June 30, 2005
THAT'S WHAT ATTICS ARE FOR:
Senate Takes On Medicaid Loopholes: Middle-class maneuvers to avoid nursing home expenses are 'legal shenanigans,' some say. (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, June 30, 2005, LA Times)
Congress is considering a crackdown on financial planning strategies increasingly favored by middle-class families to shift the cost of nursing home care for elderly parents onto the federal government.Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) denounced the practices Wednesday as "legal shenanigans" and vowed to help stop maneuvers he said were turning Medicaid into an asset protection program, instead of what it was supposed to be — an insurer of last resort for elderly people too poor to afford care.
Under present law, Medicaid, the federal program providing healthcare benefits to the poor, covers nursing home costs if residents can show that they do not have sufficient assets to pay for their own care — which experts say now averages $50,000 to $70,000 a year.
As costs have risen, it has become commonplace for families to transfer elderly relatives' assets to others — often to adult children or to grandchildren — through gifts or other legal devices, to keep the assets instead of letting them be used for nursing home care. So widespread is the practice that some estate planners hold seminars complete with video presentations, refreshments and spreadsheets.
Tightening the rules could save Medicaid $1 billion to $2 billion over five years, Grassley said, though Medicaid's long-term care bill is projected at $290 billion over the next five years.
Just stop paying for nursing homes. They're anti-family/anti-social anyway. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 30, 2005 10:53 AM
Another common sense proposal that will be spun by the Dems and the MSM as the GOPers killing elderly in the streets.
Posted by: AWW at June 30, 2005 11:37 AMMy informed guess is the savings would be significantly higher than forecast if the shenanigans were reduced or eliminated. This really is a scam against the poor, as is Social Security, as presently formulated.
The baby boomers really need to get on the right side of these issues and damn soon at that. Otherwise, as a generality, it couldn't happen to a more deserving generation.
Posted by: Genecis at June 30, 2005 11:39 AMWSJ just had an article on this, states are going after inheritances.
Posted by: Sandy P at June 30, 2005 11:58 AMthe movie "Bubba Ho-Tep" demonstrates convincingly on how rest home costs can be minimized.
Posted by: cjm at June 30, 2005 12:03 PMRegarding Sandy's point, the Federal Govt. allowed the states to begin doing this in 1993, under Clinton. I remember reading about it, but not really considering it. The states have not vigorously been doing it, until recently. The WSJ article is a bit horrifying, although the problem is mainly one of losing the family home. Assets are not usually an issue.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 30, 2005 1:41 PMSadly, there are plenty of boomers I know who are positively Gallic in their willingness to shove the old folks into a home and forget about them, the second they become a nuisance. Words fail me when it comes to describing my revulsion at such people, especially if you have any familiarity with most nursing homes.
As your parents get older, they are your responsibility just as when they decided to bring you into this world, you became theirs. End of story. The notion of dumping my parents off in one of these death traps is inconceivable.
They are anti-family/anti-social anyway.
Because they are anti-family we built an apartment in our house for my ninety-seven year old mother in law. For us it was the right thing to do. Additionally, I want to reestablish a family tradition so that my twelve-year-old grandson will be surrounded by family, when he is ninety-seven. Responsibility for family is sometimes inconvenient but it is essential to our survival.
I'm essentially in agreement about our responsibility to care for parents, and fully expect to have my mother move in with us someday (sigh). But there are some cases of elderly people who must live in a nursing home, simply because they are too frail and sickly, and require round the clock nursing care. No family, especially no family where both parents must work, can provide that, nor do they have the medical expertise.
Posted by: Lisa at June 30, 2005 3:14 PMLisa:
For $70,000 you could have the full time nurse in your home.
Posted by: oj at June 30, 2005 4:46 PMCome to Michigan, Bart, I could show you some wonderful nursing homes and retirement communities. I wouldn't. in a million years, drop anyone off at an old-folks "deathtrap". There are, however some places there I would sign up today for if I were older.
Having said that, I do agree with your basic point. We have a responsibility to care for our parents as they grow older PERIOD. Every family needs to have this discussion, sooner rather than later. My wife's parents (octagenarians) and mine (septagenarians) have made the decision to remain in their respective homes as long as possible and we will do whatever it takes (w/God's help) to care for them there.
Staying in one's home, moving in with a child/relative, or moving into a nursing home/retirement community are all viable options which need to be carefully weighed and considered. We want to foster a culture of life for heavens sake!
Posted by: Dave W. at June 30, 2005 5:21 PM