Posts Tagged ‘Medicaid’

Census reports senior citizen population to double by 2050

Friday, September 12th, 2008

A U.S. Census Bureau report yesterday said the number of citizens age 65 and older will more than double their current number from 38.7 million to 88.5 million in 2050.

American residents who are 85 and older will meanwhile triple in number from 5.4 million to 19 million by mid-century, the federal agency projects. A shrinking of the working-age population (i.e. those 18 to 64) is expected to occur along with the enlargement of the older population; working-age residents are expected to be 57 percent of all residents in 2050, down from 63 percent now.

The Census also projects the overall population of the U.S. will grow from roughly 305 million people today to 439 million in 2050.

America’s steep aging has signified to many policy analysts a need to reduce the cost of entitlement programs, particularly Social Security and Medicare.

“This certainly makes entitlement reform more urgent,” Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the D.C.-based Cato Institute, told The Bulletin, noting entitlement spending could grow to become one third of gross domestic product by mid-century. “That’s not economically sustainable.”

Other observers, like Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless, are less apprehensive.

“The situation for Social Security is not terribly dire,” he said. He said the higher pension benefits other rich western governments spend on their aging populations are important to consider for perspective. He also said these other countries face larger increases in their numbers of seniors.

Dr. Burtless said Medicare and Medicaid, which provide healthcare to the elderly and the poor, present more pressing concerns but not primarily because of aging but because of the advances in medicine that have caused costs to go up. In 1960, he said, personal healthcare expenditures made up 7 percent of personal spending overall.

That figure is 20.5 now and is expected to continue rising. Government currently pays 45 percent of Americans’ health expenses and that percentage is also projected to rise.

“That does represent a big problem,” he said.

Mr. Tanner said because the population is aging so rapidly, the constituency most wary of scaling back entitlement programs and instituting free-market reforms stands to gain political clout and make changes more difficult to implement.

“There’s always been a bias in favor of voting in favor of seniors’ benefits because seniors vote and young people don’t,” he said.

One political development Mr. Tanner found telling was Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s refusal to back either a GOP proposal to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals or a Democratic measure to cut reimbursements to Medicare Advantage insurers.

Mr. Tanner said lawmakers are in a constant balancing act between efforts to fully reimburse the medical community for the care they provide and attempts to hold down spending. He said the government could resolve the matter by funding patients or insurers instead of each individual medical procedure.

The Census study also projects that racial minorities, making up about a third of the U.S. population today, will constitute a majority in 2042 and reach 54 percent of the population by mid-century, or 235.7 million out of 439 million total U.S. residents. The percentage of nonwhite U.S. children, meanwhile, will rise to 62 in 2050, up from 44 percent today.

What are the Medicaid implications of a second marriage?

Friday, August 15th, 2008

For more information about Medicaid and Medicare, click here:

Seniors who get remarried are often concerned about what will happen to their assets if their new spouse enters the nursing home in the future. They are concerned that their hard-earned assets they saved could be lost. They also want to make sure that when they die their assets will go to their children. Although the prenuptial agreement will protect the senior’s assets from claims of his surviving spouse when he dies, the prenuptial agreement does not protect his assets from his spouse’s nursing home expenses. Seniors who have entered into second marriages are often surprised to learn that the prenuptial agreement that specified that their spouse had no claim to their assets does not prevent Medicaid from counting the assets of the spouse at home in determining Medicaid eligibility.

Medicaid is the governmental program that pays nursing home costs when a senior runs out of assets. Until the nursing home resident has less than $2,000 of countable assets, he must pay his own nursing home costs. When countable assets are less than $2,000, Medicaid will begin paying the senior’s nursing home costs.

However, just because the nursing home spouse has less than $2,000 in assets does not necessarily mean that the nursing home spouse will be eligible for Medicaid. Instead, despite the prenuptial agreement, Medicaid looks at the assets of both spouses. The rules for determining Medicaid eligibility are exactly the same for couples with prenuptial agreements and those without them.

This does not mean that all assets of both spouses must be used up before Medicaid will begin paying nursing home costs. Congress passed “spousal impoverishment rules” to keep the spouse at home from having to be completely impoverished before Medicaid payments kick in.

Under these rules, the amount that the at-home spouse can keep is based on the resources that the couple has at the time one spouse enters an institution. Resources are counted (often referred to as a “snapshot” of resources) as of the date a senior first begins a period of continuous institutionalization. This can be when a senior enters a nursing home or when he first entered a hospital. So, if a spouse first enters a hospital prior to a nursing home, the snapshot is taken based on the date of admission to the hospital, not the nursing home. The spouse at home is permitted to keep half of the couple’s countable assets as of the snapshot date, up to $101,640; but the spouse in the nursing home is limited to $2,000 of countable assets.

Can a spouse keep the marital home if the other spouse enters a long-term facility?

Friday, August 15th, 2008

For more information about Medicaid and Medicare, click here:

Many families are concerned that if a spouse enters a long-term care facility, then the marital home will be eventually lost. Medicaid has no intention of evicting the at-home spouse (also known as the “community spouse”). Nor does Medicaid require the at-home spouse to sell the home and apply the proceeds toward long-term care costs. However, Medicaid can, under the veil of estate recovery, place a “lien” of claim on the subject premises. When the community spouse passes away or sells the house, then Medicaid can demand to be reimbursed for all monies expended on behalf of the ailing spouse.

State May Not Recover From Surviving Spouse’s Estate If Medicaid Recipient Had No Legal Interest at Death

Friday, July 11th, 2008

The Supreme Court of Minnesota rules that Medicaid may not recover from the estate of a Medicaid recipient’s surviving spouse if, at the time of her death, the recipient did not possess a legal interest in the property being claimed. However, the court also finds that federal Medicaid law does not totally preclude recovery from the estate of a surviving spouse of a Medicaid recipient.

Dolores and Francis Barg had been married for 53 years when Mrs. Barg entered a nursing home in 2001. Once she entered the home and began receiving Medicaid benefits, Mrs. Barg’s guardian transferred her joint tenancy interest in the couple’s home to Mr. Barg, individually. Mrs. Barg died in January 2004 without leaving a probate estate and Mr. Barg passed away five months later. The county Medicaid agency then filed a claim against Mr. Barg’s estate for the cost of Medicaid services paid on Mrs. Barg’s behalf. Mr. Barg’s estate contested a portion of the county’s claim and an appellate court decided that, under principals of real property law, Mrs. Barg possessed a one-half share of the property at the time of her death which could be recovered from Mr. Barg’s estate.

Mr. Barg’s estate appealed, arguing that federal Medicaid law preempts any recovery from the estate of a surviving spouse, and, even if recovery was allowed in some cases, the state could not recover from Mr. Barg’s estate because Mrs. Barg had transferred her property interest to Mr. Barg during her life, not through a transfer at her death. The county argued that Minnesota law allows recovery from the estate of a surviving spouse for any assets jointly owned by the couple at any point during their marriage.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota rules that federal Medicaid law does not preempt a state from pursuing all estate recovery against the estate of a surviving spouse because there is “sufficient ambiguity” in the federal statute authorizing estate recovery. However, the court also finds that the allowable scope of estate recovery is limited to assets that the Medicaid recipient had a legal interest in at the time of her death and voids a portion of the Minnesota estate recovery statute permitting recovery of assets in which the recipient did not have a legal interest. Since “Dolores had no interest in assets at the time of her death that were part of a probate estate or an expanded estate definition permissible under federal law … there is no basis for the County’s claim against the estate,” the court writes.

New Washington State Law Treats Domestic Partners As Married Couples for Purposes of Estate Recovery

Friday, June 13th, 2008

On March 12, 2008, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law House Bill 3104, extending 170 legal rights and responsibilities to couples in domestic partnerships (same- or opposite-sex relationships). Among the new responsibilities is that the state will treat surviving members of the couple the same as surviving spouses of married couples for purposes of estate recovery by Medicaid.

The new law, which takes effect June 12, 2008, prohibits recovery by Medicaid if the agency would not have been permitted to recover from a surviving spouse in similar circumstances.