families around the world. But for some children play can be challenging. For children with a developmental disability, play isn’t always accessible out of the box, relegating countless toys to the back of the closet or the donation bin. More importantly, the joy and benefits that play can bring, the connection between peers, siblings and other generations may be lost.” 

The initiative, “emerged from employees at Hasbro concerned that kids with developmental disabilities were losing out on valuable opportunities to connect with others through play, the company said.” “Believing that we could do more, a passionate group of Hasbro employees from across the Company, came together to team up with Autism Project – a long term philanthropic partner of the Hasbro Children’s Fund, to figure out a way to help,” said Hasbro’s site. The team, Hasbro said, “learned that many classic Hasbro toys were being widely used by teachers and occupational therapists working in the field and that they were creating their own supportive play tools which provided structure that is critical to the way certain children manipulate concepts to help them understand play.” The program is available online for free, and “Hasbro officials described the effort as a pilot program and said they will continue to refine the tools.” 

See more here. 

Nearly Forty Percent of Elderly Suffer At Least One Disability

Download Percentage of  County Population Age 65
 and Over with a Disability: 2008-2012

Nearly 40 percent of people age 65 and older had at least one disability, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report that covered the period 2008 to 2012. Of those 15.7 million people, two-thirds of them say they had difficulty in walking or climbing.

Difficulty with independent living, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping, was the second-most cited disability, followed by serious difficulty in hearing, cognitive difficulty, difficulty bathing or dressing, and serious difficulty seeing.

While populous states such as California, Florida, New York and Texas had the largest number of older people with a disability, high disability rates were seen in Southern counties, especially in central Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta.

Older Americans With a Disability: 2008-2012, a report based on data collected during the American Community Survey, examines disability status by age, sex and selected socio-economic characteristics, such as marital status, living arrangement, educational attainment and poverty status.

“The statistics provided in this report can help anticipate future disability prevalence in the older population,” said Wan He, a demographer from the Census Bureau’s Population Division. “The figures can be used to help the older population with a disability, their families, and society at-large plan strategies and prepare for daily life tasks and old-age care.”

The following are some of the statistical highlights gleaned from the report:

• More than half (54.4 percent) of the older population who had not graduated from high school had a disability, twice the rate of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (26.0 percent). This inverse relationship between educational attainment and likelihood of having a disability was found across age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.

• More than one-third of those 85 and older with a disability lived alone, compared with one-fourth of those age 65 to 74.

• About 13 percent of the older household population with a disability lived in poverty; in contrast, 7 percent of those without a disability were in poverty.

• The older population with a disability was disproportionately concentrated among those 85 and older. This group represented 13.6 percent of the total older population but accounted for 25.4 percent of the older population with a disability.

• Women 65 and older were more likely than men 65 and older to have five of the six types of disability included in the American Community Survey, especially ambulatory difficulty. Older women’s higher rates for disability are, in part, because women live longer.

• Older men’s higher likelihood for having a hearing disability may reflect the lifelong occupational differentials between men and women, where men may be more likely to have worked in industries that cause noise-induced hearing loss.

• Disability rates were lower for married older people than for those widowed or in other categories of marital status.

Most long term care insurance policies and benefits require that the insured be unable to perform without assistance two Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), such as transferring, toileting, bathing, continence, dressing and eating. If you have such a policy you should retain a copy of the actual policy in order to see for yourself how the benefit "triggers" and what ADL limitation is described.  A single disability may or may not impair more than one ADL.

The Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health commissioned this report and also supports other Census Bureau reports on aging research.

Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act Would Create Tax-free Accounts for the Disabled

Sara Wolff (center) is calling on Congress to allow disabled
 Americans to save and still receive benefits like
 Social Security Disability Insurance payments and Medicaid.

Many families struggle with planning for the future of a child with severe disabilities. While they are able to save for the educational needs of their other children through “529” college tuition plans, these plans do not fit well the needs of a child with severe disabilities.  The disabled child may, now, or in adulthood, need the long term services and supports of the Medicaid program and/or the income assistance of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.  Since the child may live for many decades beyond the ability of the parents to supplement the services they receive through Medicaid, most parents recognize the need for saving and securing funds for the child.  Others want to ensure the financial security of a disabled child who has a level of disability required for Medicaid eligibility, but for now, is managing to function without the use of those benefits. Still others want to ensure that their family member can exercise control over the funds in the account without endangering the Medicaid and SSI benefits on which they may rely.

Although Supplemental Needs Trusts and/or Wholly Discretionary Trusts for Special Needs offer a savings solution, many families have found it too expensive to establish a trust which meets the requirements of the Medicaid and SSI programs.  While many attorneys will prepare these for reduced fees for those in need, it is not uncommon to pay five to ten thousand dollars for these solutions.  The ABLE Act (S.313 / H.R.647) would give individuals with disabilities and their families access to accounts that would allow individual choice and control while protecting eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, and other important federal benefits for people with disabilities.

The Senate Finance subcommittee on taxation and IRS oversight may have never heard testimony from someone quite like Sara Wolff.  Ms. Wolff, 31, was born with Down syndrome, but that hasn’t stopped her from becoming involved in politics. She testified before the subcommittee on the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act, which would create tax-free savings accounts for those with disabilities. Earlier this year, she wrote a change.org petition calling on Congress to pass the ABLE Act. The petition garnered more than 250,000 online signatures.

“Just because I have Down syndrome, that shouldn’t hold me back from achieving my full potential in life,” Ms. Wolff of Moscow, Pa., said in a statement. “I can work a full-time job, be a productive member of society, and pay taxes – but because of outdated laws placed on individuals with disabilities, we hold people like me back in life.”

Ms Wolf is also a board member of the National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS), which is championing the bipartisan legislation. The Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, and Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican.  Support for the House bill is being led by Rep. Ander Crenshaw, Florida Republican; Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington Republican; Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican; and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat.

“The bill aims to ease financial strains faced by individuals with disabilities by making tax-free savings accounts available to cover qualified expenses such as education, housing and transportation,” said an NDSS statement.

Ms. McMorris Rodgers, whose seven-year-old son Cole has Down syndrome, called on Congress to “advance this crucial legislation.”  “As the mom of a son with Down syndrome, I see firsthand how federal policies limit—not expand— opportunities for those with disabilities.  And the ABLE Act will change that,” said Ms. McMorris Rodgers in a statement. “It will make sure that Cole — and the millions like him who have special needs — will be able to save for their futures and reach their full potential.”

The ABLE Act  has 74 Senate co-sponsors, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  “Passing this landmark legislation will go a long way to help people with Down syndrome and other disabilities realize and achieve their own hopes, dreams and aspirations,” NDSS Vice President of Advocacy and Affiliate Relations Sara Hart Weir said in a statement.

Members of the U.S. Senate said Friday, September 26th, that they have an agreement that will allow the Achieving a Better Life Experience, or ABLE, Act to proceed to the full Congress.  The bill’s chief sponsors and leaders of the Senate’s Committee on Finance said in a joint statement that they expect the legislation to be considered when Congress returns to Washington in November.

Under the measure, people with disabilities would be able to create special accounts at any financial institution where they could deposit up to $14,000 annually. The ABLE accounts could accrue up to $100,000 in savings without risking an individual’s eligibility for government benefits like Social Security. What’s more, Medicaid coverage could be retained no matter how much money is deposited in the proposed accounts.

Modeled after the popular 529 college savings plans, funds deposited in ABLE accounts could be used to pay for education, health care, transportation, housing and other expenses. Interest earned on savings within the accounts would be tax-free.

The ABLE Act has been under consideration in Congress since 2006.  It is time that this proposal was enacted into law.

If you want to follow this legislation, Autism Speaks will do that for you by clicking here.  

The National Disability Institute has useful information here.

You can sign Sara's petition here.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/act-would-create-tax-free-savings-accounts-disable/#ixzz38RqDdzBf

and http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/09/19/deal-savings-accounts/19689/