Posted on 02/28/2005 4:36:53 PM PST by bayourod
AUSTIN - Texas officials will launch a new program beginning Tuesday that allows the state to seize estates of dead people who had applied to Medicaid for long-term care.
Texas is one of the last states to comply with a 12-year-old congressional program grappling with soaring Medicaid costs, which required all states to implement "estate recovery."
The program pits people who believe the law promotes taxpayer fairness against critics who fear it will deny heirs their rightful inheritances.
Experts characterize the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's rules as among the most lenient in the nation, but the program could affect tens of thousands of families that don't do estate planning.
"These seniors are going to have to understand the long-term financial consequences for their families," said Anne Dunkelberg, assistant director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.
Medicaid is the biggest safety net for older people in long-term care, Dunkelberg said. Seven of 10 Texas nursing home residents or about 60,000 people depend on the federal-state health care program each month.
"When an elderly parent begins to decline, many families are surprised to discover that Medicare doesn't cover custodial care," said Trudi Matthews, a health policy expert for the Council of State Governments.
Long-term care averages $40,000 a year, so even people with a hefty nest egg for retirement quickly deplete their savings and become eligible for Medicaid, she said.
Because Medicaid exempts houses and other assets when applicants sign up for benefits, "it's possible for someone with a very nice home to collect public dollars for his long-term care," Matthews said.
The thought of subsidizing seniors who still own comfortable houses has fueled support for recovering tax dollars after death, she said.
Through the program, the state can file a claim in probate court against the estate, which includes the home and any other estates of a Medicaid beneficiary older than 55 who applied for long-term care benefits on or after Tuesday.
State officials emphasize that the new rules don't cover anyone now on Medicaid. They also said they will not file a claim if there's a surviving spouse, a child under 21, a child of any age with a permanent disability or an unmarried adult child who's lived in the beneficiary's home for at least a year.
State officials said they will consider hardship waivers from other relatives on a case-by-case basis.
"The Medicaid dollars we recover will be plowed back into long-term care," said Don Rogers, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, which will administer the program.
Rogers said the state has no estimate of how much it will recover. Experts said that based on other programs Texas can expect to reap about $8 million annually within several years, though they warn that state-to-state comparisons are unreliable because programs vary widely.
People who work with Texas seniors disagree about the merits of the new rules.
Lynda Ender, chairman of the Texas Senior Advocacy Coalition, said the state is being a good guardian of taxpayers' money.
"We're strapped for Medicaid dollars in this state; many seniors are having to wait for at-home care," she said. "Estate recovery will produce some revenue that may make that care more readily available."
Patricia Sitchler, president of the Texas chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, says the rules are hardhearted.
"One way families improve their economic standing is for elders to pass on something to the next generation," she said. "The state's new rules will take that opportunity away from many Texas families."
I see ads in the newspaper for seminars teaching people how to shelter their assets in the event that they will need long term care. Cool. Keep your stuff, let the taxpayers cover your care.
They do that already.
Since when is there a "rightful inheritance". All estates pay bills first, then give out the money.
What needs to be changed is the policy that allows one to give up money prior to going into the NH {you have to do it like 2 years prior} and then have the govt pay the freight.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050222-104341-3112r.htm
"Both chambers of the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly yesterday approved a measure that would deny illegal aliens access to state and local public benefits, including Medicaid. The House voted 81-17 to approve..."
The law provides for a type of annuity which can be set up well ahead of time, which shelters assets from the medicaid
"spend-down" requirement. It is complicated and is best set up with legal assistance to insure full compliance.
I believe you have that exactly backwards.
The children normally don't have an inheritance until the parents die. Any attempt to transfer beforehand is fraud. The taxpayer is not obligated to "preserve" anyone's inheritance.
People will have to decide: health care and long time care or leave an inheritance? In my view, having the means to pay for (some) long term care is eliminating a potential burden on my children.
One way families don't have anything to pass on is because they're being taxed out the wazoo to provide benefits to people who have the money to pay for it themselves.
Ouch! You sure know how to hurt a guy.
Those programs exists to screw the public as usual. When the high flying politicians, etc. can't pay for their high living; they come after the American taxpayer. Why don't they just do the right thing and leave the American family alone?
That's exactly what Texas needs to do, problem solved.
It was reported earlier that the state governors were meeting with the President, concerned because medicaid was being reduced. Yet, medicaid is the largest tax payer expense caused by illegals. The solution is obvious to most.
You are right on.
Good for Virginia
Depends on how long beforehand doesn't it?
I am 59 years old and have transferred money and property to my children. My intent is not to defraud and is therefore quite legal.
Intent is hard to prove anyway.
i agree thats abetter way why...
In the context of Medicare, certain transfers can indeed be considered "fraudulent" and will be recaptured if found out. And they do look pretty closely believe it or not!!
I think this is what Publius is referring to.
Although, you'd be surprised with regard to intent! In the context of Medicaid "planning" and that is what it is indeed called, intent is practically irrelevant!
However, Graybeard is referring to a perfectly legal and acceptable way of transferring wealth to the next generation to avoid estate taxation, which is a very conservative concept, and this is by way of trust, gifts, and jointly titling certain assets.
Unless and until the estate tax is abolished, plenty of people will take advantage of these measures.
Property seizures. Isn't that a practice learned from the Soviets? Or was that Hitler?
Both I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.