New Rules Make It More Difficult to Get a Reverse Mortgage

The federal government has tightened the rules regarding reverse mortgages, making it harder for some seniors to get these types of mortgages and reducing the amount of their home’s value that they can tap. The new rules are an effort to strengthen the federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program, which insures almost all reverse mortgages and which has seen default rates rise.

For more information, click here to travel to my newsletter article!

Medicaid Expansion Signups Hindered By Fear of Estate Recovery

A fear that the government will seize their house after they die is causing some people to not sign up for expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A long-standing provision in Medicaid law allows states to recoup Medicaid costs by putting a claim on the home or other assets of older deceased Medicaid recipients.

For more information, click here to travel to my newsletter article!

In 1993, Congress passed a law requiring that states try to recover from the estates of deceased Medicaid recipients whatever benefits they paid for the recipient's long-term care. But the law allows states to go further and recover all Medicaid benefits from individuals over age 55, including costs for any medical care, not just long-term care benefits.

The ACA gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to individuals and families with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, and so far 26 states have taken this option. Now that more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid under the ACA, there are potentially more people who may have their houses (or other valuable assets) sold after they die to pay off Medicaid debt. People subject to this estate recovery would have to live in one of the 26 states, and their state would have to be recovering the costs of all Medicaid benefits, not just long-term care. Still, there are protections: the state cannot take a house if there is a surviving spouse, a child under age 21 or a child of any age who is blind or disabled.

According to the Washington Post, the realization that their house might be subject to estate recovery is giving some with low incomes second thoughts about signing up for Medicaid, even though not doing so will likely mean going without any insurance at all. ACA plans bought in the regular marketplace are not subject to estate recovery, but individuals who qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage are not able to get a subsidy to buy coverage in the marketplace. If someone doesn't want to be subject to estate recovery, there are two options: buy a plan from the marketplace without a subsidy, or buy no insurance at all.

In order to encourage people to sign up for Medicaid, both Oregon and Washington have changed their rules to allow estate recovery only for long-term care debt. In addition, advocates are asking the federal government for clarification on whether Medicaid estate recovery will apply to people who purchase expanded Medicaid coverage.  A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told the Post, "We recognize [the] importance of this issue and will provide states with additional guidance in this area soon." 

For the Washington Post article, click here.

For more on Medicaid's estate recovery rules, click here.

Key 2014 Dollar Limits for Medicaid Long-Term Care Coverage Released

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the 2014 federal guidelines for how much money the spouses of institutionalized Medicaid recipients may keep and the limit on how much a home can be worth for its owner to still qualify for Medicaid.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the 2014 federal guidelines for how much money the spouses of institutionalized Medicaid recipients may keep and the limit on how much a home can be worth for its owner to still qualify for Medicaid.

In 2014, the spouse of a Medicaid recipient living in a nursing home (called the "community spouse") may keep as much as $117,240 without jeopardizing the Medicaid eligibility of the spouse who is receiving long-term care. Called the "community spouse resource allowance," this is the most that a state may allow a community spouse to retain without a hearing or a court order. While some states set a lower maximum, the least that a state may allow a community spouse to retain in 2014 will be $23,448.

Meanwhile, the maximum monthly maintenance needs allowance for 2014 will be $2,931. This is the most in monthly income that a community spouse is allowed to have if her own income is not enough to live on and she must take some or all of the institutionalized spouse's income. The minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance – the income level below which a state may not allow a community spouse to fall if income from the institutionalized spouse is available -- is $1,938.75 in the lower 48 states ($2,422.50 for Alaska and $2,231.25 for Hawaii).  This figure took effect July 1, 2013, and will not rise until July 1, 2014.

In determining how much income a particular community spouse is allowed to retain, states must abide by this upper and lower range. Bear in mind that these figures apply only if the community spouse needs to take income from the institutionalized spouse. According to Medicaid law, the community spouse may keep all her own income, even if it exceeds the maximum monthly maintenance needs allowance.

Home Equity Limits

Medicaid will not cover long-term care services for applicants whose homes are valued above a certain limit.  For 2014, that limit is $543,000, although states have the option of increasing this equity limit to $814,000. But the house may be kept with no equity limit if the Medicaid applicant's spouse or another dependent relative lives there.

These new figures (except for the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance) take effect on January 1, 2014.

For more on protections for the healthy spouse, click here.  For more on Medicaid’s asset rules, click here.

Banks Can Report Abuse of Elderly Without Violating Privacy Laws

UC Irvine's Center of Excellence on Elder
Abuse and Neglect - committed to eliminating
 abuse of the elderly

The Federal Government has issued new guidelines aimed to help banks understand how to report suspected financial elder abuse without violating privacy laws. It was co-authored by eight federal agencies, including the FTC, SEC, FDIC, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The privacy protection law in question is the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA).

As the Guidance explains, GLBA allows banks to disclose private information “to comply with…state laws that require reporting by financial institutions of suspected abuse.” It may also be released to respond to a government investigation or to respond to judicial process. The guidance was issued to reassure financial institutions that they will not run afoul of federal law by reporting suspected abuse as required under state law.

Ohio law protects the disabled and elderly from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and requires certain professionals, including doctors, nurses, lawyers, physical therapists, social workers, law enforcement and emergency response personnel. having reasonable cause to believe that an elderly person is in need of protective services to report such information.

Ohio law does not currently require financial professionals such as tellers to report.  Ohio law does, however, protect any person that does report suspected abuse, whether or not required to report.  Any person who makes a report with reasonable cause to believe that an adult is suffering abuse, neglect or exploitation is immune from civil or criminal liability under Ohio law.

The importance of banking professionals in identifying abuse and exploitation cannot be overstated.  According to Richard Cordray, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

"Many older consumers are known personally by the tellers in their local banks and credit unions. These employees may be able to spot irregular transactions, abnormal account activity, or unusual behavior that signals financial abuse sooner than anyone else can. Today’s guidance makes clear that reporting suspected elder financial abuse generally is not subject to these same concerns and does not violate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The guidance mentions repeated large withdrawals, debit transactions uncommon for an older adult, random attempts to wire large amounts and the closing of CDs or accounts despite penalties as possible signs of elder financial abuse. 

  

For more information on the new federal guidance, see here, or see the full document here.

Medicaid Applicant Penalized for Assignment of Life Insurance to Funeral Trust

An Illinois appeals court recently held that a Medicaid applicant who purchased a life insurance policy that was assigned to a trust designed to pay funeral expenses is subject to a transfer penalty because the funds could be used for something other than funeral expenses pursuant to the terms of the trust.. Evans v. State (Ill. Ct. App., No. 4-12-1082, Dec. 24, 2013).

Nursing home resident Peggy Evans applied for Medicaid benefits and several days later purchased a life insurance policy for $12,000. The proceeds of the policy were assigned to an irrevocable trust. The trust provided that the trustee pay Ms. Evans' funeral and burial expenses if a bill was presented within 45 days of Ms. Evans' death.  The trust provided further  that in the event that a bill was not presented within that time frame, the assets would be distributed to Ms. Evans' children. The state approved her Medicaid application, but assessed a penalty period based on the transfer.

Ms. Evans' appealed, arguing the transfer to the life insurance policy was exempt from a penalty because the funds were for funeral and burial expenses. Normally, transfers to a funeral trust do not result in a penalty because the funds are used to for satisfying  funeral and burial expenses   The the Department of Human Services denied her appeal, and the trial court affirmed the decision. Ms. Evans appealed.

The Illinois Appeals Court affirmed, holding that the transfer to the life insurance policy was not exempt, so the state correctly assessed a penalty period. According to the court, in order for prepaid burial expenses to be exempt from a transfer penalty there has to be a burial contract in place, which was not the case here. In addition, "the funds can only be used to pay funeral expenses, also not the case here, as the structure of the trust could allow the funds to pass to Evans' children instead of paying funeral expenses."

The decision did not disclose who drafted the trust, or whether counsel reviewed or approved the trust.  Nonetheless, the decision underscores the importance of crafting a funeral trust with appropriate and effective limitations.

For the full text of this decision, go here.