Medicaid Benefits – House Transfer: Deed Does Not Conflict

Reservation of Power of Appointment in Deed Does Not Conflict With Conveyance of Property to Children

house transfer

A Massachusetts appeals court rules that as part of Medicaid planning, a woman could reserve a power of appointment in a deed conveying property to her children while reserving a life estate for herself. Skye v. Hession (Mass. App. Ct., No. 16-P-282, Apr. 28, 2017).

Margaret Hession sought legal assistance to protect her house in the event she might need Medicaid benefits. As part of the Medicaid planning, she executed a deed transferring her house to her children. The deed reserved a life estate for her and granted her a special power of appointment that allowed her to appoint the property to any person except herself, her creditors, her estate, or her estate’s creditors. Ms. Hession decided her daughter Deaven Skye should inherit less than her other children. She wrote a will that exercised her power of appointment and reduced Ms. Skye’s interest in the property from one-third to 5 percent.

After Ms. Hession died, Ms. Skye objected to the will and argued that the power of appointment was void. The trial court dismissed Ms. Skye’s objection and admitted the will to probate. Ms. Skye appealed, arguing that the provisions in the deed granting the remainder interests and reserving a power of appointment are irreconcilably repugnant to each other.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals, rules that the reservation of the power of appointment is consistent with the other provisions of the deed. According to the court, “because of the reservation of the life estate, the deed conveyed not present possessory estates but rather remainder interests; and, because of the reservation of the power, the remainder interests were defined, in part, by this limitation.” The court specifically does not express a “view on the effect of the reserved power of appointment on [Ms. Hession’s] strategy of avoiding MassHealth look-back period regulations.”

READ THE TOP 8 MISTAKES IN MEDICAID PLANNING HERE>

8 Pretty Good Things For Seniors To Remember at Tax Time

Tax day, which is April 18th in 2017, is approaching and it is time to begin crossing T’s and dotting I’s in preparation for paying taxes. As tax time draws near, you want to make sure you file all the proper forms and take all deductions you’re entitled to. Following are some things to keep in mind as you prepare your tax form.

elder law nyc

  1. Gifts. Did you give away any money this year? The gift tax can be very confusing. If you gave away more than $14,000 in 2016, you will have to file a Form 709, the gift tax return. This does not necessarily mean you will owe taxes on the money, however.
  2. Medical Expenses. Many types of medical expenses are tax deductible, from hospital stays to hearing aids. To claim the deduction, your medical expenses have to be more than 10 percent of your adjusted gross income.  (For taxpayers 65 and older, this threshold will be 7.5 percent through 2016.) This includes all out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions (including deductibles and co-pays) and Medicare Part B and Part C and Part D premiums. (Medicare Part B premiums are usually deducted out of your Social Security benefits, so be sure to check your 1099 for the amount.) You can only deduct medical expenses you paid during the year, regardless of when the services were provided, and medical expenses are not deductible if they are reimbursable by insurance.
  3. Parental Deduction. If you are caring for your mother or father, you may be able to claim your parent as a dependent on your income taxes. This would allow you to get an exemption $4,050 (in 2016) for him or her.
  4. Long-Term Care Insurance Premiums. Premiums for “qualified” long-term care policies are treated as an unreimbursed medical expense. Long-term care insurance premiums are deductible for the taxpayer, his or her spouse and other dependents.
  5. Social Security Benefits. Although Social Security benefits are generally not taxable, people with substantial income in addition to their Social Security may pay taxes on their benefits. If you file a federal tax return as an individual and your “combined income,” including one half of your Social Security benefits and nontaxable interest income is between $25,000 and $34,000, 50 percent of your Social Security benefits will be considered taxable. If your combined income is above $34,000, 85 percent of your Social Security benefits is subject to income tax.
  6. Home Sale Exclusion. Married couples can exclude from income up to $500,000 in profit on the sale of a home ($250,000 for single individuals). If a surviving spouse sells the home, he or she can still claim the exclusion as long as the house was sold no more than two years after the spouse’s death.
  7. Elderly or Disabled Tax Credit. Some low-income elderly or disabled individuals are entitled to a special tax credit. To be eligible, you must meet income limits. For more information, click here.
  8. Tax Refunds. Getting a federal tax refund should not affect your Medicaid or Social Security benefits. For a year after receiving a tax refund from the federal government, the refund will not be considered income or resources for SSI or Medicaid purposes. You can also transfer the refund within a year without incurring a penalty.

The IRS’s Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program offers free tax help to taxpayers who are 60 and older. For more information, click here. The IRS also publishes a Tax Guide For Seniors.

More Free Helpful Legal Guides for Seniors, click here.

Top 10 Elder Law decisions of 2016

Below, in chronological order, is ElderLawAnswers’ annual roundup of the top 10 elder law decisions for the year just ended, as measured by the number of “unique page views” of our summary of the case.

gavel17

1. Medicaid Applicant’s Irrevocable Trust Is an Available Resource Because Trustee Can Make Distributions

An Alabama appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s special needs trust is an available resource because the trustee had discretion to make payments under the trust. Alabama Medicaid Agency v. Hardy (Ala. Civ. App., No. 2140565, Jan. 29, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

2. Trust Is an Available Asset Because Trustees Have Discretion to Make Distributions

A New York appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s trust is an available asset because the trustees have discretion to make distributions to her. In the Matter of Frances Flannery v. Zucker (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 4th Dept., No. TP 15-01033, Feb. 11, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

3. Medicaid Applicant Who Transferred Assets in Exchange for Promissory Note May Proceed with Suit Against State

A U.S. district court holds that a Medicaid applicant who was denied Medicaid benefits after transferring assets to her children in exchange for a promissory note may proceed with her claim against the state because Medicaid law confers a private right of action and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the claim. Ansley v. Lake (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Okla., No. CIV-14-1383-D, March 9, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

4. Mass. Court Bridles at Allegations in Request for Reconsideration in Irrevocable Trust Case

In a strongly worded response to a Medicaid applicant’s request for reconsideration of an unsuccessful appeal involving an irrevocable trust, a Massachusetts trial court strikes the applicant’s pleadings after it takes great exception to the tone of the argument.  Daley v. Sudders (Mass.Super.Ct., No.15-CV-0188-D, March 28, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

5. Caretaker Exception Denied Because Child Did Not Provide Continuous Care

A New Jersey appeals court determines that the caretaker child exception does not apply to a Medicaid applicant who transferred her house to her daughter because the daughter did not provide continuous care for the two years before the Medicaid applicant entered a nursing home. M.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-0790-14T3, May 13, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

6. State Can Place Lien on Medicaid Recipient’s Life Estate After Recipient Dies

An Ohio appeals court rules that a deceased Medicaid recipient’s life estate does not extinguish at death for the purposes of Medicaid estate recovery, so the state may place a lien on the property. Phillips v. McCarthy (Ohio Ct. App., 12th Dist., No. CA2015-08-01, May 16, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

7. Attorney Liable to Third-Party Beneficiary of Will for Legal Malpractice

Virginia’s highest court rules that an intended third-party beneficiary of a will may sue the attorney who drafted the will for legal malpractice. Thorsen v. Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Va., No. 150528, June 2, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

8. Nursing Home’s Fraudulent Transfer Claim Against Resident’s Sons Can Move Forward

A U.S. district court rules that a nursing home can proceed with its case against the sons of a resident who transferred the resident’s funds to themselves because the fraudulent transfer claim survived the resident’s death. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Estate of Barbara Nyce (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., No. 5:16-cv-73, June 21, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

9. Irrevocable Trust Is Available Asset Because Medicaid Applicant Retained Some Control

New Hampshire’s highest court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s irrevocable trust is an available asset even though the applicant was not a beneficiary of the trust because the applicant retained a degree of discretionary authority over the trust assets. Petition of Estate of Thea Braiterman (N.H., No. 2015-0395, July 12, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

10. NY Court Rules that  Spouse’s Refusal to Contribute to Care Creates Implied Contract to Repay Benefits

A New York trial court enters judgment against a woman who refused to contribute to her spouse’s nursing home expenses, finding that because she had adequate resources to do so, an implied contract was created between her and the state entitling the state to repayment of Medicaid benefits it paid on the spouse’s behalf. Banks v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Pt. 5, No. 452318/15, Aug. 8, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.

Feel Free to contact me to see how any of these decisions may affect your personal situation.

-Brian A. Raphan, Esq. 

What Is a Life Estate?

The phrase “life estate” often comes up in discussions of estate and Medicaid planning, but what exactly does it mean? A life estate is a form of joint ownership that allows one person to remain in a house until his or her death, when it passes to the other owner. Life estates can be used to avoid probate and to give a house to children without giving up the ability to live in it.  They also can play an important role in Medicaid planning.

In a life estate, two or more people each have an ownership interest in a property, but for different periods of time. The person holding the life estate — the life tenant — possesses the property during his or her life. The other owner — the remainderman — has a current ownership interest but cannot take possession until the death of the life estate holder. The life tenant has full control of the property during his or her lifetime and has the legal responsibility to maintain the property as well as the right to use it, rent it out, and make improvements to it.

When the life tenant dies, the house will not go through probate, since at the life tenant’s death the ownership will pass automatically to the holders of the remainder interest. Because the property is not included in the life tenant’s probate estate, it can avoid Medicaid estate recovery in states that have not expanded the definition of estate recovery to include non-probate assets. Even if the state does place a lien on the property to recoup Medicaid costs, the lien will be for the value of the life estate, not the full value of the property.

Although the property will not be included in the probate estate, it will be included in the taxable estate. Depending on the size of the estate and the state’s estate tax threshold, the property may be subject to estate taxation.

The life tenant cannot sell or mortgage the property without the agreement of the remaindermen. If the property is sold, the proceeds are divided up between the life tenant and the remaindermen. The shares are determined based on the life tenant’s age at the time — the older the life tenant, the smaller his or her share and the larger the share of the remaindermen.

Be aware that transferring your property and retaining a life estate can trigger a Medicaid ineligibility period if you apply for Medicaid within five years of the transfer. Purchasing a life estate should not result in a transfer penalty if you buy a life estate in someone else’s home, pay an appropriate amount for the property and live in the house for more than a year.

For example, an elderly man who can no longer live in his home might sell the home and use the proceeds to buy a home for himself and his son and daughter-in-law, with the father holding a life estate and the younger couple as the remaindermen. Alternatively, the father could purchase a life estate interest in the children’s existing home. Assuming the father lives in the home for more than a year and he paid a fair amount for the life estate, the purchase of the life estate should not be a disqualifying transfer for Medicaid.  Just be aware that there may be some local variations on how this is applied, so check with your attorney.

[Article: 8 Medicaid Mistakes to Avoid]

To find out if a life estate is the right plan for you, give me a call at 212-268-8200 or email for more info.

Regards,

Brian A. Raphan

Article: Should You Save Enough to Live to 100?

by Liz Weston / NerdWallet

There’s a reason why investment companies want you to think you’ll live that long.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 2.34.24 PM
First, you were supposed to die at 85. Then 90. Now 95 and even 100 are common defaults when financial planners tell people how much to save for retirement.

Except that’s nuts.

In the U.S., the typical man at age 65 is expected to live another 18 years. The typical woman, about 20. Yet many financial planners contend we should save as if we’re all going to be centenarians.

“Even when you have a 350-pound guy who smokes?” asks Carolyn McClanahan, a physician and financial advisor at Life Planning Partners in Jacksonville, Florida, who’s downright offended by the notion that good financial planning requires such an obvious lie. Advances in medical science “aren’t happening that fast.”

McClanahan watched lives change in seconds during her stints in emergency rooms and pathology labs. “You come into the emergency room and you die, or I’m telling you that you have cancer,” McClanahan says. “That makes it really hard for me to tell people to save, save, save.”

Investment companies want as much of our money as possible, so it makes sense for them to promote the idea that all or even most of us should aim for triple-digit ages and save accordingly. Plus, financial advisors don’t want to get sued, either by their elderly clients or the children who have to take them in when the old folks run out of cash.

Some retirement saving is essential. Obviously. But saving for a retirement that ends at age 100 means you’ll need a nest egg that’s about 40% larger than what you’d need for a normal life expectancy.

If a 35-year-old wanted to replace 60% of her current $60,000 salary at age 65, she would need about $1.2 million at retirement age if she expects to live to 85. Stretch that to 100, and she’ll need about $1.7 million. (These figures assume 3% average annual inflation and a 7% return on investments. Your mileage may vary.)

Currently most workers (54%) have less than $25,000 saved for retirement, according to the latest survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

What’s the harm?

Encouraging people to save too much can have consequences:

You might not start because you’re discouraged by the vast amounts you supposedly need.
You could put off retirement too long, working when you could have been playing or relishing your good health, which doesn’t last forever.
Once retired, you might stint on the fun stuff because you’re so worried about running short.
“I definitely have concerns that many advisors are being way too conservative,” says Michael Kitces, a certified financial planner and partner at Pinnacle Advisory Group in Columbia, Maryland.

Kitces points out that while there’s a 70% chance that at least one member of a married couple will make it to 85, the odds are only 20% either partner will make it to 95, and even lower that anyone will see 100.

“Most of our improvements in life expectancy are coming from the decline in child mortality,” Kitces says. “The actual survival rate of people in their 80s and 90s is not increasing very fast.”

Some of us will make it to 100, but that doesn’t mean everybody faces the same odds. If you’re a fit, healthy college graduate with an above-average income, a 100-year life span may be possible. If you smoke, have high blood pressure or high blood sugar, or are overweight or obese, you’re less likely to make it to 85. Lower incomes and education levels are also associated with shorter life spans.

McClanahan plans for 100-year life spans for her clients who take good care of their health and who have plenty of money. She predicts average life spans for those with average health. If clients have health challenges or not enough money to last a typical retirement, she sends them to a life expectancy calculator, Livingto100.com. Then she and the clients discuss the results to see how they want to handle the possibility of outliving their savings. (Run the numbers on multiple scenarios for yourself with NerdWallet’s Retirement Calculator.)

Uncertainty about longevity is just one of many unknowns in financial planning, says Bob Veres, a financial planning industry consultant and publisher of the trade publication Inside Information. So-called “safe” withdrawal rates of 4% annually may actually be too conservative in most markets, Veres notes. Also, people often spend less as they age, which makes planners’ typical assumptions that spending will increase with inflation each year too conservative.

Cautious assumptions may stave off lawsuits, Veres says, but they “diminish the spending capacity of people who retire today.”

“I think only the client knows whether the inconvenience of spending less in retirement is more or less painful than the risk of cutting back drastically later in retirement if the markets don’t cooperate,” Veres said.

How to save for an uncertain future

Working longer, saving more or planning to spend less in retirement are the typical prescriptions when people aren’t saving enough. But there are a few other ways to help insulate yourself in case you guess wrong and wind up living longer than you plan for:

Put off claiming Social Security. This means a bigger benefit from an income stream that you can’t outlive. Your check will be about one-third larger if you wait until at least your full retirement age (currently 66, rising to 67 for those born in 1960 and after) instead of starting at 62. Delay until 70, and your benefit would be more than 75% higher than at 62.

Consider an annuity. You give an insurance company a chunk of money and get a stream of monthly checks that can last for life. A 65-year-old man could buy a $100,000 immediate annuity, where payments start right away, and get about $530 a month without inflation protection, or around $380 with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index, according to ImmediateAnnuities.com, an annuity marketplace. Another option is a longevity annuity, where you hand over the money but payments don’t kick in until a later age, often 85.

Investigate a reverse mortgage. You can turn your home equity into cash, but you don’t have to repay the loan until you die, sell or move out. Payments could start early in your retirement so that you don’t have to tap as much of your nest egg. Or you could set up a reverse mortgage line of credit that you would only use if markets tanked, to give your investments time to recover. Or you could keep a reverse mortgage as your last-resort option, turning to it after you’ve exhausted your other assets.

DOWNLOAD FREE GUIDE TO ESTATE PLANNING >Click here

Protecting Your House from Medicaid Estate Recovery

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 10.23.54 AM

After a Medicaid recipient dies, the state must attempt to recoup from his or her estate whatever benefits it paid for the recipient’s care. This is called “estate recovery.” For most Medicaid recipients, their house is the only asset available.

Life estates

For many people, setting up a “life estate” is the simplest and most appropriate alternative for protecting the home from estate recovery. A life estate is a form of joint ownership of property between two or more people. They each have an ownership interest in the property, but for different periods of time. The person holding the life estate possesses the property currently and for the rest of his or her life. The other owner has a current ownership interest but cannot take possession until the end of the life estate, which occurs at the death of the life estate holder.

Example: Jane gives a remainder interest in her house to her children, Robert and Mary, while retaining a life interest for herself. She carries this out through a simple deed. Thereafter, Jane, the life estate holder, has the right to live in the property or rent it out, collecting the rents for herself. On the other hand, she is responsible for the costs of maintenance and taxes on the property. In addition, the property cannot be sold to a third party without the cooperation of Robert and Mary, the remainder interest holders.

When Jane dies, the house will not go through probate, since at her death the ownership will pass automatically to the holders of the remainder interest, Robert and Mary. Although the property will not be included in Jane’s probate estate, it will be included in her taxable estate. The downside of this is that depending on the size of the estate and the state’s estate tax threshold, the property may be subject to estate taxation. The upside is that this can mean a significant reduction in the tax on capital gains when Robert and Mary sell the property because they will receive a “step up” in the property’s basis.

As with a transfer to a trust, the deed into a life estate can trigger a Medicaid ineligibility period of up to five years. To avoid a transfer penalty the individual purchasing the life estate must actually reside in the home for at least one year after the purchase.

Life estates are created simply by executing a deed conveying the remainder interest to another while retaining a life interest, as Jane did in this example. In many states, once the house passes to Robert and Mary, the state cannot recover against it for any Medicaid expenses Jane may have incurred.

Trusts

Another method of protecting the home from estate recovery is to transfer it to an irrevocable trust. Trusts provide more flexibility than life estates but are somewhat more complicated. Once the house is in the irrevocable trust, it cannot be taken out again. Although it can be sold, the proceeds must remain in the trust. This can protect more of the value of the house if it is sold. Further, if properly drafted, the later sale of the home while in this trust might allow the settlor, if he or she had met the residency requirements, to exclude up to $250,000 in taxable gain, an exclusion that would not be available if the owner had transferred the home outside of trust to a non-resident child or other third party before sale.

Contact me to find out what method will work best for you.

More Related Articles >

Online Retirement Planning Calculators Measure Risk Poorly, Study Finds

If you are retired or are nearing retirement, the main questions on your mind are probably “Will I run out of money in retirement?” and “Will I be able to maintain my standard of living?” For answers, people often turn to free online retirement calculators that gauge how much users will need to save to achieve their retirement objectives, based on details about their finances.

elder law nyc

But how well do these calculators account for the inherent risks in retirement, such as how long you will live, how your investments will perform, what the inflation rate will be, and health care and long-term care costs? Not very well, according to a 2009 study by the Pension Research Council.

“We conclude,” the study’s authors write, “that on the whole, the tools do not highlight nor address retirement risk particularly well; rather, they mainly mask risk.”

The authors, retirement experts Anna M. Rappaport and John A. Turner, reviewed the available research on five leading Web-based calculators to see how they handle post-retirement risks. The calculators they looked at were Fidelity’s Retirement Income PlannerAARP’s retirement planning calculatorMetLife’s calculatorthe U.S. Department of Labor’s calculator and T. Rowe Price’s Retirement Income Calculator.

In their working paper “How Does Retirement Planning Software Handle Post-Retirement Realities?” Rappaport and Turner conclude that while the calculators “can provide a rough idea of whether the user is on target for retirement,” all inadequately assess the risk of running out of money.

For example, one calculator determines income sufficiency based on average life expectancy and overlooks the very real chances of living longer than the average. Another assumes that everyone, even if not married, receives the same Social Security benefits. Several do not permit calculations to take spouses into account. Among the authors’ other findings:

  • None of the consumer calculators they evaluated treat inflation as a risk, instead assuming that inflation is constant over the retirement period analyzed.
  • None treated expected medical and long-term care expenses as a risk factor or alerted users to the potentially huge impact such expenses could have on retirement plans.
  • Few have checks on inconsistent or outlandish assumptions. For example, many programs permit the user to specify long-term risk-free rates of return of 10 or even 20 percent.
  • Some calculators do not ask users to indicate expected inheritances or other one-time receipts of assets, and some do not include the value of housing as a source of retirement income.
  • Several of the programs ignore taxes, leading users to conclude that they have more retirement resources than they actually do.
  • The calculators cannot take account of extreme events such as the recent financial crisis, in which housing values have fallen and mortgage rates have risen — at the same time that people are losing jobs.

The authors note that “consumers or financial professionals working with them could benefit from trying alternative programs and scenarios within each program.”

The study also looked at retirement planning software for financial planning professionals. The authors concluded that while these tools are more complex than their consumer counterparts, they still contain flaws.

Read Our Monthly Email Newsletter>

 

It’s Official: Estate Exclusion to Rise to $5.45M in 2016

The IRS has announced that the basic estate tax exclusion amount for the estates of decedents dying during calendar year 2016 will be $5.45 million, up from $5.43 million for calendar year 2015.  This figure is in line with earlier projections.

Also, if the executor chooses to use the special use valuation method for qualified real property, the aggregate decrease in the value of the property resulting from the choice cannot exceed $1,110,000, up from $1,100,000 for 2015.

The increase in the estate tax exclusion means that the lifetime tax exclusion for gifts will also rise to $5.45 million, as will the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption. The annual gift tax exclusion will remain at $14,000 for 2016.

For details on many of these and other inflation adjustments to tax benefits, go to:https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-15-53.pdf

[More on Estate Planning]

[Ten Reasons to Create an Estate Plan Now]

Regards,

Brian

 

An Attorney Who Advised Against Life Estate While Conducting Medicaid Planning Is Liable for Legal Malpractice

An Attorney Who Advised Against Life Estate While Conducting Medicaid Planning Is Liable for Legal Malpractice

Medicaid Planning

A Massachusetts appeals court rules that an attorney who negligently advised a client that obtaining a life estate in property would hurt her chances of qualifying for Medicaid damaged the client because deprivation of a property right is actual damage. Brissette v. Ryan (Mass. Ct. App., No. 14-P-919, Oct. 29, 2015).

Marie Brissette and her husband consulted attorney Edward Ryan about protecting their house if they eventually needed Medicaid. Mr. Ryan advised them to transfer the house to their children and reserve a life estate, which they did. Thirteen years later, they wanted to sell that house and buy another house. Mr. Ryan advised them not to retain a life estate in the new property because it would make them ineligible for Medicaid and Medicaid could obtain a lien on the property. The Brissettes sold their house and used the money to buy a new house in the name of two of their children.

After her husband died, Mrs. Brissette sued Mr. Ryan for legal malpractice, arguing that due to his incorrect advice not to obtain a life estate on the new property, she had no legal right to it, which subjected her to the risk of being forced to move out by her children. A jury found Mr. Ryan liable for $100,000 in damages. Ryan appealed and the judge entered a judgment n.o.v., ruling that Mr. Ryan’s negligence did not cause Mrs. Brissette any actual harm because her children testified that they would never evict her. Mrs. Brissette appealed.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals reverses and reinstates the jury’s verdict, holding that deprivation of a property right is actual damage. According to the court, “the fact that because of [Mr.] Ryan’s negligence [Mrs. Brissette] has no right to alienate the property during her lifetime by, for example, renting or mortgaging it, means that she did not obtain something of value that she otherwise would have. ”

TO READ THE TOP 8 MISTAKES IN MEDICAID PLANNING CLICK HERE.

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/14p0919.pdf

Be sure to consult with an experienced Medicaid Planning Attorney before making any planning decisions.

Questions? Email me at medicaid@RaphanLaw.com

Regards,

Brian

Medicaid Spousal Impoverishment Numbers Likely to Be Unchanged for 2016

With the just-announced September 2015 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) actually lower than the comparable figure in September 2014, the betting is that next year’s Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment figures and related numbers will remain the same as 2015. 

In an email to his state colleagues in the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Pennsylvania ElderLawAnswers member Robert Clofine points out that the last time the CPI-U was lower than the previous year (in 2009) , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not adjust the Medicaid numbers downward but kept them level.

This means that the 2016 community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) should continue to be a maximum of $119,220 and a minimum of $23,844.  The maximum monthly maintenance needs allowance should remain $2,980.50 a month and the income cap stay at $2,199.  Medicaid’s home equity limits should also be unchanged at a minimum of $552,000 and a maximum of $828,000.

LINK: MEDICAID PLANNING FOR NEW YORKERS

Regards,

Brian A. Raphan