Money & Ethics
'Medicaid Planning' Is the Wrong Call
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Sunday, March 22, 2009
QMy sister says our family should begin elaborate "Medicaid planning" to shelter our elderly parents' assets and make them look poor enough to qualify for government-paid nursing-home assistance, even though they're in good health today. I think this is unethical. What do you think?
AI'm with you, and I wonder about your sister's motive (does she want to make sure that she gets her inheritance early?). People who can afford to buy long-term-care insurance in their early senior years -- say, in their 50s to mid-60s -- should do so instead of resorting to Medicaid subterfuges later in life.
Medicaid -- a state and federal health-care program that's financially strapped -- was intended for the poor. It was not meant to relieve better-off families of their responsibility for taking care of older family members.
A number of states, including California and New York, offer so-called "partnership LTC insurance," which allows you to qualify for Medicaid if your LTC coverage runs out, but without exhausting all of your assets.
Ethics aside, a change in the rules several years ago makes it much harder to qualify for Medicaid by coming up with creative ways to divest your assets. I think that's a good thing.


![[kiplinger.com]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/graphics/kiplinger_sm2.gif)
