New Protections for Nursing Home Residents

Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 5.27.05 PM

New Obama-era rules designed to give nursing home residents more control of their care are gradually going into effect. The rules give residents more options regarding meals and visitation as well as make changes to discharge and grievance procedures.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid finalized the rules — the first comprehensive update to nursing home regulations since 1991 — in November 2016. The first group of new rules took effect in November; the rest will be phased in over the next two years.

Here are some of the new rules now in effect:

  • Visitors. The new rules allow residents to have visitors of the resident’s choosing and at the time the resident wants, meaning the facility cannot impose visiting hours. There are also rules about who must have immediate access to a resident, including a resident’s representative. For more information, click here.
  • Meals. Nursing homes must make meals and snacks available when residents want to eat, not just at designated meal times.
  • Roommates. Residents can choose their roommate as long as both parties agree.
  • Grievances. Each nursing home must designate a grievance official whose job it is to make sure grievances are properly resolved. In addition, residents must be free from the fear of discrimination for filing a grievance. The nursing home also has to put grievance decisions in writing. For more information, click here.
  • Transfer and Discharge. The new rules require more documentation from a resident’s physician before the nursing home can transfer or discharge a resident based on an inability to meet the resident’s needs. The nursing home also cannot discharge a patient for nonpayment if Medicaid is considering a payment claim. For more information, click here.

CMS also enacted a rule forbidding nursing homes from entering into binding arbitration agreements with residents or their representatives before a dispute arises.  However,a nursing home association sued to block the new rule and a U.S. district court has granted an injunction temporarily preventing CMS from implementing it.  The Trump Administration is reportedly planning to lift this ban on nursing home arbitration clauses.

In November 2017, rules regarding facility assessment, psychotropic drugs and medication review, and care plans, among others, will go into effect. The final set of regulations covering infection control and ethics programs will take effect in November 2019.

To read the rules, click here.

A Medicaid Applicant’s Purchase of Life Insurance Policy Is Transfer for Less Than Market Value

mp

An Illinois appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s purchase of a life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value because the applicant did not receive any benefit from the policy. Moore v. State of Illinois (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., No. 4-16-0414, April 11, 2017).

Nursing home resident Elda Buckley applied for Medicaid. On the same day, she purchased a whole life insurance policy for $15,000 that named Christine Moore as the beneficiary. The state approved Ms. Buckley’s Medicaid application, but it determined that the purchase of the life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value and imposed a penalty period.

Ms. Buckley appealed, arguing that she purchased the life insurance policy for fair market value, so the transfer should not be subject to a penalty period. The state and the trial court affirmed the penalty period. Ms. Buckley appealed.

The Illinois Court of Appeal, 4th District, affirms, holding that the purchase of the life insurance policy was a transfer for less than fair market value because Ms. Buckley did not receive the benefit of the policy. According to the court, the “apparent purpose of [Ms.] Buckley’s purchase of the insurance policy, of which she would receive none of the proceeds, was to shelter assets from Medicaid while ensuring [Ms.] Moore received the benefits of her assets.”

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/4thDistrict/4160414.pdf

 

READ THE TOP 8 MEDICAID PLANNING MISTAKES 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. 

Will Gifting a Car Cause a Medicaid Penalty Period?

The answer is probably “yes,” but it depends on the circumstances. Are we talking about a 10-year-old Toyota Corolla or a brand new Mercedes?

There will be more scrutiny for the latter. Is your mother buying a new car, or stopping driving altogether? If she’s still healthy and alert enough to drive, you have a good argument that the gift has nothing to do with Medicaid planning. Does your mother have substantial assets other than the car, or is that her major asset? If the transfer doesn’t affect her eligibility because she still has a lot more to spend down, it’s less likely to be a problem. Unfortunately, this is one of those gray areas where the answer depends on whether you can convince the Medicaid intake worker that the gift to your daughter was not for Medicaid planning purposes. It will depend on the circumstances, on how such a transaction is treated in your state, and perhaps on the particular intake worker.

READ THE TOP 8 MEDICAID PLANNING MISTAKES: click here: 

Payments to Caregiver Subject Medicaid Applicant to Penalty Period

Reversing a lower court, a Michigan appeals court rules that under state regulations a Medicaid applicant’s payments to a non-relative caregiver subjected the applicant to a penalty period because the caregiver did not have a written contract and a doctor had not recommended the service be provided. Jensen v. Department of Human Services (Mich. Ct. App., No. 319098, Feb. 19, 2015).

Jason Jensen hired a non-relative caregiver for his grandmother, Betty Jensen, who suffered from dementia. Mr. Jensen and the caregiver had an informal agreement and no contract was signed, but Mr. Jensen paid the caregiver a total of $19,000 from Ms. Jensen’s assets over the course of the months she worked for Ms. Jensen. When Ms. Jensen’s condition worsened, she entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid. The state established a penalty period, holding that the payments to the caregiver were an unlawful transfer. Ms. Jensen died before the penalty period ended.

Mr. Jensen appealed, but the state upheld the decision. Under state regulations, payments to caregivers are considered “divestments” and transfers for less than fair market value unless there is a signed contract and a doctor has recommended in writing that the services be provided, among other requirements. Mr. Jensen appealed to court, and the trial court reversed, holding that the regulation requiring that a contract be in writing applied only to relative caregivers. The state appealed.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reverses, holding that the trial court improperly interpreted the regulations and that the penalty period was appropriate. According to the court, because there was no written contract and no written doctor’s recommendation for the services, the payments to the caregiver were a divestment. The court notes that “it does not appear from the factual record that [Mr.] Jensen overpaid for [the caregiver’s] services, or hired [the caregiver] unnecessarily. If we were not bound by the plain language of [the regulations], and were we permitted de novo review of the lower tribunals’ factual considerations, we would reach quite a different result.”

TOP 8 MISTAKES

IN MEDICAID PLANNING

Feel free to contact me with any Medicaid Planning questions,

Regards,

Brian A. Raphan

Should My Parents Give Me Their Home?

Many people wonder if it is a good idea to give their home to their children. While it is possible to do this, giving away a house can have major tax consequences, among other results.

When you give anyone property valued at more than $14,000 (in 2016) in any one year, you have to file a gift tax form.  Also, under current law you can gift a total of $5.45 million (in 2016) over your lifetime without incurring a gift tax. If your parents’ residence is worth less than this amount, they likely won’t have to pay any gift taxes, but they will still have to file a gift tax form

While your parents may not have to pay taxes on the gift, if you sell the house right away, you may be facing steep taxes. The reason is that when property is given away, the tax basis (or the original cost) of the property for the giver becomes the tax basis for the recipient. For example, suppose your parents bought the house years ago for $150,000 and it is now worth $350,000. If they give their house to you, the tax basis will be $150,000. If you sell the house, you will have to pay capital gains taxes on $200,000 — the difference between $150,000 and the selling price. The only way for you to avoid the taxes is for you to live in the house for at least two years before selling it. In that case, you can exclude up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple) of their capital gains from taxes.

Inherited property does not face the same taxes as gifted property. If you were to inherit the property, the property’s tax basis would be “stepped up,” which means the basis would be the current value of the property. However, the home will remain in your parents’ estate, which may have estate tax consequences.

Beyond the tax consequences, gifting a house to you can affect your parents’ eligibility for Medicaid coverage of long-term care.  There are other options for giving a house to children, including putting it in a trust or selling it to them. Before your parents give away their home, they should consult with your elder law attorney, who can advise them on the best method for passing on their home.

To read more articles about gifting from Brian A. Raphan, P.C. 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 >

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

What’s the Difference Between Medicare and Medicaid in the Context of Long-Term Care?

Although their names are confusingly alike, Medicaid and Medicare are quite different programs. Both programs provide health coverage, but Medicare is an “entitlement” program, meaning that everyone who reaches age 65 and is entitled to receive Social Security benefits also receives Medicare (Medicare also covers people of any age who are permanently disabled or who have end-stage renal disease.)

Brian Raphan, P.C.

Medicaid, on the other hand, is a public assistance program that that helps pay medical costs for individuals with limited income and assets. To be eligible for Medicaid coverage, you must meet the program’s strict income and asset guidelines. Also, unlike Medicare, which is totally federal, Medicaid is a joint state-federal program. Each state operates its own Medicaid system, but this system must conform to federal guidelines in order for the state to receive federal money, which pays for about half the state’s Medicaid costs. (The state picks up the rest of the tab.)

Medicare and Medicaid Coverage of Long-Term Care

The most significant difference between Medicare and Medicaid in the realm of long-term care planning, however, is that Medicaid covers nursing home care, while Medicare, for the most part, does not. Medicare Part A covers only up to 100 days of care in a “skilled nursing” facility per spell of illness. The care in the skilled nursing facility must follow a stay of at least three days in a hospital. And for days 21 through 100, you must pay a co-payment of $152 a day (in 2014). (This is generally covered by Medigap insurance.) In addition, the definition of “skilled nursing” and the other conditions for obtaining this coverage are quite stringent, meaning that few nursing home residents receive the full 100 days of coverage. As a result, Medicare pays for less than a quarter of long-term care costs in the U.S. In the absence of any other public program covering long-term care, Medicaid has become the default nursing home insurance of the middle class. Lacking access to alternatives such as paying privately or being covered by a longterm care insurance policy, most people pay out of their own pockets for long-term care until they become eligible for Medicaid. The fact that Medicaid is a joint state-federal program complicates matters, because the Medicaid eligibility rules are somewhat different from state to state, and they keep changing. (The states also sometimes have their own names for the program, such as “Medi-Cal” in California and “MassHealth” in Massachusetts.)

Both the federal government and most state governments seem to be continually tinkering with the eligibility requirements and restrictions.

This is why consulting with your elder law attorney is so important. As for home care, Medicaid has traditionally offered very little — except in New York, which provides home care to all Medicaid recipients who need it. Recognizing that home care costs far less than nursing home care, more and more states are providing Medicaid-covered services to those who remain in their homes. It’s possible to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Such recipients are called “dual eligibles.” Medicare beneficiaries who have limited income and resources can get help paying their out-of-pocket medical expenses from their state Medicaid program. For details, click here.

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

%d bloggers like this: