LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Long-Term Care Funding: Here's Looking to You!

The Commonwealth Foundation conducted a study in Penn. looking at long-term care funding and came to some interesting conclusions. Pennsylvania taxpayers pay $6.6 billion per year to fund long-term Medicaid spending, 40% of the state's Medicaid spending. It is unsustainable so they are looking at several options.
  • Rebalance Medicaid
    In other words, provide more home care at a perceived lower cost. But Commonwealth contends that research shows that home care does not result in overall savings.  Providing more home care delays, but does not replace, institutional care, and actually costs more in the long run they contend.

    That leads me to believe that aging-in-place in unattainable for many. If I am reading through the lines correctly, it would seem that they are saying that most people at one time or another will need care in a nursing home.
  • Reduce Enrollees

    The only way to achieve the balance and assure quality care is available and being paid for in skilled nursing homes is to reduce the number of people on Medicaid says the Fund. They cite four things.

    1. Asset Spend Down

      By reaching aging Pennsylvanians while they are still young, healthy, and affluent and teaching them to plan responsibly for long-term care, the state could save  $120 million per year by preventing only 20% of its dual eligibles from ending up dependent on the program in the future. A dual eligible is someone who is on both Medicare and Medicaid.

      Lesson - plan for your long-term care needs because eligibility for Medicaid in the future may make it hard for many to avail.
       
    2. Estate Recoveries

      If Pennsylvania Medicaid recovered funds from estates, the commonwealth could recover an additional $213 million per year. States can come after estates to recoup Medicaid dollars it spent on a person's care.

      Lesson - this is money in the bank if states decide to pursue. So consult an accountant and elder attorney to learn more about asset protection.

    3. Home Equity Conversion

      In short, reverse mortgages as a cure. Pennsylvania may have 135,000 households that could receive an estimated $62,800 each or $8.5 billion in total from reverse mortgages to help pay for their own long-term care, and stay off Medicaid.

      Lesson - a reverse mortgage could be worth investigating especially now when you have the freedom to do so and not later when you may be forced to look at it as an option to help you survive retirement.

    4. Private Long-Term Care Insurance

      If there were tougher income and asset limits for Medicaid eligibility, the Commonwealth contends that more citizens would buy long-term care insurance.

      Lesson - read this as states are going to look to make eligibility more stringent and that puts more of the burden on you to finance your long-term care.
So in short as we try to say every day, you need to plan for your long-term care needs. And you can start by trying to minimize the likelihood that you will need long-term care. From looking at how to age-in-place, to keeping yourself in shape and healthy, to financially preparing, there are things you can do to make aging enjoyable not something that can turn into a crisis at the drop of a hat (does anyone wear hats!?).

2 comments:

Bob Mason said...

Good post, Anthony.

As a North Carolina and Georgia certified elder law attorney I have carefully followed the Medicaid vs. Long Term Care Insurance debate. As I’ll explain, much of the “either-or” type thinking frustrates me.

As the Foundation explicitly contends, toughening Medicaid eligibility standards should drive more people to purchase long term care insurance. For the same reason, the insurance industry furiously lobbied in favor of tightening Medicaid standards during the debate over the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (the last round of Medicaid belt tightening).

Some of that debate became acrimonious. Often the insurance industry portrayed the elder law bar as “those Medicaid lawyers gaming the system.” The current governor of Georgia was a congressman instrumental in authoring the DRA legislation and said something along the lines of: “Medicaid should not be an estate planning tool for wealthy seniors.”

As I will explain, I am quite in favor of long term care insurance and believe any insurable and responsible person should purchase some. That being said, slamming the door shut does nothing to encourage seniors (many of whom are currently uninsurable) to purchase insurance. Further, many otherwise insurable seniors on fixed incomes simply cannot afford the higher premiums an older person will pay. Finally, back when these folks were insurable, the long term care insurance industry was developing; those early years were tumultuous, some companies went under and many others discontinued that insurance line.

I thoroughly agree with most of your observations. With tightening asset spend down rules and more aggressive estate recovery schemes, expert guidance is essential. Making mistakes in this area can be extremely expensive and even financially catastrophic.

Reverse mortgages can be a benefit to some, but I have long counseled clients not to take a one-size-fits-all approach. For many, the expenses can be higher than traditional borrowing. With accumulating interest, the equity in the house is soon gone, and when the house is no longer occupied (which is the case if a single person goes into a facility) the loan is due . . . and the house may also be gone.

While I may be a Medicaid expert, I’ll be the first to say the current system needs fixing. A retiree with Medicare and a Medigap policy will barely come out of pocket for a quadruple heart bypass or brain surgery . . . but woe be to the person who has congestive heart failure or Alzheimers disease and needs to go into a long term care facility.

The “wealthy seniors” can afford to pay for quality long term care (incidentally, I have never assisted a millionaire in qualifying for Medicaid). The poor, and those who sauntered through life paycheck-to-paycheck and in hock, have nothing to worry about because the reward for their irresponsibility is quick Medicaid approval. On the other hand, the folks who “did everything right” by living carefully, staying out of debt, paying off the mortgage on a 3 bedroom ranch-style and accumulating a massive fortune of $200,000 or so are the ones who will get squeezed.

I don’t like the system, but I can be a zealous and creative advocate for those who must work with what we have.

I actually favor an insurance based solution, while grandfathering in current Social Security/Medicare recipients. In fact, I just threw up something on that on my blog if you’re interested.

Your best point: Be responsible, plan early.

Great blog, Anthony. Sorry for the long comment.

Anthony Cirillo said...

Bob - love the long comment and could probably learn a lot from you. Would welcome a conversation.