IMPORTANT. Children Face Debt & Bankruptcy For Parents Long Term Care Under GOP Medicaid Plan.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Block grants of Medicaid to the states will likely remove financial protections for offspring now in force under federal Medicaid guidelines. The GOP plan to STICK the children of parents on Medicaid for long term care has been around since Gingrich was Speaker of the House. Bob Dole also signed off on the plan. Right now if you have a parent or loved one in long term care YOUR ASSETS CANNOT BE EFFECTED BY THE STATES. If the Medicaid law is turned into a "voluntary" block grant the states will have the legal authority to force the children or heirs to pay for the long term care of a loved one.

Based on an article in Public Employee magazine in the spring of 1968 the Gingrich budget included the same kind of legislation that would have made the children responsible for long term care debt. Had Bill Clinton NOT vetoed that budget Medicaid would have been gone in 1996. His plan was to block grant medicaid to the states and was in the 1996 federal budget.
Here are some things the state could do if Medicaid is block granted and the federal financial protection mandate is removed.
1. Count income of children toward eligibility.
2. Recover costs from relatives.
3. Place liens on the houses or assets of family members.
4. Seek recovery from estates even if family needs the money for basic survival.
5. Nursing home demanding contriubutions from children as price for admissions.
6. Ask family to sign as guarantor of payment of debt.
7. Ask for payment for services included in daily rate.
8. Require families to pay for care until state assistance is received. (No retroactive pay from state).
9. Legal authority to assess family members to pay for care including garnishee of wages.
NONE OF THESE PRACTICES ARE NOW LEGAL UNDER PRESENT MEDICAID LAW. GOP would remove them under block grants.
Under the present law. ONLY THE ASSETS OF THE PERSON IN LONG TERM CARE ARE VULNERABLE.

[vlyons]

1. Is there a link to this story please?

n/t

[TheMastersNemesis]

12. There Is No Specific Link. OP Based On Article In AFSMCE Public Employee Publication 1996.

March/April edition of AFSCME Public Employee magazine featured and article about the effects of "block granting" Medicaid to the states. The GOP rhetoric on their plan most likely features the same provision to eliminate the federal mandate in the law that protects the assets of the family of the person in a nursing home on Medicaid. Gingrich's block grants were "Medicgrants". The grants at that time would have been significantly reduced.

What most voters do not know is that before Medicaid the states could assess the families of the person who was receiving state paid care. . I know that what I have posted IS TRUE. My grandmother went into a nursing home in Illinois before the law was passed. My mother's sisters had to pay so much a month for her care to the state of Illinois based their family income. My mother was in another state so she was not assessed.

Now the GOP would probably do block grants with NO strings attached and the states could pass state law with whatever provisions the want.

The list I posted came directly from that article.

[exboyfil]

15. You are absolutely correct

Many states including my own Iowa have filial responsibility laws. I have posted some of this same information on other discussion boards in the past. I started studying this when my aunt was no longer able to take care of my grandma. My mom went and got my grandma from California (my mom lives in Florida). She then brought her to Iowa and expected me to arrange her LTC. I was fortunately able to get her into a good nursing home under Title 19. I was also able to put her savings account money into a Funeral Trust.

My grandma lived nine years in the Nursing Home at a cost of nearly $500K to Medicaid. Every year we had to fill out paperwork for Social Security and Medicaid regarding her income (Social Security and Railroad Retirement) and assets. She was allowed to keep $50/mo. When I told my mom, a Trump supporter, about the $500K, she just said she paid it in taxes (which is a ridiculous comment).

My mom is 72 and lives in Florida. I have no intention of ever living in the same state as her. I do not plan to take anything from her, and I hope, since Florida does not currently have a filial support law, I can avoid being wiped out in the event my mom needs LTC. The state is welcome to her house and other assets so long as I am not expected to support her in LTC.

[moonscape]

36. It's as wrong for thes state to make kids responsible for their

parents' care as it is for kids to work hard to protect their parents' assets from the state.

You have the exact right attitude.

[Vinca]

2. Wow - bankrupting America one family at a time.

[Victor_c3]

18. Perhaps. I bet they'll make it even worse if they have their way

Maybe we'll be lucky and the laws will be adjusted so that you can't discharge medical debt with a personal bankruptcy.

Make America great again!

[ghostsinthemachine]

3. Link?

[Ilsa]

4. Do you have links? I believe what you are saying,

But it would be great to document sources here.

[TheMastersNemesis]

13. Refer To My Post Above.

I worked for DOL for 24 years. The term "block grants" is misleading in that when that is done the "federal guidelines" within the law itself are eliminated and each state can have its own or none at all based on the core legislation. Many present federal laws on programs set up the minimum universal standards that must be met so ALL states have the similar standards within the core standard. But they must all have the program and it is NOT voluntary.

There would be 50 versions of state aid for health care. In fact some states could just put the money in a general fund and have NO program.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Return of the good old days,

if your Parents had a major medical bill on could not pay it,first,slap a lien on their property if they owned it. Then if was of to Court and slap Wage Garnishments on household members. Next Court orders to seas Bank Accounts. If their is a Estate that moves to their Children,all Medical and other out standing bills will be settled in Probate. If that fails to satisfy any all out standing balances,the person who inherits the Property will assume any still unpaid debts. If this sounds like the 1950's,it sure as hell smells and looks lie it. Lived through a Family mess like this.

[we can do it]

6. Please provide link.

[dalton99a]

7. We're becoming a nation of serfs.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Some of the things you suggest

violate basic property and due process rights.

Children are not legally obligated to provide care for their parents. Similarly children are not entitled to an estate from their parents.

Some of what you suggest may be obtained via coercion: i.e. mom and dad may be out on the street unless you agree to pay. But, absent a "voluntary" agreement to pay for mom and dad's care, your wages will not be garnished, no lien will be place on your houses or assets, and the cost of care cannot be recovered from you.

But - if your parents can't pay for their care, the assets of your parents' estate certainly could be attached to pay for their rcare (rather than the state paying for your parents' care and preserving assets for their.)

Please provide some support for the assertions about the harm you are suggesting might be on the horizon that fly in the face of established property and due process rights.

[lostnfound]

10. Children ARE legally obligated in about 30 states for their parents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws?wprov=sfsi1

I was shocked, but such laws already exist.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Hmm. I'll have to look at that more.

In Ohio, it still doesn't force you to support them - but it punishes you if you abandon your parents who are unable to support themselves (which still would not permit the kind of property attachment suggested in the OP).

[TheMastersNemesis]

14. Based On What Happened With My Mother's Sisters I Am Not Sure Due Process Applies.

Now the assessment was based on my mother's sisters income. In this new era with the GOP in control of so much it is likely to be very different. The GOP believes that people should be getting NO government assistance. They believe that the churches and charity should provide ALL assistance for domestic programs INCLUDING MEDICAL CARE FOR THE POOR.

They are beyond extreme in this area.

[Ms. Toad]

17. It is a giant leap from eliminating government assistance

to making children legally obligated to support their parents.

[pnwmom]

21. Filial responsibility laws are still in place. The states merely stopped enforcing them

because the Medicaid law barred them from doing so if they wanted to receive Medicaid funds.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/your-obligation-pay-parents-nursing-home-bill.html

Most states that have filial responsibility laws don’t enforce them, here’s why: Most elders who can’t pay for care receive federal assistance through Medicaid, and federal law specifically prohibits going after adult children. Also, most folks who need help paying for nursing home care qualify for Medicaid and it’s unusual for someone to rack up a large bill before qualifying. So, because there is so little opportunity to apply filial responsibility laws, they very rarely affect families.

[Ms. Toad]

23. I've just started looking at that -

The ones I've pulled so far don't permit attachment of property - they merely punish you if you fail to support parents who can't support themselves.

[WinkyDink]

26. "merely"??

[Ms. Toad]

27. It's a misdemeanor (at least to start), which is a significantly smaller ding

than even a day of nursing home care.

[pnwmom]

30. Did you read about the son who was ordered to pay $93K for his mother's bill?

She was in Germany by then, so they couldn't go after her.

http://www.elderlawanswers.com/son-liable-for-moms-93000-nursing-home-bill-under-filial-responsibility-law-9873

In May 2012, a Pennsylvania appeals court found a son liable for his mother's $93,000 nursing home bill under the state's filial responsibility law. Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas (Pa. Super. Ct., No. 536 EDA 2011, May 7, 2012). In March 2013 the state's Supreme Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling is final.

Facts of the Case

John Pittas' mother entered a nursing home for rehabilitation following a car crash. She later left the nursing home and moved to Greece, and a large portion of her bill at the nursing home went unpaid. Mr. Pittas' mother applied to Medicaid to cover her care, but that application is still pending.

Meanwhile, the nursing home sued Mr. Pittas for nearly $93,000 under the state's filial responsibility law, which requires a child to provide support for an indigent parent. The trial court ruled in favor of the nursing home, and Mr. Pittas appealed. Mr. Pittas argued in part that the court should have considered alternate forms of payment, such as Medicaid or going after his mother's husband and her two other adult children.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, an appeals court, agreed with the trial court that Mr. Pittas is liable for his mother's nursing home debt. The court held that the law does not require it to consider other sources of income or to wait until Mrs. Pittas’s Medicaid claim is resolved. It also said that the nursing home had every right to choose which family members to pursue for the money owed.

[Ms. Toad]

35. It's going to depend on the law.

In places where the law is a criminal law, it can't be used to attach property unless the criminal statute expressly permits it.

[Sgent]

25. Depends on the state

in LA and PA (and maybe others) they have filial responsibility laws. The children can be held liable for certain items their parents need. I mostly (but not always) see this in the state trying to recoup LTC funds paid out by Medicaid.

[WinkyDink]

28. Medicaid used for any kind of nursing home care, is not "free money." Federal law allows

state Medicaid issuances be re-paid from the person's estate (not necessarily children, BTW), which often means the person's house, which is the one thing not touched during their lifetime.

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate-recovery/index.html

[Sgent]

31. That's going after the parents' estate / assets

all states allow that. Some states allow them to go after the children's assets as well.

[Ms. Toad]

29. I'm very surprised - but you seen to be correct.

But they also seem to be a mixed bag - including some which make failure to support a misdemeanor (whcih doesn't get you anywhere near the property attachment suggested in the OP.

[pnwmom]

33. Right. The laws are a mixed bag, and they've been mostly irrelevant

since Medicaid barred states from enforcing them if they wanted to receive Medicaid funds.

However, if the Medicaid program simply gets folded into block grants, then each state's laws will determine how nursing home care is paid for. It's likely to be a race to the bottom.

[Afromania]

9. ugh

Debt prison here we come

[dembotoz]

11. The Cabela's solution looking better all the time

Find a big ol' tree outside congressman office and let him clean it up. Would want the tree to stop the bullet

[George II]

16. Seems like they're advocating "death panels" whose membership is offspring of the elderly.

[pansypoo53219]

32. soylent green here we come.

[exboyfil]

19. Here is an article about the Pennsylvania case

in which a son was on the hook under filial responsibility. If you read the comments it was because the mother never qualified for Medicaid (she left the country before being qualified). One of the commenters said the worry regarding filial responsiblity laws is overblown. I wonder how he feels now that the law may change under block granting. This is a question that needs to be asked of state and federal law makers.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160524/FREE/160529968/why-filial-laws-are-a-sleeping-giant-that-could-prompt-long-term

[PufPuf23]

22. This would be a heartless disaster and bears close attention. nt

[WinkyDink]

24. And people without children or named heirs?

[pnwmom]

34. The state couldn't go after people who don't exist for reimbursement. n/t

[WinkyDink]

37. Exactly. Which pretty much makes the law biased against families (I'm my own original example, BTW).

[TheMastersNemesis]

38. I Am Glad To See Discussion About This Disaster The GOP Wants To Foist On The Public As They Cut

taxes for the rich and explode the military budget further.

[liberalhistorian]

39. This is exactly what I

tried to get my wing nut stepsibling and their spouse to understand regarding my stepparent, who was institutionalized due to early dementia, during both this past election and in 2012. Stepsibling was an only child, so it would all have fallen on her and her spouse. I don't think she ever fully got it, or thought it was just a scare tactic.

My mother, as a teenager, watched her own family deal with this very issue, as her grandparents were in nursing homes before Medicaid and the home was very aggressive about payment from the family.

You would think the LTC industry would be screaming and yelling and stomping their feet, and lobbying like crazy against this utter travesty. If it weren't for Medicaid, most would be out of business as most families couldn't afford it.

[area51]

40. Kick for the night crew, n/t