Changing Demographics – Part 1
In past blog posts I have written about the changes in the demographic makeup of our aging population and the issues they face. The LGBT community encompasses lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Historically, this community has experienced disapproval of and discrimination against its members although much has changed in the last half century. There are also unique issues these individuals face as they age. They are 4 times less likely to have children and twice as likely to live alone. Accordingly, when they begin to age and need to rely on a support system, they may not have readily apparent friends and family to step in. LGBT members may also be more likely to be estranged from less than accepting biological family members or not wish to have those members be in decision making roles but the law tends to favor blood relatives over other “selected” family. Having documents in place such as powers of attorney, health care directives and trusts can avoid the scenario where the law makes the choice for you – one which you may not have chosen for yourself. The LGBT community also faces some of the same issues that heterosexual couples who are “together” but not
A Family Theft – Part 4
In this week’s post I give you the conclusion to Joe’s saga involving his sister Sophie’s Medicaid application. As I explained in last week’s post, things didn’t go according to our expectation. When we filed a civil lawsuit seeking to collect the amounts Mary took from Sophie I expected that she would ignore the lawsuit since she lived out of state and was ill herself. Instead, Mary hired an attorney. She claimed that some of the funds she took were actually spent for Sophie’s benefit. I told Mary’s attorney we needed bills to prove this to Medicaid. It turns out that this did not amount to much – only about $5000. But, then Mary really surprised us. She felt guilty about what she had done and she was willing to offer an amount of money in settlement of the claim. Her attorney suggested she could come up with about $75,000, although she would need to pay it over time. She also made clear that this needed to be in full satisfaction of the claim so that we would not be able to collect the rest of the money. I thought this would work. In my view, a negotiated settlement in the context
A Family Theft – Part 3
Last year I wrote about a family theft and its implications for Medicaid eligibility (Blog posts on 9/24/18 and 10/1/18). To summarize, we needed to apply for Medicaid for Sophie, who could no longer live at home but now needed nursing home care. She had lived with her sister Mary, who handled her finances for many years. When Mary herself needed care, brother Joe took over and discovered that Mary had helped herself to some of Sophie’s money. In order for Medicaid to treat the transfers to Mary as theft and not voluntary transfers subject to a Medicaid penalty we needed Joe to file both a criminal complaint for theft as well as a civil complaint to recover the money taken which reached in excess of $200,000. The criminal complaint went nowhere. The police took the complaint but it wasn’t a priority for them. Joe never heard from them but that was OK since the we just needed to take the first step. The civil lawsuit, however, took a surprising twist. When we filed for Medicaid, as I told Joe, the caseworker only was willing to accept our explanation with proof of the criminal and civil complaints. Because Mary moved in with
Right Way and the Wrong Way to Help Out Parents (Part 2)
In last week’s post I was explaining the wrong way for children to chip in financially to help their parents. The wrong way can cause ineligibility periods for Medicaid and VA benefits. It can also eliminate the ability of the parents to repay the children when they do sell their house. Let’s go back to my typical fact pattern from last week. Mom lives in her home which she owns free and clear with no mortgage but has little liquid assets to pay for care that will allow her to stay at home. Alternatively, she might need to move to a facility but the family does not want to sell the home, perhaps to avoid capital gains tax or because another family member also lives there. So, if the children pay for Mom’s care the right way to do it is all about documentation. Without it, the payments will either be treated as gifts to Mom or financial support of Mom. In reality, the family intends these payments to be loans which will be paid back when the home is sold. The problem, however, is that they need proof that it
The Right Way and the Wrong Way to Help Out Parents
Families look after each other. They pitch in when a member needs help. As an elder law attorney, I see this quite often. It can be an aging parent helping out an adult child in need due to financial difficulties caused by illness, job loss or divorce. It can also be an adult child providing financial assistance to an aging parent who needs care and doesn’t have the funds to pay for it. Let me give you a typical fact pattern. Mom lives in her home which she owns free and clear with no mortgage. She has very little other liquid assets and is in declining health but wants to remain in her home as long as possible. The family discusses the options. Mom could take a mortgage against her home. A traditional mortgage is not an option because she does not have enough income and/or assets to qualify. She can take a reverse mortgage but the fees associated with it are typically higher than a traditional mortgage. Instead, the children decide to advance the funds needed to care for mom at home. There is no formal agreement – nothing in writing. Only
New Jersey Passes Assisted Suicide Law – Part 1
You might have missed it but in April, Governor Phil Murphy signed a bill making New Jersey the 8th state in the country to enact an assisted suicide bill. The other states that have such bills are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. The law becomes effective August 1, 2019. Patients with a prognosis of six months to live or less have the option of ending their own life. The law requires a psychiatrist or psychologist to “sign off” that the patient has the mental capacity to understand and make the decision. Once made, the patient is then to be given a prescription for pills that will hasten death. The pills can be taken at home or in a facility. The vote in both legislative houses in Trenton was close and opponents of the bill raised concerns about how it will be implemented, such as whether doctors should be placed in the role of deciding the issue of capacity and the possibility of loopholes. Next week we’ll delve into some of the issues presented by the new law.