U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Caregiving
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2017, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
16,894 posts, read 17,209,728 times
Reputation: 40822

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ourdaywillcome View Post
It's very confusing regarding the five year look back period. Depending on what state you live in; one can't sell the family home for less than market value. If that happens, a penalty will be put on the estate regardless if they approve Medicaid for the individual that needs it.


An elder atty is ESSENTIAL waay before one even thinks about going on Medicaid as again, depending what state you live in..Medicaid can consider certain things like giving children a car for free, large check amts (anything over $50.00 to my knowledge), etc.


And it gets better as they are now looking into a SEVEN year look back..and then to a TEN year!!


Nobody has a crystal ball as to what will happen during this time period and I think it's absolutely ludacrist that some states just want to suck up hard earned money.


My husband and I ran into a situation when we bought my parent's house on a land contract. Medicaid denied my dad benefits because he was TWO years past the five year look back period. Eventually we bought the house, but we had to make sure we paid MARKET VALUE for it..otherwise it would have been considered a divestment and they would have taken it out of his estate. If the estate had no money left in it..they will go after the family for it.


In addition, we had to spend down ALL life insurance policies INCLUDING
IMHO, people save for their retirement so that they can (duh) use the money for their retirement. So the states are NOT "sucking up hard earned money" to be mean but because the adults saved that money to actually use it for their retirement costs including nursing home costs.

If they had wanted to save money to give to their children they could have given them the money when they were 40 or 50 or 60 years old, well before most people are effected by the Medicaid Look-Back. In special situations such as multi-generational family businesses, farm land, etc. then various other ways of preserving the business, land, whatever for future generations can be done by other legal means such as irrevocable trusts or LLCs or other things decades before the risk of losing it all because of the Medicaid Look-Back.

Just MHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2017, 07:15 PM
 
13,369 posts, read 6,610,929 times
Reputation: 12823
Quote:
Originally Posted by germaine2626 View Post
IMHO, people save for their retirement so that they can (duh) use the money for their retirement. So the states are NOT "sucking up hard earned money" to be mean but because the adults saved that money to actually use it for retirement costs including nursing home costs.

If they had wanted to save money to give to their children they could have given them the money when they were 40 or 50 or 60 years old, well before most people are effected by the Medicaid Look-Back. In special situations such as multi-generational family businesses, farm land, etc. then various other ways of preserving the business, land, whatever for future generations can be done by other legal means such as irrevocable trusts or LLCs or other things decades before the risk of losing it because of Medicaid.
Right but she is saying that not every instance of giving money or lad away is a ploy to keep it from Medicaid. A lot of seniors start giving money away if family needs it and they feel comfortable in their retirement.

My mother became disabled and so her mother gave her money to buy a modest home. It would have really been unfair imo for her to be penalized if she had needed Medicaid.

What you seem to be saying is that seniors should never help their kids because they might need Medicaid. Well, everyone might need it. Everyone except uber-wealthy MIGHT need Medicaid it doesn't mean they should be legally required to save every penny for that instance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
16,894 posts, read 17,209,728 times
Reputation: 40822
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam View Post
Right but she is saying that not every instance of giving money or lad away is a ploy to keep it from Medicaid. A lot of seniors start giving money away if family needs it and they feel comfortable in their retirement.

My mother became disabled and so her mother gave her money to buy a modest home. It would have really been unfair imo for her to be penalized if she had needed Medicaid.

What you seem to be saying is that seniors should never help their kids because they might need Medicaid. Well, everyone might need it. Everyone except uber-wealthy MIGHT need Medicaid it doesn't mean they should be legally required to save every penny for that instance.
Why would it have been unfair for Grandma to be penalized for using money that she saved for own retirement on someone else? Why should the tax paying public have to pay Grandma's Medicaid bill after she gave money away to someone else? Even if it was for a "good cause"

BTW, Hubby is now on Medicaid and we were penalized the $2,000 that we gave our adult daughter to pay a medical bill several years ago that was not covered by her insurance policy. Should we have argued that it was a "good cause" and YOU and everyone else should just "ignore it" and give us that $2,000 back in Medicaid payments?

What about the money that we gave her for major car repairs (also disallowed), clothes for job interviews, (also disallowed), computer for a new job (also disallowed) etc. etc? Our daughter was just barely graduated from college at the beginning of our Medicaid Five Year Look period and they looked VERY, VERY closely at any money that we gave her for college or other expenses at that time.

No, I'm not saying that parents should not help their children, but, if they do help them and they get caught in the Medicaid Look Back they should not complain.

BTW, the super wealthy DO get away with giving money to their children/grandchildren. In my state, they have something called "pattern of gifting". If Grandma gave Granddaughter #1 $50,000 for her wedding ten years ago, and Granddaughter #2 $50,000 for her wedding six years ago she can also give granddaughter #3 $50,000 for her wedding during the Medicaid Five Year Look Back and not be penalized because it was an "established pattern of gifting". Heck, if she has the money and more granddaughters she can gift $50,000 to each one for their wedding and not be penalized (at least that is what our elder care attorney told us).

I know a rather wealthy couple that started a "pattern of gifting" when they turned 65. $10,000 to each of their five children for Christmas every year. They have now been doing this for six years. Their eldercare attorney says that they will never be penalized for "giving away that $50,000 a year" because it is an "established pattern of giving". While it is pretty unlikely that either one of these people will even need to go on Medicaid they will have "sheltered a quarter of million dollars" during their Medicaid Five Year Look Back which they will never be forced to repay or be penalized for giving away. Sort of makes that $2,000 that we paid to our daughter's doctor, that we were penalized for, seem like "chump change" doesn't it?

Last edited by germaine2626; 06-20-2017 at 07:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 08:06 PM
 
13,369 posts, read 6,610,929 times
Reputation: 12823
Quote:
Originally Posted by germaine2626 View Post
Why would it have been unfair for Grandma to be penalized for using money that she saved for own retirement on someone else? Why should the tax paying public have to pay Grandma's Medicaid bill after she gave money away to someone else? Even if it was for a "good cause"

BTW, Hubby is now on Medicaid and we were penalized the $2,000 that we gave our adult daughter to pay a medical bill several years ago that was not covered by her insurance policy. Should we have argued that it was a "good cause" and YOU and everyone else should just "ignore it" and give us that $2,000 back in Medicaid payments?

What about the money that we gave her for major car repairs (also disallowed), clothes for job interviews, (also disallowed), computer for a new job (also disallowed) etc. etc? Our daughter was just barely graduated from college at the beginning of our Medicaid Five Year Look period and they looked VERY, VERY closely at any money that we gave her for college or other expenses at that time.

No, I'm not saying that parents should not help their children, but, if they do help them and they get caught in the Medicaid Look Back they should not complain.

BTW, the super wealthy DO get away with giving money to their children/grandchildren. In my state, they have something called "pattern of gifting". If Grandma gave Granddaughter #1 $50,000 for her wedding ten years ago, and Granddaughter #2 $50,000 for her wedding six years ago she can also give granddaughter #3 $50,000 for her wedding during the Medicaid Five Year Look Back and not be penalized because it was an "established pattern of gifting". Heck, if she has the money and more granddaughters she can gift $50,000 to each one for their wedding and not be penalized (at least that is what our elder care attorney told us).

I know a rather wealthy couple that started a "pattern of gifting" when they turned 65. $10,000 to each of their five children for Christmas every year. They have now been doing this for six years. Their eldercare attorney says that they will never be penalized for "giving away that $50,000 a year" because it is an "established pattern of giving". While it is pretty unlikely that either one of these people will even need to go on Medicaid they will have "sheltered a quarter of million dollars" during their Medicaid Five Year Look Back which they will never be forced to repay or be penalized for giving away. Sort of makes that $2,000 that we paid to our daughter's doctor, that we were penalized for, seem like "chump change" doesn't it?
There is no law that says one must keep one's money in case they need Medicaid. That is not why the look-back was designed and not its intent. The intent is to protect against FRAUD. Like 'I can see I am going to need Medicaid, let me deed this house to someone and give some money to whoever to hold for me'. And it used to only be 3 years. I think that is more reasonable than 5.

Also, one may LEGALLY shield money from Medicaid with a special needs trust.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,740 posts, read 4,198,082 times
Reputation: 6861
Texas offers one Medigap Plan for those under age 65. Of course, it may be prohibitively expensive and is not one of the best plans, but it is a Medigap Plan.

Medicare Supplement Insurance Handbook

"People under age 65 who get Medicare because of disabilities have a six-month open enrollment period beginning the day they enroll in Medicare Part B. This open enrollment right only applies to Medicare supplement Plan A.
Note: People who have Medicare because of disabilities have another open enrollment period during the first six months after turning 65."


When the disabled person turns 65 he is no longer restricted to Medicare Supplement Plan A and will pay no more than the nondisabled retiree IF he enrolls within 6 months of turning 65.


When Jencam's brother reaches 65 he should probably consider enrolling in Plan G or another similar plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 08:17 PM
 
13,369 posts, read 6,610,929 times
Reputation: 12823
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Texas offers one Medigap Plan for those under age 65. Of course, it may be prohibitively expensive and is not one of the best plans, but it is a Medigap Plan.

Medicare Supplement Insurance Handbook

"People under age 65 who get Medicare because of disabilities have a six-month open enrollment period beginning the day they enroll in Medicare Part B. This open enrollment right only applies to Medicare supplement Plan A.
Note: People who have Medicare because of disabilities have another open enrollment period during the first six months after turning 65."


When the disabled person turns 65 he is no longer restricted to Medicare Supplement Plan A and will pay no more than the nondisabled retiree IF he enrolls within 6 months of turning 65.


When Jencam's brother reaches 65 he should probably consider enrolling in Plan G or another similar plan.
They drive me crazy. On the phone Medicare told me he can't have one under age 65 in Texas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2017, 08:25 PM
 
Location: The Triangle
4,465 posts, read 3,456,634 times
Reputation: 13452
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam View Post
There is no law that says one must keep one's money in case they need Medicaid. That is not why the look-back was designed and not its intent. The intent is to protect against FRAUD. Like 'I can see I am going to need Medicaid, let me deed this house to someone and give some money to whoever to hold for me'. And it used to only be 3 years. I think that is more reasonable than 5.

Also, one may LEGALLY shield money from Medicaid with a special needs trust.

I totally agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2017, 06:06 AM
 
1,165 posts, read 652,646 times
Reputation: 4050
Until this new health care bill passes, or is amended, or whatever happens, nobody knows what will happen to Medicaid laws. I can only imagine this money will become much more restricted and more difficult to attain. I have also heard the look back period may be extended now or in the future but nobody knows.

It was a previously recommended move (even from elder care lawyers) to sign over the family home and give away assets so you could then just move onto Medicaid when the time came. I know some people who really, really regret that decision. I guess it may depend on where you live, but it can be extremely difficult to find a facility who will accept Medicaid patients now, let alone a few years from now with the baby boom population aging.

We had a family member live to age 102 a decade ago and went through all her money but was "proud" she was paying her own way. Another family member was furious that the money was "wasted" and not given away (mainly to her, of course).

Adding to the confusion is different states have different rules. I cannot imagine where this whole issue will be in ten or fifteen years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Caregiving
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top