 LTC Bullet: Progressive Bias Produces Regressive Policy Friday, February 2, 2024 Seattle—
LTC Comment: Public officials and
their advisers prefer government solutions to social problems, so their
policies often produce deficient outcomes. We explain after the
***news.*** [omitted] LTC BULLET: PROGRESSIVE BIAS PRODUCES REGRESSIVE POLICY LTC Comment: Progressive bias is rife in long-term care (LTC) data, policy and analysis. Examples abound:
Another example of progressive bias in government data and researchers’ analysis is their proclivity to search strenuously for proof of LTC spend down, but completely ignore evidence of Medicaid planning, artificial self-impoverishment, to qualify. When economists and health policy analysts claim that older people approaching the need for long-term care retain few assets and spend down rapidly, they generally draw their evidence from survey data provided by the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and its auxiliary, the Asset and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) study. These sources say nothing about how assets are spent, but analysts routinely assume this data proves spend down for medical or long-term care. It does not. It merely documents transitions to Medicaid without explaining how assets were decumulated to achieve eligibility. What might be happening other than spend down for care? There are many possibilities, such as egregious Medicaid trusts, annuities, and artificial spend down strategies. But I think the big one that goes almost entirely unnoticed is the purchase of exempt assets. In a 2020 paper titled “Medicaid and Long-Term Care,” I explained how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both documented the importance of this Medicaid planning technique and downplayed its findings in the same report (Government Accountability Office. 2014. “MEDICAID: Financial Characteristics of Approved Applicants and Methods Used to Reduce Assets to Qualify for Nursing Home Coverage. GAO-14-473. May). Here is that explanation as a final example of progressive bias and the damage it does in government LTC data and analysis. Excerpt from Stephen A. Moses, “Medicaid and Long-Term Care,” Center for Long-Term Care Reform, 2020, pages 53-59. Unfortunately, hard empirical evidence of Medicaid long-term care asset spend down avoidance is sparse. Most researchers have preferred to scan big data bases looking for evidence to the contrary instead of examining actual Medicaid long-term care cases. In May 2014, however, the Government Accountability Office published results of the only study to date of a sample of such cases for this purpose. They found dramatic results, but for some reason downplayed their own findings. GAO identified four main methods used by applicants to reduce their countable assets—income or resources—and qualify for Medicaid coverage: 1. spending countable resources on goods and services that are not countable towards financial eligibility, such as prepaid funeral arrangements; 2. converting countable resources into noncountable resources that generate an income stream for the applicant, such as an annuity or promissory note; 3. giving away countable assets as a gift to another individual—such gifts could lead to a penalty period that delays Medicaid nursing home coverage [N.B.: but only if discovered]; and 4. for married applicants, increasing the amount of assets a spouse remaining in the community can retain, such as through the purchase of an annuity (GAO, 2014, unnumbered “GAO Highlights” page). Those methods of qualifying for Medicaid without spending down resources for care are exactly in line with the techniques and procedures recommended by the popular and professional literature on the topic discussed above [Medicaid planning]. GAO analyzed a random, but non-generalizable, sample of 294 Medicaid nursing home applications in two counties in each of three states: Florida, New York, and South Carolina. They found “Nearly 75 percent of applicants owned some non-countable resources, such as burial contracts; the median amount of non-countable resources was $12,530” (Ibid.). That seems significant, but GAO does not draw out the implications in its report. A back-of-the-envelope estimate finds that if those results could be projected to the total of all Medicaid nursing home residents nationally—which they cannot, suggesting a study that could provide generalizable results is needed—665,700 Medicaid nursing home residents sheltered over $8.3 billion in non-countable resources or 42.4 percent of the $19.7 billion Medicaid paid for their nursing home care in 2009, the most recent data available at the time of the GAO study’s publication (Houser, Fox-Grage and Ujvari, 2012[1]). That is a lot of money to divert from private long-term care financing liability. GAO found “Eligibility workers in 10 of the 12 counties interviewed stated that purchasing burial contracts and prepaid funeral arrangements, which are generally noncountable resources, was a common way applicants reduced their countable assets; and eligibility workers from one state said they recommend making such purchases to applicants” (GAO, 2014, 25). In fact, 39 percent of GAO’s sample owned “Burial contracts and prepaid funeral arrangements” with a median value of $9,311. If that proportion holds for the country as a whole, $3.2 billion or 6.3 percent of total Medicaid nursing home expenditures are diverted from funding long-term care to relieving families of the final expenses for their loved ones. This matters because funeral and burial pre-planning to expedite Medicaid eligibility is big business in the United States. Heavy use by Medicaid families of prepaid burial plans to shelter otherwise countable assets has the effect of shifting scarce program resources from purchasing long-term care services for the poor to subsidizing the funeral industry and indemnifying often affluent adult children from the cost of burying their parents. GAO found “. . . 44 percent of approved applicants—129 applicants—had between $2,501 and $100,000 in total resources, and 14 percent of approved applicants—42 applicants—had over $100,000 in total resources” (Ibid., p. 14). Pretending again that GAO’s findings are representative of all Medicaid nursing facility recipients, how much wealth would that mean Medicaid is sheltering from private long-term care financial liability nationwide? 887,598 nursing home residents receive Medicaid. If 14 percent of them, or 124,264 recipients, possessed $100,000 or more in non-countable resources, that is at least $12.4 billion or 3.4 times the $3.7 billion Medicaid spent for their nursing facility care. Yet, again, GAO does not draw out the implications. GAO found: “For the 51 applicants for whom we were able to determine the equity interest in the home, the median home equity was $50,000, and ranged from $0 to $700,000” (Ibid., p. 20). Most home equity (equity, not value) is non-countable, up to as much as $893,000 in some states as of 2020. GAO found median home equity to be $50,000 among the 51 applicants (out of 91 total homeowners or 31 percent of the sample) for whom they were able to determine it. Thus 100 percent of their sample’s home equity was non-countable. Keep in mind that $50,000 is a median home equity value, meaning as many exempt homes were higher in home equity value as were lower, and meaning that the average or mean home equity value could be significantly higher. If 31 percent of 887,598 Medicaid nursing home recipients nationwide or 275,155 recipients own homes with a median equity value of $50,000, then at least $13.8 billion worth of their home equity is non-countable, a figure that is 1.7 times the annual $8.1 billion cost of their care. Did it not behoove GAO to dig a little deeper? How much money could Medicaid save by making nursing facility care available only after home equity is spent down by means of private or commercial home equity conversion methods? GAO found: “Among the Medicaid application files that we reviewed in selected states, 16 of the 294 approved applicants (5 percent) had a personal service contract—all of which were determined to be for FMV [fair market value]. The median value of the personal service contracts was $37,000; the value of the contracts ranged from $4,460 to $250,004” (Ibid., p. 26). What if GAO’s findings were valid nationwide? If 5 percent of Medicaid nursing home recipients (44,380 recipients) sheltered a median value of $37,000 each in personal service contracts, the total diverted away from private long-term care financial liability would be $1.6 billion or 3.4 percent of total Medicaid nursing home expenditures nationally in the same year. That’s a very large subsidy to family members for taking care of their loved ones. Personal service contracts are a technique that is available mostly to savvier, more affluent families who seek legal advice on how to shelter assets. Commonly, the poor lose what little wealth they have to long-term care expenses without learning the often technical and complicated legal methods of artificial self-impoverishment. GAO found: “Of the 70 married approved applicants whose files we reviewed, 13 had applications that contained a claim of spousal refusal. . . . These 13 applicants resided in two states and the community spouse retained a median value of $291,888 in non-housing resources; two of the community spouses were able to retain over $1 million in non-housing resources” (Ibid., p. 31). Spousal refusal is based on a bizarre interpretation of federal law commonplace in only two states (New York and Florida, both of which were included in GAO’s three-state sample for this study) by which spouses of institutionalized Medicaid recipients are allowed to refuse to contribute financially toward the cost of their spouse’s Medicaid-financed care—with impunity and in direct contradiction of the federal statute. The GAO report does not challenge this practice, nor has CMS taken action to curtail or end it. The spousal refusal cases GAO identified had a median value of nearly $292,000 in non-housing resources, but as they also found, some spousal refusal cases involve a million dollars or more. Why exactly is this allowed? Why doesn’t GAO question the practice? Where is CMS? The report makes no comment. GAO found: “State Medicaid officials, county eligibility workers, and attorneys who provided information on the value of annuities for the community spouse reported average values ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. Officials from one state reported seeing annuities for the community spouse worth more than $1 million. Medicaid officials from one state indicated that they have seen annuities that disbursed all of the payments to the community spouse shortly after the annuity was purchased, while officials from another state said that annuities can have large monthly payments for the community spouse, such as $10,000 per month” (Ibid., p. 32). Spousal annuities are a huge loophole that allows many millions of dollars to be diverted from private long-term care financing into the pockets of affluent Medicaid nursing home recipients’ spouses. Yet GAO does not call for closing the annuity loophole nor has CMS done anything about it. GAO found: “Among the 294 approved applicants whose files we reviewed, we identified 5 applicants (2 percent) who appeared to have used one of the ‘reverse half-a-loaf’ mechanisms; 4 of the applicants appeared to use the mechanism that involved creating an income stream through a promissory note to pay for nursing home care during the penalty period. These 4 applicants gifted between $20,150 and $227,250 worth of resources, and had penalty periods of between 2 months and 22 months” (Ibid., p. 29). Again, GAO gives only glancing attention to the reverse half-a-loaf technique often employed by Medicaid planners to reduce their affluent clients’ Medicaid spend down liability by half. The incidence of this technique’s use as identified by GAO—only 2 percent—seems small, but keep in mind that it is only used for people with substantial assets. Otherwise, it would hardly be worth the cost in attorneys’ fees to set up the complicated procedure. Public officials should ask about this and all the other techniques downplayed in the GAO report “how much public spending is being wasted?” and “why are such abuses allowed to continue?” One final point about this study: GAO says “Our analysis was limited to information included in the application files, which states used to make their eligibility determinations. We did not independently verify the accuracy of this information (Ibid., pp. 4-5).” That single admission obviates any value or credibility this report might otherwise have. Federal quality control audits have found that state welfare eligibility determinations are wrong in a third to a half of all cases even after state quality control reviews have confirmed the original determinations by state or county workers. We will never know the true extent of Medicaid asset shelters, transfers and other artificial self-impoverishment techniques until someone reviews a valid random sample of long-term care cases that is generalizable statewide and nationwide and goes beyond the extremely limited information available in case records for purposes of verification. The Government Accountability Office or the DHHS Inspector General or any serious researcher or organization should review a generalizable sample of Medicaid long-term care cases to establish once and for all how much money is being lost to Medicaid financial eligibility rules that divert the programs scarce resources from the needy to the affluent. Closing LTC Comment: It is safe to conclude that government officials and LTC researchers routinely ignore evidence of Medicaid planning, while they search persistently for non-existent evidence of catastrophic LTC spend down. This progressive bias impairs LTC service delivery and financing. [1] Calculations in this section are based on figures for Medicaid nursing home expenditures, number of Medicaid nursing home residents, etc., as reported in AARP’s Across the States, 2012 publication. Detailed computations by the author are available upon request.
The Center for Long-Term Care Reform, Inc. is a private institute dedicated to ensuring quality long-term care for all Americans. Please visit our website: WWW.CENTERLTC.COM. This e-mail is the latest installment of "LTC Bullets" - the Center's periodic online news service covering the latest information and trends in long-term care financing. We welcome responses to the material presented. All past issues of LTC Bullets may be read on the Center's web site at http://www.centerltc.com. If you get value from our LTC Bullets, our web site, our reports, our speeches and our public policy advocacy, please consider contributing. Visit our website at http://www.centerltc.com/needhelp.htm or contact us at mailto:info@centerltc.com or 206-283-7036 for more details. You can show your support for the Center by subscribing to our Members-Only Zone through a secure server connection at http://www.centerltc.com/support/index.htm . Please refer to http://www.centerltc.com/DOZ_info.htm for more information on the Zone. *** REFERRALS and SUBSCRIPTIONS: If you know somebody who would be interested in this publication, please recommend us by clicking here http://www.centerltc.com/bullets/recommendus.htm. If you have received this edition as a forward, and would like your own subscription, you may subscribe here http://www.centerltc.com/bullets/subscribe_to_bullets.htm. *** *** Unsubscribe by simply using your reply button to
send a request. Please include your e-mail address, name and
"unsubscribe" in the body of your message. Your e-mail address will
be deleted from the Center's mailing list before our next mailing.
We apologize for any inconvenience. We do not intend our "LTC
Bullets" to reach anyone not interested in receiving them. *** Thank you for your time and interest. |