In most states, transferring your house to your children (or someone else) may lead to a Medicaid penalty period, which would make you ineligible for Medicaid for a period of time. However, there are circumstances in which transferring a house will not result in a penalty period.
One of those circumstances is if the Medicaid applicant transfers the house to a “caretaker child.” This is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant's entering a nursing home and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay. In such cases, the Medicaid applicant may freely transfer a home to the child without triggering a transfer penalty. Note that the exception applies only to a child, not a grandchild or other relative.
Each state Medicaid agency has its own rules for proof that the child has lived with the parent and provided the necessary level of care, making it doubly important to consult with your attorney before making this (or any other) kind of transfer.
Others to whom a home may be transferred without Medicaid's usual penalty are:
- Your spouse
- A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled
- Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances)
- A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant's institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home
Older Americans with a life insurance policy that they no longer need have the option to sell the policy to investors. These transactions, called “life settlements,” can bring in needed cash, but are they a good idea?
If your children are grown and your mortgage paid off, you may decide that there is no longer a reason to be paying premiums every month for a life insurance policy, or you may reach a time when you can no longer afford to keep up with the premiums. If this happens, you may be tempted to let the policy lapse and get nothing from it or to surrender the policy for its cash value, which usually is a fraction of its death benefit. Another option is a life settlement. This allows you to sell your policy to an investor for an amount that is greater than the cash value, but less than the death benefit. The buyer pays all future premiums and receives the death benefit when you die.
Life settlements offer seniors a way to get cash to supplement retirement income and help pay for living expenses, health care, or other needed items. They can be a good alternative to surrendering a policy or letting it lapse. But as with any financial transaction, you need to exercise caution.
The amount you receive from a life settlement depends on your age, your health, and the terms and conditions of the policy. It is hard to determine if you are getting a fair price for the policy because there are no standard guidelines for life settlements. Before selling you should shop around to several life settlement companies. You should also note that the amount you receive will be reduced by transaction fees, which can eat up a good chunk of the proceeds of the sale. In addition, you may have to pay taxes on the lump sum you receive. Finally, the beneficiaries of your policy may not be pleased with the sale, which is why some life settlement companies require beneficiaries to sign off on the transaction.
Before choosing a life settlement, you should consider other options. If you need cash right away, you can borrow against your policy. If the premiums are too much, you may be able to stop premiums and receive a smaller death benefit. In some cases of terminal illness, you can receive an accelerated death benefit (this allows you to receive a portion of your death benefit while you are still alive). If you don't need the cash but no longer want the policy, another possibility is to donate the policy to charity and get a tax write-off.
To find out the right solution for you, talk to your elder law attorney or a financial advisor.
For more information from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on the pros and cons of life settlements and questions to ask to protect yourself in a sale, click here.
Hospice care is supposed to help terminally ill patients maintain their quality of life at the end of their life, but two new government reports find that serious problems in some hospices may be actually causing harm to hospice patients. The reports propose that additional safeguards are needed.
Medicare provides a comprehensive hospice benefit that covers any care that is reasonable and necessary for easing the course of a terminal illness. Most hospice care is provided in the home or in a nursing home. State agencies or private contractors survey hospices to make sure they comply with federal regulations. If a hospice fails to meet a standard, the surveyor cites the hospice with a deficiency.
A pair of reports by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that from 2012 through 2016, more than 80 percent of hospices surveyed had at least one deficiency and one in five had a deficiency serious enough to harm patients. About 300 hospices were identified as “poor performers” and 40 had a history of serious deficiencies.
The reports found that the most common types of deficiencies involved poor care planning, mismanagement of aide services, and inadequate assessments of beneficiaries. Some of the most serious problems that were found included a beneficiary who developed pressure ulcers on both heels, which worsened and developed into gangrene, requiring amputation of one leg. Another beneficiary developed maggots around his feeding tube insertion site. Both of these beneficiaries had to be hospitalized, which hospice is meant to prevent.
Meanwhile, the OIG found that it is hard for consumers to learn about which hospices are doing a good job. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Hospice Compare website in 2017, but the site does not include information from the surveyors’ reports. Hospices also do not have as strong reporting requirements as nursing homes. In addition, CMS has limited ability to discipline hospices other than to drop the hospice from Medicare.
The reports provide a number of recommendations to CMS to improve monitoring of hospices, including the following:
- Expanding the data that surveying organizations report to CMS and using these data to strengthen its oversight of hospices
- Taking steps to include the survey reports on Hospice Compare
- Educating hospices about common deficiencies and those that pose particular risks to beneficiaries
- Increasing oversight of hospices with a history of serious deficiencies
- Strengthening requirements for hospices to report abuse, neglect, and other harm
- Ensuring that hospices are educating their staff to recognize signs of abuse, neglect, and other harm
- Improving and making user-friendly the process for beneficiaries and caregivers to make complaints.
For National Public Radio’s coverage of the reports, click here.
The Trump administration is officially rolling back a ban on the use of arbitration agreements by nursing homes that was initiated under President Obama. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule that once again allows nursing facilities to use arbitration to settle disputes with residents.
Historically, nursing homes increasingly asked — or forced — patients and their families to sign arbitration agreements prior to admission. By signing these agreements, patients or family members gave up their right to sue if they believed the nursing home was responsible for injuries or the patient's death. The dispute had to be settled in private arbitration, and any injury to the patient did not have to be disclosed to the public.
In 2017, CMS issued a final rule prohibiting nursing homes that accept Medicare and Medicaid from entering into binding arbitration agreements with a resident or their representative before a dispute arises. In doing so, CMS cited abundant evidence that resolving disputes behind closed doors was detrimental to the health and safety of nursing home residents.
The nursing home industry immediately challenged this rule in court and a U.S. district court issued an injunction prohibiting it from going into effect. The Trump administration then announced it was reviewing the rule.
The new rule, which takes effect on September 16, 2019, allows nursing homes to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements with residents, but prohibits nursing homes from requiring residents to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition for admission. The rule also adds a requirement that facilities give residents a 30-day period to rescind their agreement to arbitrate disputes. And it prohibits language in the arbitration agreement that prevents residents from contacting federal or state authorities.
Although under the new rule nursing homes will not be able to require residents to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of admission, nursing home resident advocacy groups contend that the effect will in many cases be the same as forcing residents to sign.
“[T]he circumstances surrounding the admissions process combined with the enormous disparity of bargaining power means that most prospective residents are unaware of the content of what they are signing or the significance of the decision to enter into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement,” the group Justice in Aging said in a statement. “In short, allowing facilities to ask residents to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements is unfair to residents and their families and will harm their rights, safety, and quality of care.”
To read the rule, click here.
When someone nominates you as the Executor of their Last Will and Testament (“Will”), you are not obligated to accept such nomination. In fact, until the Will is probated, you are only a nominated Executor. Your nomination becomes official once the Surrogate’s Court admits the Will to probate and is represented by a piece of paper referred to as “letters testamentary”.