What is Medicaid Planning?

Our website has a new look! I hope that you enjoy the refreshing update to the Maryland Elder Law website. As part of our website update, we have added a new page that answers the question, “What is Medicaid planning?”

 

To find out the answer to that question, you may click on that question in the black bar at the top of this page if you are viewing this page from your computer. Or you may simply click on the question that follows: “What is Medicaid Planning?” and the page that answers that question will open in a new browser window. Call us at 301-260-0095 for more information.

 

Applying for Medicaid Gives State Access to Bank Records

In order to combat fraud and abuse, Congress passed a law in 2008 (referred to in this article as the “Asset Verification Statute”), which law just now is being implemented in Maryland, directing States to impose an electronic asset verification process to facilitate asset disclosure relating to Medicaid applications for long term care.

When Disclosure is allowed.  In most instances, under Federal law, banks may not disclose one’s financial records to the government except where there is a valid law enforcement or judicial subpoena or summons, or a search warrant.  However, that same federal law allows the account holders themselves to authorize such disclosure through a written instrument.

The Asset Verification Statute directs that States that provide Medicaid benefits to aged, blind or disabled persons to cover the costs of long term care in a nursing home, or care in assisted living or at home, require the applicants for such benefit programs to provide written authorization to the State to obtain documentation from banks and other financial institutions for accounts owned by the applicant or by any other person (such as the applicant’s spouse) whose assets are considered when one applies for such benefits. Continue reading “Applying for Medicaid Gives State Access to Bank Records”

Trustee’s Liability for Contractor’s Work

Whether you are a Trustee of a trust that owns real property, a Personal Representative of a decedent’s estate that holds real property, or simply a homeowner, it is important for you to know your potential liability when you engage a contractor to perform work on the property if an employee of the contractor gets hurt on the job.

Many home service contractors do not carry worker’s compensation insurance coverage for their employees.  This is especially notable with tree service contractors.  The same men who climb trees with powerful chain saws to cut limbs and tree trunks while hanging from a rope around their waists in one of the most dangerous home service professions often find it prohibitively expensive to pay the premiums for worker’s compensation insurance, and therefore do not obtain such coverage.

The problem with that is, if one of the workers is injured on the job, even if that person is an employee of the contractor, then the law may treat such injured worker as your employee for liability purposes.  And, unless you, as Trustee or homeowner, have worker’s compensation insurance to cover this particular type of worker – and obtaining such coverage for the once in a blue moon tree cutter or other home service contractor likely is not possible – then the potential liability is unlimited. Continue reading “Trustee’s Liability for Contractor’s Work”

Are You Paying Too Much to Apply for Medicaid?

The requirements imposed upon individuals seeking Medicaid benefits to pay nursing home costs have become less onerous in recent years.  For many years, Medicaid applicants were required to submit monthly statements for every bank and investment account for every one of the 60 months preceding the filing of the Medicaid application.  Under that regime, someone with only 4 bank accounts would have to submit 240 individual account statements.  Then, once those statements were submitted, they were reviewed by a Medicaid caseworker who was on the lookout for any “questionable” transactions.

“Questionable” transactions include unexplained deposits and substantial expenditures.  Therefore, unless the source is obvious from the account statement, any deposit showing up on those 240 statements would be questioned by the Medicaid caseworker seeking to ascertain the source of the funds deposited, and any payment of $1,000 or more likewise would be called into question.  The problem is magnified if the applicant or the applicant’s spouse had any additional bank or investment accounts.

That being the case, in order to be prepared to address a Medicaid caseworker’s questions, lawyers assisting Medicaid applicants under the old system would review all of the bank statements and seek explanations from the applicant or applicant’s family for any transactions that likely would be questioned.  That process could be time consuming, and, if the law firm performing such review billed the client on an hourly basis, then the legal fees to pursue the Medicaid application would be high.

In recent years, however, the Medicaid application process has been streamlined.  No longer is a Medicaid applicant required to submit 60 individual account statements for each of the 60 months preceding the month the Medicaid application is filed.  Now, applicants need only submit a few statements for the most recent months, and then a single statement for a particular month for each of the preceding five years.  Hence, under current practice, rather than submitting 60 statements for each account, an applicant only has to submit 8 statements, and it is only those 8 statements that will be scrutinized by the Medicaid caseworker.   Thus, for a Medicaid applicant with four accounts, the number of statements needed to be submitted for scrutiny was reduced from 240 to 32.

If one were to continue to operate under the old system and submit 60 monthly statements for each account, and then spend the time to closely scrutinize each of those statements and any transactions that might be called into question, then such person would  be doing extra work for little or no added benefit.

Continue reading “Are You Paying Too Much to Apply for Medicaid?”

The Steps to Selling Your House Quickly

I often work with people who, in the administration of the estate of a deceased loved one, find themselves in the position of having to sell the deceased person’s house. Useful to such clients, and to anyone else who is selling a house, are these tips, the Steps to Selling Your House Quickly, which tips one of my mentors, who has much experience investing in and selling homes, shared with me.

Continue reading “The Steps to Selling Your House Quickly”

The Fox is Guarding the Hen House in a Maryland Guardianship

In Maryland, if one asks a Court to appoint a guardian for a person who is alleged to be disabled (the “alleged disabled person”) where such alleged disabled person is believed to be unable to manage his or her own affairs, the Court will appoint a lawyer to represent the alleged disabled person (the “court appointed counsel”). Sometimes, if there is a need to take immediate action to protect the alleged disabled person, the Court might, on the strength of a petition alone, appoint a temporary guardian for the alleged disabled person, which temporary guardian often is a lawyer chosen by the court.

In theory, the court appointed counsel and the temporary guardian are fiduciaries whose job it is to protect the interests of the alleged disabled person. Sometimes, however, it appears that such court appointed fiduciaries do not fulfill that responsibility.

Consider the following circumstance.

A health care facility is caring for Husband. Wife is unhappy with the facility’s treatment and wants husband to come home, and for the moment is withholding payment. Wife holds a financial power of attorney and a medical power of attorney for her husband, meaning that she has authority to manage his personal, medical, and financial affairs.

Continue reading “The Fox is Guarding the Hen House in a Maryland Guardianship”

Medicaid Updates Transfer Penalty Rule

If one applies for Medicaid to pay for long term care in a nursing home, the state will look to see if the applicant made any gifts in the five years preceding the Medicaid application. If so, then (with some exceptions addressed in various articles on this website) a period of Medicaid ineligibility will be imposed.

For many years before 2014, the period of ineligibility was determined by dividing the amount of the gift by $6,800, which amount was supposed to be the average monthly cost of care in a nursing home. In July, 2014, that number was changed to $7,940. Medicaid has again updated the divisor to take into account Nursing Home care cost inflation.

Effective July 1, 2016, the divisor to determine the number of months of Medicaid ineligibility for gift transfers is $8,684, which means that one would be ineligible for one month for every $8,684 in gifts made during the five years preceding the Medicaid application. Please be aware that this number is revised from time to time. Please contact us to find out the current divisor amount.

Bear in mind that the term “gift” means any transfer of resources with respect to which the transferor did not receive full value. Thus, if a person sold her house for less than it’s fair market value (Medicaid uses assessed value or an appraisal to determine fair market value), then Medicaid will treat the difference between the sales price and the deemed fair market value to be a gift transfer even if such sale was made to a third party in a bona fide arms length transaction.

We at the Gatesman Law Office endeavor to stay at the cutting edge of new developments in Medicaid law and policy.

Should you have any questions as to how this new policy might affect you or a loved one, please contact us by clicking the Contact link on this website.

Bill Gatesman

Medicaid Exclusion for Joint Assets Under Attack

It is a well established principle of the Maryland Medicaid rules that certain jointly owned assets such as stocks or real property will not be counted as available resources to a nursing home resident who applies for Medicaid benefits if the other joint owner refuses to participate in a sale of the property.

For decades, such assets have been disclosed by nursing home residents on their Medicaid applications and such assets have been valued at zero for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility.

Recently, however, a Medicaid applicant was denied Medicaid coverage for nursing home care because the applicant owned stock, in certificate form, with her son in joint ownership, even though the son had refused to participate in a sale of the stock. Ordinarily, such a denial by a Medicaid caseworker would be overturned when the case was appealed to an Administrative Law Judge, but in this case, the Administrative Law Judge ignored the specific regulation in the Maryland Medicaid Manual that explicitly states that jointly owned stock should not be a countable asset where the joint owner refuses to sell.

Such denial has implications, not only for the particular individual whose Medicaid application was denied, but for Medicaid applicants statewide. Indeed, this case has been appealed to the Circuit Court of Maryland where a senior Assistant Attorney General, representing Maryland’s Medicaid authority, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, essentially has requested the Circuit Court to issue a decision that radically revises the long standing Medicaid policy concerning such jointly owned assets.

If the Circuit Court were to uphold the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this particular case, then it would shroud the process of dealing with jointly owned assets in a cloud of uncertainty. No longer would Medicaid applicants and their advisers be able to act with certainty regarding jointly owned assets, as there would exist the possibility that Medicaid caseworkers could arbitrarily ignore the applicable rule on the strength of judicial precedent.

This is not the proper way for the Medicaid authorities to change their policy. The proper way is to propose rule changes, either by changing the Code of Maryland Regulations, or by changing the Maryland Medicaid manual. Simply leaving a rule in place that exempts joint assets from consideration, but then attacking such an arrangement by imposing Medicaid ineligibility on a case-by-case basis on unsuspecting Medicaid applicants is bad public policy.

The State’s efforts to deny benefits in the case under discussion in this article is an example of such bad public policy.

William M. Gatesman is following the progress of this case closely and will inform the readers of this website of any new developments as they arise.

In the meantime, Mr. Gatesman stands ready to assist clients with prudent Medicaid eligibility and asset protection planning in the context of a changing landscape.

Protecting Property After Death

Mother dies with a will leaving all of her assets to her three children in equal shares. One of her adult daughters receives Medicaid benefits because her assets are less than $2,000 and she has a very low income due to a disability. Such daughter is expected to receive a distribution of $25,000 from mother’s estate. This will cause daughter to lose her public benefits, which will be disastrous for daughter given the very high costs of her medications.

While daughter could petition a court to create a special type of Supplemental Needs Trust, known as a “d4a trust” and once she receives the distribution from the estate, deposit the funds into such trust, there are significant costs to establishing such a d4a trust, and there are administrative burdens associated with such trust, including annual reporting to the State Medicaid authority. Moreover, a d4a trust requires payback to the state for any Medicaid benefits if there are funds remaining in the trust when the trust beneficiary dies. Given the amount to be distributed, one must weigh whether it is worth the cost of setting up a d4a trust if there are other less costly alternatives.

Fortunately, Maryland law provides an opportunity for a trust to be created in a simpler way. Under the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act, a trust may be established for a beneficiary, and the assets in the trust will not be considered to be available resources for Medicaid purposes. Moreover, unlike a d4a trust, there is no requirement to pay back Medicaid for benefits received during lifetime after the beneficiary dies.

While Mother in her will could have provided for a Maryland Discretionary Act trust for daughter, she failed to do so. Nevertheless, the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act provides that “any person having a right to transfer property to another person may create a trust as a transferor under [the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act].” Under this law, the term “person” includes any legal entity, and a probate estate is a legal entity.

William M. Gatesman presently is working with clients to come up with creative solutions to allow estate beneficiaries to retain their essential public benefits where the decedent’s will did not provide for asset protection in light of those public benefits. Establishing a Maryland Discretionary Trust Act trust is one of the tools in Mr. Gatesman’s tool kit to achieve the objective of protecting a beneficiary’s eligibility for public benefits.

How to Prevent The Never Ending Estate

Some workers who have received judgments in their favor from their former employers for work related disease or injury, such as asbestos related injuries or coal mining related diseases, find that the judgments are paid out over time, sometimes in the form of small amounts paid now and then over a period of many years. Some of these individuals have died and their probate estates have been wrapped up and closed. Then, out of the blue, another check arrives with a payment on the injury or disease settlement.

Once such check arrives, notice must be given to the Register of Wills in the county in which the estate had been opened, a supplemental inventory and account filed, and distribution made (with the payment of an additional probate fee in some circumstances). If a lawyer assists with this process, there will be legal fees as well. This is a cumbersome and costly endeavor, sometimes for a very small amount of money.

This continuous process of reopening the estate each time a settlement check arrives can be avoided with the proper assignment of future settlement payments to the beneficiaries of the estate when the final estate administration account is filed and the estate closed. Such assignment can grant the Personal Representative of the estate continuing authority to transact checks to make the distributions to the beneficiaries.

The Gatesman Law Office assists clients with the process of simplifying life for estate beneficiaries by arranging for the distribution of such settlement awards that might be received after an estate is closed without the necessity of continually filing supplemental inventories and accounts year after year.