Paul’s son Mark has cerebral palsy. When Mark turned 18 he was approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments and Medicaid, with Paul as the representative payee for his son’s benefits. When Paul applied for Mark’s SSI he disclosed to the Social Security Administration that Mark had a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act account (UTMA) with a $30,000 balance. Social Security assured Paul that the UTMA account would not affect Mark’s eligibility for benefits.
Mark is now 25 years old. Last week Paul got a notice from the Social Security Administration that Mark’s SSI is being cut off because of his UTMA account and that Mark would have to repay two years of benefits totaling over $14,000. Paul was stunned. He had disclosed the UTMA account when Mark first applied for SSI and he had been diligent about complying with all of SSI’s rules.
What is a UTMA account? UTMA accounts are controlled by state law. South Carolina and Vermont still call this type of account by an earlier name: Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts. Both types of accounts are designed to hold money that is given to a minor child. In Mark’s case the UTMA account was opened up when he was a baby to hold periodic cash gifts made by his grandparents. Though parents and grandparents knew at the time that Mark would have a disability throughout his life, they were hopeful that the money would help make him more independent and comfortable, and that his functional abilities might improve as he grew up.
A UTMA account is legally owned by the child and even lists the child’s Social Security number. The funds are controlled by a “custodian,” but the custodian is required to hold and use the money for the benefit of the child. The account resembles a simplified trust arrangement, with its terms set by state statutes. State law determines when the UTMA account will terminate. Depending on the state and the circumstances, the account terminates when the child reaches the age specified in the state law, usually either 18 or 21. The balance in the UTMA account is then legally available to the (now adult) child.
How does SSI treat UTMA accounts? Social Security’s Program Operation Manual System (POMS) provides that Social Security will not count a UTMA account as an available resource for SSI purposes until the account is considered available under state law (POMS 01120.205). Interest or dividend income generated from a UTMA account is also not counted as income of the SSI recipient. Of course, if the custodian makes a distribution of cash to the child from the account the payment would be counted as income to the child for that month. SSI does count the UTMA account as an available asset in the month in which the child reaches the age at which state law requires that the account be terminated.
Unfortunately the Social Security Administration does not remind parents of a child approaching majority that a UTMA account may soon be counted as an available asset. In Mark’s case his UTMA account of $30,000 made him ineligible for SSI and Medicaid as of his twenty-first birthday, when the law in his state mandated that the account became available. Because the Social Security Administration determined that Paul as the representative payee was not “at fault” in creating the overpayment, the recovery was limited to two years instead of four. It took Social Security four years to make the connection, but once the determination was made the ineligibility was retroactive to Mark’s twenty-first birthday.
Missed opportunity: Before Mark turned 21 the UTMA account could have been transferred into a special needs trust for Mark’s benefit. This would most likely be a “Medicaid payback” special needs trust since the trust would be funded with Mark’s own money—even though the funds originally came from Mark’s grandparents. In some circumstances (and states), it may even be possible to avoid the necessity of establishing a payback trust at all, but the key is to decide how to proceed before the child reaches the age set by state law.
In Mark’s case, after Paul repays the Social Security Administration for the overpayment he can still transfer the remaining funds into a payback trust so that Mark can re-qualify for SSI as of the first of the next month. Paul can also consider the possibility of transferring the UTMA balance to a pooled trust; given the amount of money and Mark’s young age, it may be more cost-efficient to take this approach. It may even be possible to make purchases for Mark’s benefit (like adaptive equipment, or the dental work that Mark needs) that could eliminate the need for a trust at all. Unfortunately, in Mark's case it is too late to save the $14,000 that the Social Security Administration will claim for its overpayment.
Lesson learned: Parents, financial advisors and legal counsel should do a check of any UTMA accounts for a child approaching the age of majority in cases of disability. It is easy to avoid a serious eligibility issue with important government benefits by transferring the UTMA account into a special needs trust before the account is available to the child. As always, competent legal advice can help navigate the tricky (and not always obvious) eligibility rules and procedures.
Source: Barbara A. Isenhour, Special Needs Alliance Newsletter, 2/08
Lawrence Eric Davidow is a founding member and the Treasurer of the Special Needs Alliance which is a National Alliance of Disability Lawyers. This premier alliance of leading law firms throughout the country are dedicated to the area of planning for those with Special Needs. These hand picked law firms have the resources to devise solutions and insure financial security for special needs clients nationwide. Long aware of the need for attention to this area, Mr. Davidow, along with his colleagues, formed an alliance solely dedicated to the unique challenges this area of the law presents.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
2008 Medicaid Only Income Exemption and Resource Levels
Released by the Office of Health Insurance Programs,
Division of Coverage and Enrollment
Due to a 2.3% cost of living adjustment for SSA payments effective January 1, 2008, several figures used in determining Medicaid eligibility must be updated. Effective January 1, 2008, Medicaid eligibility must be determined using the following updated figures:
1. Medicaid income level for 1 is $725/month or $8,700/year.
2. Medicaid income level for 2 is $1,067/month or $12,800/year.
3. Medicaid income levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
4. Medicaid resource levels are $4350 and $6400, for households of 1 and 2, respectively. The resource levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
5. Family Health Plus resource levels are $13,050 and $19,200, for households of 1 and 2, respectively. The Family Health Plus resource levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
6. The Supplemental Security Income federal benefit rate (FBR) for an individual living alone is $637/single and $956/couple.
7. The allocation amount is $342, the difference between the Medicaid level for a household of two ($1,067) and one ($725).
8. The 249e factors are .893 and .188.
9. The SSI resource levels remain $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.
10. The state supplement is $87 for an individual and $104 for a couple living alone.
11. The Medicare Part A premium is $423 per month.
12. The Medicare Part B standard monthly premium increases to $96.40 per month. Beginning in 2007, some enrollees, based on their incomes, will pay a higher Part B premium amount. The standard Medicare monthly Part B premium for 2008 will be $96.40. Local districts may see higher premium amounts, up to a maximum of $238.40, especially in some spousal impoverishment cases when applicants/recipients may have more monthly income than is ordinarily seen in most Medicaid cases.
13. Maximum federal Community Spouse Resource Allowance is $104,400.
14. Minimum State Community Spouse Resource Allowance is $74,820.
15. The community spouse Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance is $2,610.
16. Maximum Family Member Allowance is $584 (estimated).
17. Family Member Allowance formula number used is $1,750 (estimated).
18. Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA): Non-Blind $940/month, Blind $1570/month, Trial Work Period (TWP) $670/month.
19. SSI-related student earned income disregard limit of $1550 monthly up to a maximum of $6240 annually.
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program designed to provide medical assistance benefits, including Nursing Home care and community based home care, to certain needy individuals who qualify and those who have properly planned. However, the process of application and eligibility is confusing and intimidating. At Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern we can successfully guide you through the entire Medicaid process from establishing eligibility, the preparation of the application, gathering the necessary documents, submission of the application, follow-up to submission, to the acceptance and ongoing Medicaid eligibility.
Division of Coverage and Enrollment
Due to a 2.3% cost of living adjustment for SSA payments effective January 1, 2008, several figures used in determining Medicaid eligibility must be updated. Effective January 1, 2008, Medicaid eligibility must be determined using the following updated figures:
1. Medicaid income level for 1 is $725/month or $8,700/year.
2. Medicaid income level for 2 is $1,067/month or $12,800/year.
3. Medicaid income levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
4. Medicaid resource levels are $4350 and $6400, for households of 1 and 2, respectively. The resource levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
5. Family Health Plus resource levels are $13,050 and $19,200, for households of 1 and 2, respectively. The Family Health Plus resource levels for households of 3 or more remain the same as in 2007.
6. The Supplemental Security Income federal benefit rate (FBR) for an individual living alone is $637/single and $956/couple.
7. The allocation amount is $342, the difference between the Medicaid level for a household of two ($1,067) and one ($725).
8. The 249e factors are .893 and .188.
9. The SSI resource levels remain $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.
10. The state supplement is $87 for an individual and $104 for a couple living alone.
11. The Medicare Part A premium is $423 per month.
12. The Medicare Part B standard monthly premium increases to $96.40 per month. Beginning in 2007, some enrollees, based on their incomes, will pay a higher Part B premium amount. The standard Medicare monthly Part B premium for 2008 will be $96.40. Local districts may see higher premium amounts, up to a maximum of $238.40, especially in some spousal impoverishment cases when applicants/recipients may have more monthly income than is ordinarily seen in most Medicaid cases.
13. Maximum federal Community Spouse Resource Allowance is $104,400.
14. Minimum State Community Spouse Resource Allowance is $74,820.
15. The community spouse Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance is $2,610.
16. Maximum Family Member Allowance is $584 (estimated).
17. Family Member Allowance formula number used is $1,750 (estimated).
18. Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA): Non-Blind $940/month, Blind $1570/month, Trial Work Period (TWP) $670/month.
19. SSI-related student earned income disregard limit of $1550 monthly up to a maximum of $6240 annually.
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program designed to provide medical assistance benefits, including Nursing Home care and community based home care, to certain needy individuals who qualify and those who have properly planned. However, the process of application and eligibility is confusing and intimidating. At Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern we can successfully guide you through the entire Medicaid process from establishing eligibility, the preparation of the application, gathering the necessary documents, submission of the application, follow-up to submission, to the acceptance and ongoing Medicaid eligibility.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Panel Rules Same-Sex Partner Ineligible for Death Benefit
The same-sex partner of a man who died following an on-the-job accident is not entitled to the Workers’ Compensation death benefit a surviving spouse in a traditional marriage would receive, a divided upstate appeals panel ruled yesterday.
The civil union that John R. Langan and the late Neal Conrad Spicehandler entered into in Vermont in 2000 does not make Mr. Langan eligible for the death benefit as a surviving spouse under New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law §16, the court determined in Matter of Langan v. State Farm Fire & Casualty. In a 4-1 ruling, the court decided that Mr. Langan has no better claim to the death benefit than the male registered domestic partner in Matter of Valentine v. American Airlines, (2005), who sought the death benefit after his partner was killed in a 2001 plan crash in New York City.
Neither civil unions nor registered domestic partnerships are recognized as marriages under the Workers’ Compensation Law, Justice Anthony T. Kane wrote for the Third Department panel. A “legal spouse” is the “husband or wife of lawful marriage” for purposes of the statute, Justice Kane wrote, citing Valentine.
The majority ruled that its holding was also consistent with the state Court of Appeals’ landmark ruling in Hernandez v. Robles, (2006), in which the Court ruled 4-2 that New York’s Domestic Relations Law implicitly limits marriage to heterosexual couples.
The Court of Appeals has also long recognized that the Workers’ Compensation system is designed to protect the family–“husband, wife and children,” as the court put it yesterday–should spouses be injured or killed while on the job, the Third Department noted.
“The Court of Appeals has already determined that the Legislature’s decision to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to this legitimate interest and withstands rational basis scrutiny,” Justice Kane wrote. “The decision to extend workers’ compensation death benefits to a whole new class of beneficiaries, i.e., survivors of same-sex unions, is a decision to be made by the Legislature after appropriate inquiry into the societal obligation to provide such benefits and the financial impact of such a decision.”
The majority also ruled that comity does not bind New York state to extend Workers’ Compensation death benefits to partners in civil unions, as Vermont does for its same-sex-couple residents. “This doctrine is not a mandate to adhere to another state’s laws, but an expression of one state’s voluntary choice to defer to another state’s policy,” the court held.
The lone dissenter, Justice Robert S. Rose, found Mr. Langan’s comity argument more persuasive. Justice Rose wrote that the plaintiff is not asking for the death benefit because Vermont would confer them on him were he a resident of that state, but “only to recognize the legal status of spouse afforded to him by Vermont, as a matter of comity.”
“Once that status is recognized, New York law provides the legal incidents to which claimant would be entitled, including workers’ compensation death benefits,” the dissenter held.
Yesterday’s ruling affirmed the denial of death benefits to Mr. Langan by a Workers’ Compensation Law judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mr. Langan’s appeal went directly to the Appellate Division.
Had Mr. Langan and Mr. Spicehandler been in a traditional marriage, Mr. Langan would have been eligible for a death benefit totaling two years’ worth of benefits is provided, according to the state Workers’ Compensation Board.
Mr. Spicehandler lived on Long Island with Mr. Langan and the two men had been in a relationship for 14 years before the entered into a civil union. Mr. Spicehandler was struck by a hit-and-run driver in midtown Manhattan and severely injured his leg in February 2002. He died of a blood clot two days later, following surgery.
The prospect of New York’s Legislature legalizing same-sex marriages or extending Workers’ Compensation benefis to domestic partners or couples in civil unions is considered dim as long as Republicans maintain their majority in the state Senate.
By an 85-61 vote, the Democrat-dominated state Assembly approved a bill sent by Governor Eliot Spitzer to authorize same-sex marriages on June 19. However, Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Burn, R-Brunswick, has said repeatedly his GOP members have no interest in taking up the bill or legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Third Department panel took 3 ½ months after hearing oral arguments to hand down its ruling in Langan. That is about twice as long as the court normally takes to decide cases and generally indicates disagreements among members of the panel over the ruling.
This was not the first time Mr. Langan has lost before the Appellate Division in a case concerning his late partner. In Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hospital (2005), a Second Department panel ruled 3-2 that same-sex partners cannot pursue a wrongful death action in New York. Mr. Langan had sought to sue St. Vincent’s Hospital for alleged maltreatment of the injuries of Mr. Spicehandler, a Massapequa attorney. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of that ruling in 2006.
As this recent case proves, Gay and Lesbian couples and their families do not have the same legal rights as traditional married couples making it even more imperative to establish an estate plan. Without an estate plan, critical decisions may be left to a system that may exhibit legal prejudice and involve bloodline relatives that you may not want involved. The attorneys at Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern are well versed in this area. If you require detailed information, please request a copy of our special report entitled, “Protecting the rights of non-traditional couples in the traditional world”.
Source: NY Law Journal
The civil union that John R. Langan and the late Neal Conrad Spicehandler entered into in Vermont in 2000 does not make Mr. Langan eligible for the death benefit as a surviving spouse under New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law §16, the court determined in Matter of Langan v. State Farm Fire & Casualty. In a 4-1 ruling, the court decided that Mr. Langan has no better claim to the death benefit than the male registered domestic partner in Matter of Valentine v. American Airlines, (2005), who sought the death benefit after his partner was killed in a 2001 plan crash in New York City.
Neither civil unions nor registered domestic partnerships are recognized as marriages under the Workers’ Compensation Law, Justice Anthony T. Kane wrote for the Third Department panel. A “legal spouse” is the “husband or wife of lawful marriage” for purposes of the statute, Justice Kane wrote, citing Valentine.
The majority ruled that its holding was also consistent with the state Court of Appeals’ landmark ruling in Hernandez v. Robles, (2006), in which the Court ruled 4-2 that New York’s Domestic Relations Law implicitly limits marriage to heterosexual couples.
The Court of Appeals has also long recognized that the Workers’ Compensation system is designed to protect the family–“husband, wife and children,” as the court put it yesterday–should spouses be injured or killed while on the job, the Third Department noted.
“The Court of Appeals has already determined that the Legislature’s decision to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to this legitimate interest and withstands rational basis scrutiny,” Justice Kane wrote. “The decision to extend workers’ compensation death benefits to a whole new class of beneficiaries, i.e., survivors of same-sex unions, is a decision to be made by the Legislature after appropriate inquiry into the societal obligation to provide such benefits and the financial impact of such a decision.”
The majority also ruled that comity does not bind New York state to extend Workers’ Compensation death benefits to partners in civil unions, as Vermont does for its same-sex-couple residents. “This doctrine is not a mandate to adhere to another state’s laws, but an expression of one state’s voluntary choice to defer to another state’s policy,” the court held.
The lone dissenter, Justice Robert S. Rose, found Mr. Langan’s comity argument more persuasive. Justice Rose wrote that the plaintiff is not asking for the death benefit because Vermont would confer them on him were he a resident of that state, but “only to recognize the legal status of spouse afforded to him by Vermont, as a matter of comity.”
“Once that status is recognized, New York law provides the legal incidents to which claimant would be entitled, including workers’ compensation death benefits,” the dissenter held.
Yesterday’s ruling affirmed the denial of death benefits to Mr. Langan by a Workers’ Compensation Law judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mr. Langan’s appeal went directly to the Appellate Division.
Had Mr. Langan and Mr. Spicehandler been in a traditional marriage, Mr. Langan would have been eligible for a death benefit totaling two years’ worth of benefits is provided, according to the state Workers’ Compensation Board.
Mr. Spicehandler lived on Long Island with Mr. Langan and the two men had been in a relationship for 14 years before the entered into a civil union. Mr. Spicehandler was struck by a hit-and-run driver in midtown Manhattan and severely injured his leg in February 2002. He died of a blood clot two days later, following surgery.
The prospect of New York’s Legislature legalizing same-sex marriages or extending Workers’ Compensation benefis to domestic partners or couples in civil unions is considered dim as long as Republicans maintain their majority in the state Senate.
By an 85-61 vote, the Democrat-dominated state Assembly approved a bill sent by Governor Eliot Spitzer to authorize same-sex marriages on June 19. However, Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Burn, R-Brunswick, has said repeatedly his GOP members have no interest in taking up the bill or legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Third Department panel took 3 ½ months after hearing oral arguments to hand down its ruling in Langan. That is about twice as long as the court normally takes to decide cases and generally indicates disagreements among members of the panel over the ruling.
This was not the first time Mr. Langan has lost before the Appellate Division in a case concerning his late partner. In Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hospital (2005), a Second Department panel ruled 3-2 that same-sex partners cannot pursue a wrongful death action in New York. Mr. Langan had sought to sue St. Vincent’s Hospital for alleged maltreatment of the injuries of Mr. Spicehandler, a Massapequa attorney. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of that ruling in 2006.
As this recent case proves, Gay and Lesbian couples and their families do not have the same legal rights as traditional married couples making it even more imperative to establish an estate plan. Without an estate plan, critical decisions may be left to a system that may exhibit legal prejudice and involve bloodline relatives that you may not want involved. The attorneys at Davidow, Davidow, Siegel & Stern are well versed in this area. If you require detailed information, please request a copy of our special report entitled, “Protecting the rights of non-traditional couples in the traditional world”.
Source: NY Law Journal
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Buffet Testifies Against Estate Tax Repeal Which Appears Dead
Billionaire Warren Buffett urged Congress to preserve the estate tax, saying that plans to repeal it would benefit a handful of the richest American families and turn the country into a "plutocracy."
Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and the second-richest man in America after Bill Gates, according to Forbes magazine, testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Nov. 14, 2007. He told the panel, which is exploring ways to replace the ever-changing rules of the current estate tax system, that advocates of repeal are "dead wrong" to call the tax a "death tax."
Buffett said it would be more appropriate to call it a "death present" because heirs get to calculate their capital gains on inherited assets based on the price when they inherited them rather than when the decedent originally bought them.
Buffett noted that so few Americans are subject to the estate tax that "you would have to be at 200 funerals to attend one where the decedent paid the tax."
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise," he went on. "Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. . . . We ought to do more for [low-income Americans] and take more out of the hides of people like me."
Those who support repeal claim that the estate tax sometimes forces the heirs of family businesses and farms to sell pieces of the business just to pay the tax bill. Testifying in favor of repeal was Dean Rhoads, a rancher and state senator from Nevada, who said when his in-laws died, the family had to sell land to pay the estate taxes and are now paying $18,000 in taxes, plus interest, every year. "We have had to borrow money to make these payments," Rhoads said.
Currently, only estates worth more than $2 million are taxed by the federal government. The threshold is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. For the year 2010, estates will be entirely free from federal taxation. However, the law that includes this provision expires at the end of 2010. Thus, unless Congress acts in the interim, the estate tax exemption will then revert to $1 million.
Buffett said he would raise the amount of estate assets exempt from the estate tax to $4 million. He also said he might include an exemption for small family-owned businesses.
Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that complete repeal of the estate tax is not in the cards now. "I think everyone in this room knows we're not going to repeal the estate tax. It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future," said Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT).
"We can't get [repeal] done," said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). "We ought to be able to come to a compromise."
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and the second-richest man in America after Bill Gates, according to Forbes magazine, testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Nov. 14, 2007. He told the panel, which is exploring ways to replace the ever-changing rules of the current estate tax system, that advocates of repeal are "dead wrong" to call the tax a "death tax."
Buffett said it would be more appropriate to call it a "death present" because heirs get to calculate their capital gains on inherited assets based on the price when they inherited them rather than when the decedent originally bought them.
Buffett noted that so few Americans are subject to the estate tax that "you would have to be at 200 funerals to attend one where the decedent paid the tax."
"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise," he went on. "Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. . . . We ought to do more for [low-income Americans] and take more out of the hides of people like me."
Those who support repeal claim that the estate tax sometimes forces the heirs of family businesses and farms to sell pieces of the business just to pay the tax bill. Testifying in favor of repeal was Dean Rhoads, a rancher and state senator from Nevada, who said when his in-laws died, the family had to sell land to pay the estate taxes and are now paying $18,000 in taxes, plus interest, every year. "We have had to borrow money to make these payments," Rhoads said.
Currently, only estates worth more than $2 million are taxed by the federal government. The threshold is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. For the year 2010, estates will be entirely free from federal taxation. However, the law that includes this provision expires at the end of 2010. Thus, unless Congress acts in the interim, the estate tax exemption will then revert to $1 million.
Buffett said he would raise the amount of estate assets exempt from the estate tax to $4 million. He also said he might include an exemption for small family-owned businesses.
Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that complete repeal of the estate tax is not in the cards now. "I think everyone in this room knows we're not going to repeal the estate tax. It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future," said Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT).
"We can't get [repeal] done," said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). "We ought to be able to come to a compromise."
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
Friday, November 2, 2007
Transfer Penalty no longer applies for Lombardi Program!
On September 24, 2007, the New York Office of Health Insurance Programs issued a directive stating that the penalty period for gifts will no longer apply to applicants for the Lombardi program. "Effective immediately: if an individual applies for Medicaid coverage of home and community-based waiver services, the applicant is only required to provide documentation of his/her current resources. The individual is not subject to a transfer of assets look-back period nor is the individual subject to a transfer penalty period. Spousal impoverishment budgeting continues to apply to a waiver A/R who has a community spouse."
The Long Term Home Health Care Program (LTHHCP), also known as "The Lombardi Program" or "Nursing Home without Walls" provides eligible patients and their families with a popular alternative to institutional care. Based on an individualized plan of care, a comprehensive package of coordinated services is designed to meet the specific needs of eligible patients in their homes. The program serves chronically ill and disabled persons over the age of 18 who have ongoing health care needs. The hallmark of this program is case management by a Registered Nurse. An interdisciplinary team of health care professionals provides assessments, visits and delivery of ongoing quality care in the home. Services may include but are not limited to Nursing Care; Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy; Personal Care Aides; Transportation; PERS, etc.
The elimination of the penalty period for the Lombardi Medicaid program is a brand new development. In recommending transfers prior to application for the Lombardi program, there still remains the concern that a recipient of the Lombarid program may need nursing home care in the future. Gifts will be reviewed and possibly penalized for the nursing home applicant even though they were not considered in the Lombardi application. Therefore, prior to planning for and applying for the Lombardi program, legal advice from a certified elder law attorney should be sought.
The Long Term Home Health Care Program (LTHHCP), also known as "The Lombardi Program" or "Nursing Home without Walls" provides eligible patients and their families with a popular alternative to institutional care. Based on an individualized plan of care, a comprehensive package of coordinated services is designed to meet the specific needs of eligible patients in their homes. The program serves chronically ill and disabled persons over the age of 18 who have ongoing health care needs. The hallmark of this program is case management by a Registered Nurse. An interdisciplinary team of health care professionals provides assessments, visits and delivery of ongoing quality care in the home. Services may include but are not limited to Nursing Care; Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy; Personal Care Aides; Transportation; PERS, etc.
The elimination of the penalty period for the Lombardi Medicaid program is a brand new development. In recommending transfers prior to application for the Lombardi program, there still remains the concern that a recipient of the Lombarid program may need nursing home care in the future. Gifts will be reviewed and possibly penalized for the nursing home applicant even though they were not considered in the Lombardi application. Therefore, prior to planning for and applying for the Lombardi program, legal advice from a certified elder law attorney should be sought.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Voters Want Long Term Care included in Presidential Candidates' Healthcare Proposals
Genworth Financial, Inc. convened a national symposium of noted experts from the healthcare industry, seniors organizations, government and academia on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of long term care in America. It also released the results of a new poll on the importance of long term care in the 2008 elections and a new book on the future of long term care in America.
Representatives from organizations such as AARP, the American Association for Homes Services for the Aging (AAHSA), the American Health Care Association(AHCA), the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Alliance of Caregivers (NAC) participated in an exchange of ideas and solutions aimed at addressing the looming crisis America faces amid rising long term care costs and a lack of sufficient planning at the national, state and individual levels.
“It is estimated that 60% of those over the age 65 will require a form of long term care at some point,” said Buck Stinson, president of Genworth Financial’s long term care insurance division. “With the first of the 78 million baby boomers turning 62 next year, we need to be both realistic and prepared for the healthcare demands many of these Americans will have, which is precisely why the discussion we’re having today is so important.”
According to the new bi-partisan national survey, nearly seven in ten Americans have not made any plans for their own, a spouse’s or another relative’s long term care needs. Yet, over half those surveyed have had a loved one who needed some form of long term care. The poll also found that close to 80 percent of the respondents want to see long term care included in the healthcare proposals offered by the presidential candidates. More than 80 percent of those surveyed also said that positions on long term care funding will be an important factor in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 election.
The polling also showed that Americans are willing to bear part of the responsibility to develop a national long term care program, whether through tax incentives for the purchase of private long term care insurance or through a universal healthcare initiative that include long term care coverage. Sixty percent of voters surveyed supported new taxes or payroll deductions to subsidize a long term care program. Sixty-eight percent of those who supported new taxes or payroll deductions also indicated a willingness to pay between $25 monthly and upwards of $50 per month.
The release of a new publication, The Future of Long Term Care in America: Views and Recommendations by Prominent Experts, was a focal point of the symposium. The book’s purpose is to inform policy makers, academics, financial advisors and consumers about the challenges of long term care. It will be available on Amazon.com. It is comprised of ten chapters, each written by a different author such as AARP CEO, Bill Novelli, and former Congressional Budget Office Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. It covers a wide range of long term care issues including the role of technology in future care, Alzheimer’s disease, independent living, public funding for long term care programs, the growing demand and delivery (home-based and facility-based) of long term care services and other relevant topics. More information about the book, including a full list of chapters and their authors, can be found at Genworth.com.
Source: CNNMoney.com; 10/11/07
Representatives from organizations such as AARP, the American Association for Homes Services for the Aging (AAHSA), the American Health Care Association(AHCA), the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Alliance of Caregivers (NAC) participated in an exchange of ideas and solutions aimed at addressing the looming crisis America faces amid rising long term care costs and a lack of sufficient planning at the national, state and individual levels.
“It is estimated that 60% of those over the age 65 will require a form of long term care at some point,” said Buck Stinson, president of Genworth Financial’s long term care insurance division. “With the first of the 78 million baby boomers turning 62 next year, we need to be both realistic and prepared for the healthcare demands many of these Americans will have, which is precisely why the discussion we’re having today is so important.”
According to the new bi-partisan national survey, nearly seven in ten Americans have not made any plans for their own, a spouse’s or another relative’s long term care needs. Yet, over half those surveyed have had a loved one who needed some form of long term care. The poll also found that close to 80 percent of the respondents want to see long term care included in the healthcare proposals offered by the presidential candidates. More than 80 percent of those surveyed also said that positions on long term care funding will be an important factor in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 election.
The polling also showed that Americans are willing to bear part of the responsibility to develop a national long term care program, whether through tax incentives for the purchase of private long term care insurance or through a universal healthcare initiative that include long term care coverage. Sixty percent of voters surveyed supported new taxes or payroll deductions to subsidize a long term care program. Sixty-eight percent of those who supported new taxes or payroll deductions also indicated a willingness to pay between $25 monthly and upwards of $50 per month.
The release of a new publication, The Future of Long Term Care in America: Views and Recommendations by Prominent Experts, was a focal point of the symposium. The book’s purpose is to inform policy makers, academics, financial advisors and consumers about the challenges of long term care. It will be available on Amazon.com. It is comprised of ten chapters, each written by a different author such as AARP CEO, Bill Novelli, and former Congressional Budget Office Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. It covers a wide range of long term care issues including the role of technology in future care, Alzheimer’s disease, independent living, public funding for long term care programs, the growing demand and delivery (home-based and facility-based) of long term care services and other relevant topics. More information about the book, including a full list of chapters and their authors, can be found at Genworth.com.
Source: CNNMoney.com; 10/11/07
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
New Medicare Premium, Decuctible & Coinsurance Charges for 2008
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the new Medicare premiums, deductibles, and coinsurances. The standard Medicare Part B premium is increasing by 3.1 percent to $96.40 a month, the smallest increase since 2001.
The increase is lower than previously expected in part due to the correction of an accounting error. Money for certain hospice benefits had been inadvertently drawn from the Part B trust fund rather than the fund that pays hospital costs. In addition, the lower premium assumes that physicians will take a 10 percent cut in their reimbursement rates. It is expected that Congress will act to offset some of or all of that pay cut, meaning that future-year premiums will reflect the additional expense.
Here are all the new Medicare figures:
Part B premium: $96.40/month (was $93.50)
Part B deductible: $135 (was $131)
Part A deductible: $1,024 (was $992)
Co-payment for hospital stay days 61-90: $256/day (was $248)
Co-payment for hospital stay days 91 and beyond: $512/day (was $496)
Skilled nursing facility co-payment, days 21-100: $128/day (was $124)
As directed by the 2003 Medicare law, for the first time, higher income beneficiaries will pay higher Part B premiums. Following are the higher premium rates:
Individuals with annual incomes between $82,000 and $102,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $164,000 and $204,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $122.20.
Individuals with annual incomes between $102,000 and $153,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $204,000 and $306,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $160.90.
Individuals with annual incomes between $153,000 and $205,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $306,000 and $410,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $199.70.
Individuals with annual incomes of $205,000 or more and married couples with annual incomes of $410,000 or more in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $238.40.
Rates differ for beneficiaries who are married but file a separate tax return from their spouse:
Those with incomes between $82,000 and $123,000 will pay a monthly premium of $199.70.
Those with incomes greater than $123,000 will pay a monthly premium of $238.40.
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
The increase is lower than previously expected in part due to the correction of an accounting error. Money for certain hospice benefits had been inadvertently drawn from the Part B trust fund rather than the fund that pays hospital costs. In addition, the lower premium assumes that physicians will take a 10 percent cut in their reimbursement rates. It is expected that Congress will act to offset some of or all of that pay cut, meaning that future-year premiums will reflect the additional expense.
Here are all the new Medicare figures:
Part B premium: $96.40/month (was $93.50)
Part B deductible: $135 (was $131)
Part A deductible: $1,024 (was $992)
Co-payment for hospital stay days 61-90: $256/day (was $248)
Co-payment for hospital stay days 91 and beyond: $512/day (was $496)
Skilled nursing facility co-payment, days 21-100: $128/day (was $124)
As directed by the 2003 Medicare law, for the first time, higher income beneficiaries will pay higher Part B premiums. Following are the higher premium rates:
Individuals with annual incomes between $82,000 and $102,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $164,000 and $204,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $122.20.
Individuals with annual incomes between $102,000 and $153,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $204,000 and $306,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $160.90.
Individuals with annual incomes between $153,000 and $205,000 and married couples with annual incomes between $306,000 and $410,000 in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $199.70.
Individuals with annual incomes of $205,000 or more and married couples with annual incomes of $410,000 or more in 2008 will pay a monthly premium of $238.40.
Rates differ for beneficiaries who are married but file a separate tax return from their spouse:
Those with incomes between $82,000 and $123,000 will pay a monthly premium of $199.70.
Those with incomes greater than $123,000 will pay a monthly premium of $238.40.
Source: www.elderlawanswers.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)