ACA and Current Medicaid Eligible

[easysurfer]

Currently, on medicaid there's usually an asset limit for someone who is qualified by disability, say of $2000 for individual to be eligible. What happens say in 2014 if that person gets and inheritance of say, $50K.

Do the old rules of asset limits apply? Of would the asset limit rules no longer apply based on the new rule of doing away with asset limits?

I could not find anything addressing such a situation from my looking on the internet.

 

[hs2inparadise]

Here is a link explaining the situation in NY.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....ow_will_asset_limits_for_medicaid_change.html

It confirms that the asset limits are going away and that it will be income based. The rationale is that there are so few people with low income, but high assets that it would cost more to verify assets of everyone just to find the few.

 

[frank]

I was wondering about means testing for subsidies. will there be any?

 

[travelover]

I was wondering about means testing for subsidies. will there be any?

There will be as soon as some columnist trolling for topics stumbles onto the threads here regarding gaming the subsidy by managing "income".

 

[MichaelB]

The PPACA includes an expansion of Medicaid, but each state is free to adapt or not. For the 28 states that have chosen to go ahead with the expansion, eligibility is determined by income and most people with less than 138% of the Federal poverty level qualify. KFF update is here Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, as of September 16, 2013 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation For states not implementing the expansion, Medicaid is still intended to cover a more limited group of people, mostly disabled and poor, and asset tests still apply.

 

[donheff]

A bit of a digression but it will be interesting to see whether people in states that don't expand Medicare will be off-put by the fact that low income people get no subsidy (and therefore no health care) while families with higher incomes get substantial subsidies. And will they blame the ACA itself or their own legislatures for the disparity.

 

[travelover]

.......... And will they blame the ACA itself or their own legislatures for the disparity.

Given the demographics of those states, I'd be willing to make a bet.

 

[Fermion]

There will be as soon as some columnist trolling for topics stumbles onto the threads here regarding gaming the subsidy by managing "income".

I am not so sure ER savers represent a large enough group to even come up on the radar.

It would cost so much money to properly verify assets and there would still be easy ways to game the system by shifting assets into places that are protected (say if home was excluded, then you could buy your house with cash and get a reverse mortgage for income).

 

[2B]

I am not so sure ER savers represent a large enough group to even come up on the radar.

It would cost so much money to properly verify assets and there would still be easy ways to game the system by shifting assets into places that are protected (say if home was excluded, then you could buy your house with cash and get a reverse mortgage for income).

When someone wants to do a story on the rich milking the system, they'll do the story if only one person can be found. The ability of a pre-Medicare retiree to control their taxable income is one possibility. Another would be a small business owner incorporating (C not S) to shield most of their income within their corporate shell while living off previous years' savings.

I can't remember the actual quote or who said it but it went like this. "There is nothing wrong with any man arranging his affairs to minimize his taxes." Now in our cases, we are talking about achieving "negative taxes."

State governments are pretty aggressive in going after people with assets on Medicaid now and could restart their efforts if the law changes. Switching it to the Federal level would make it more difficult and/or justify another 10,000 or so IRS agents to audit everyone getting subsidies or Medicaid.

 

[Fermion]

State governments are pretty aggressive in going after people with assets on Medicaid now and could restart their efforts if the law changes. Switching it to the Federal level would make it more difficult and/or justify another 10,000 or so IRS agents to audit everyone getting subsidies or Medicaid.

Are we prepared to let the government come into our homes and do a full search, doing an inventory of all artwork, jewelry, etc.?

Force banks to crack open safety deposit boxes so the contents can be inventoried?

If you can't at least do what I listed above, you will not have a very fair system of going after assets.

 

[MichaelB]

Not sure where this is headed, but the rules for Medicaid eligibility are pretty clear, and also up to each state to determine, implement and enforce. Expanded eligibility, part of the PPACA, is entirely optional.

 

[travelover]

I am not so sure ER savers represent a large enough group to even come up on the radar...........

How many people were taking SS early and paying back their payments to restart at a higher benefit? My guess virtually none. And the status of that option? Taken away.

 

[easysurfer]

Here is a link explaining the situation in NY.

Understanding Obamacare: How will asset limits for Medicaid change? | syracuse.com

It confirms that the asset limits are going away and that it will be income based. The rationale is that there are so few people with low income, but high assets that it would cost more to verify assets of everyone just to find the few.

Thanks for the link.

I probably didn't explain my initial question clearly. The question is for the scenario where a person today is disabled, and in a state that has medicaid asset limit requirements, but then in 2014 gets an inheritance that exceeds the asset limit as opposed to one that applies for medicaid under ACA.

From the reading article you gave, I'm interpreting that the old rules will still apply?

But individuals who are elderly, disabled, medically needy, or eligible for Medicaid through other programs,
such as cash assistance, will continue to be subject to the asset test and have their income calculated according to the traditional Medicaid formula.

Of course, then if the elderly, disabled, medically needy get ineligible for medicaid but those in better shape qualify, isn't something rotten in Denmark?

Unless the article is saying asset test only applies to cash assistance and not medicaid?

I wish there's a Jane Doe example to clarify things...(Jane Doe is disabled, has medicaid but in 2014 gets an inheritance....)