Category Archives: Maryland Medical Assistance

How to Use a Trust in Medicaid Planning

October 15, 2019

With careful Medicaid planning, you may be able
to  preserve some of your estate for your
children or other heirs while meeting Medicaid’s low asset limit.

The problem with transferring assets is that you have given them away. You no longer control them, and even a trusted child or other relative may lose them. A safer approach is to put them in an irrevocable trust. A trust is a legal entity under which one person — the “trustee” — holds legal title to property for the benefit of others — the “beneficiaries.” The trustee must follow the rules provided in the trust instrument. Whether trust assets are counted against Medicaid’s resource limits depends on the terms of the trust and who created it.

A “revocable” trust is one that may be changed or rescinded by the person who created it. Medicaid considers the principal of such trusts (that is, the funds that make up the trust) to be assets that are countable in determining Medicaid eligibility. Thus, revocable trusts are of no use in Medicaid planning.

Income-only trusts

An “irrevocable” trust is one that cannot be changed after it has been created. In most cases, this type of trust is drafted so that the income is payable to you (the person establishing the trust, called the “grantor”) for life, and the principal cannot be applied to benefit your or your spouse. At your death the principal is paid to your heirs. This way, the funds in the trust are protected and you can use the income for your living expenses. For Medicaid purposes, the principal in such trusts is not counted as a resource, provided the trustee cannot pay it to you or your spouse for either of your benefits. However, if you do move to a nursing home, the trust income will have to go to the nursing home.

You should be aware of the drawbacks to such an arrangement. It is very rigid, so you cannot gain access to the trust funds even if you need them for some other purpose. For this reason, you should always leave an ample cushion of ready funds outside the trust.

You may also choose to place property in a trust from which even payments of income to you or your spouse cannot be made. Instead, the trust may be set up for the benefit of your children, or others. These beneficiaries may, at their discretion, return the favor by using the property for your benefit if necessary. However, there is no legal requirement that they do so.

One advantage of these trusts is that if they contain property that has increased in value, such as real estate or stock, you (the grantor) can retain a “special testamentary power of appointment” so that the beneficiaries receive the property with a step-up in basis at your death. This will also prevent the need to file a gift tax return upon the funding of the trust.

Remember, funding an irrevocable trust within the five years prior to applying for Medicaid (the “look-back period”) may result in a period of ineligibility. The actual period of ineligibility depends on the amount transferred to the trust.

Testamentary trusts

Testamentary trusts are trusts created under a will. The Medicaid rules provide a special “safe harbor” for testamentary trusts created by a deceased spouse for the benefit of a surviving spouse. The assets of these trusts are treated as available to the Medicaid applicant only to the extent that the trustee has an obligation to pay for the applicant’s support. If payments are solely at the trustee’s discretion, they are considered unavailable.

Therefore, these testamentary trusts can provide an important mechanism for community spouses to leave funds for their surviving institutionalized husband or wife that can be used to pay for services that are not covered by Medicaid. These may include extra therapy, special equipment, evaluation by medical specialists or others, legal fees, visits by family members, or transfers to another nursing home if that became necessary. But remember that if you create a trust for yourself or your spouse during life (i.e., not a testamentary trust), the trust funds are considered available if the trustee has the ability to use them for you or your spouse.

Supplemental needs trusts

The Medicaid rules also have certain exceptions for transfers for the sole benefit of disabled people under age 65. Even after moving to a nursing home, if you have a child, other relative, or even a friend who is under age 65 and disabled, you can transfer assets into a trust for his or her benefit without incurring any period of ineligibility. If these trusts are properly structured, the funds in them will not be considered to belong to the beneficiary in determining his or her own Medicaid eligibility. The only drawback to supplemental needs trusts (also called “special needs trusts”) is that after the disabled individual dies, the state must be reimbursed for any Medicaid funds spent on behalf of the disabled person.

To find out whether a trust is the right Medicaid planning strategy for you, talk to your elder law attorney.

How Will Medicare-for-all Proposals Affect Medicaid?

October 15, 2019

Summary

As the debate over the future direction of our health care system heats up leading into the 2020 Presidential election, several Democratic proposals to create a single, federal, universal health insurance program known as Medicare-for-all have garnered significant attention. These proposals would replace most current public and private health insurance with a new federal program that would guarantee health coverage for all or nearly all U.S. residents. However, many details about how a new public program would be implemented and financed are not yet known. While much attention has focused on the implications of ending private insurance and Medicare, the debate has largely ignored the effects on the low-income and vulnerable populations covered by Medicaid and the broader implications for states of eliminating the Medicaid program. Key changes related to Medicaid under current proposals include:

The Medicare-for-all debate has largely ignored the effects on the low-income and vulnerable populations covered by Medicaid and the broader implications for states of replacing the Medicaid program.

Medicare-for-all proposals would generally eliminate current variation in eligibility, enrollment and renewal processes, benefits, and payment and delivery systems that are part of the current structure of Medicaid where states have considerable flexibility to design programs within broad federal rules.

Proposals would extend coverage for certain Medicaid services important to vulnerable populations (such as comprehensive benefits for children and non-emergency medical transportation) to other populations. The proposals would continue Medicaid protections against high out-of-pocket costs.

One of the most fundamental changes under Medicare-for-all would be uniform coverage of community-based long-term care services for all Americans. Medicaid is the primary payer for these services today, with substantial state variation in eligibility and coverage. Under current Medicare-for-all proposals, these services would be required and explicitly prioritized over institutional services. Medicare-for-all proposals vary as to whether they would include institutional long-term care, such as nursing homes, or instead continue the current Medicaid coverage of these services, locking in state spending, variation in benefits across states, and limited access to populations beyond Medicaid.

Some proposals would have the federal government assume all or a significant share of the nearly $222 billion in state spending on Medicaid, leading to significant state savings, while other proposals call for a maintenance of effort for all or some current state Medicaid spending.

The proposals would shift responsibility for designing and implementing much of health policy from states to the federal government, in contrast to states’ role under Medicaid today.

Introduction

As the debate over the future direction of our health care system heats up leading into the 2020 Presidential election, several Democratic proposals to create a single, federal, universal health insurance program known as Medicare-for-all have garnered significant attention. These proposals would replace most current public and private health insurance with a new federal program that would guarantee health coverage for all or nearly all U.S. residents, though many details about how a new public program would be implemented and financed are not yet known. While much attention has focused on the implications of ending private insurance and Medicare, the debate has largely ignored the effects on the low-income and vulnerable populations covered by Medicaid and the broader implications for states of eliminating the Medicaid program.

Multiple Medicare-for-all proposals have been introduced in Congress and advanced by Presidential candidates. Currently, the proposals are characterized by two main approaches: proposals that create a single-payer system and eliminate other forms of coverage, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medicare and Medicaid; and proposals that eliminate the Medicare and Medicaid programs but maintain a role for private insurance. Medicare-for-all bills proposed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (HR 1384) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (S. 1129) and endorsed by Presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, and Andrew Yang adopt the former approach. A Medicare-for-all proposal offered by Sen. Kamala Harris takes the latter approach. Each of these proposals differs in some way from the others. However, for purposes of this brief, we refer to these proposals collectively as Medicare-for-all, though we note where important differences in the proposals may have different implications for Medicaid.

Medicaid is administered by the states, and each state’s program is unique, reflecting states’ use of existing program flexibility and waiver authority to design their programs. Because of this variation, the specific implications of a shift from Medicaid to a Medicare-for-all program would vary across states. However, in all states, Medicaid plays a key role by providing affordable health coverage for vulnerable populations that includes a wide range of medical, behavioral health, and long-term care benefits. It also is the largest source of federal funds to states. This issue brief explores key ways in which a shift to Medicare-for-all could affect current Medicaid enrollees, future enrollees (such as those who may need long-term care coverage at a later time), and states, which jointly finance the Medicaid program along with the federal government. Table 1 summarizes key similarities and differences regarding eligibility, benefits, affordability, provider payment and delivery systems, and state financing in the main Medicare-for-all proposals and Medicaid.

Medicaid’s Role Today

Medicaid covers 75 million low-income adults, children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid eligibility to serve as the basis of its larger set of coverage and affordability reforms. As of August 2019, 37 states including DC have adopted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. In 2017, the Medicaid expansion group included more than 12 million newly eligible low-income adults. However, 2.5 people remain in a coverage gap, with income too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to receive Marketplace subsidies in the 14 states that have not yet adopted the expansion. Medicaid also covers 45% of nonelderly adults with disabilities and millions more people with chronic conditions for whom private insurance, designed for a generally healthy population, is inadequate and/or unaffordable.

Medicaid covers a broad array of medical, behavioral health, and long-term care services. The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit for children provides comprehensive coverage including preventive screenings, vision, dental, and hearing services, and any other medically necessary care. Federal standards outline minimum benefits for adults, such as hospital, physician, and nursing facility services. States also can cover a variety of optional benefits, such as prescription drugs and private duty nursing. Medicaid is the principal source of coverage for long-term services and supports (LTSS), including nursing home care as well as home and community-based services that enable seniors and people with disabilities to live independently. While all state Medicaid programs cover a comprehensive set of services, because states have flexibility to provide optional services for adults, there is significant variation across states.

Medicaid provides affordable coverage for its low-income enrollees. Federal standards prohibit states from charging premiums to those with incomes less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL), though some states impose premiums for certain adults through a Section 1115 waiver. Federal rules also limit cost-sharing to nominal amounts and entirely exempt certain groups and services from any cost sharing. Aggregate out-of-pocket costs for an individual may not exceed 5% of family income.

Medicaid provides access to a broad range of providers, including many with unique expertise in treating vulnerable and low-income populations. States set provider payment rates within broad federal guidelines, and as a result, there is significant variation across states in how provider rates are determined and in payment levels. Despite lower payment rates in Medicaid and gaps in access to some types of specialists, national data show that access to services for children and adults is comparable to private insurance and exceeds access for the uninsured. Medicaid programs contract with a broad range of providers, including many safety net clinics, hospitals, and other providers that have experience in meeting the needs of Medicaid’s vulnerable enrollees. Managed care has become the dominant Medicaid delivery system, though states have substantial flexibility in designing their delivery and payment systems.

Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, guaranteeing federal matching payments to states with no pre-set limit. The matching structure of the program provides states with resources that automatically adjust for demographic and economic shifts, rising health care costs, and changing state priorities. This structure also enables the program to respond to public health emergencies and natural and other disasters. Examples of this response include providing a coverage safety net to people affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and expanding eligibility and benefits for children and pregnant women exposed to high levels of lead during the Flint water crisis. Recessions, rising costs of prescription drugs, and increasing needs for long-term care and behavioral health services are factors that put upward pressure on Medicaid spending growth. However, over time, Medicaid growth per enrollee has been lower than private health spending. Medicaid is a significant spending item in state budgets, but also the largest source of federal revenues due to the matching structure.

Implications of Medicare-for-all for Medicaid
Eligibility, Coverage, and Enrollment

Medicare-for-all programs would establish universal national health coverage for all or nearly all U.S. residents, eliminating the need for the specific eligibility pathways in the current Medicaid program. Medicare-for-all programs would establish uniform eligibility criteria across all states that are tied to U.S. residency and not based on income. Notably, Medicare-for-all would eliminate the current variability in eligibility for health coverage across states and fill in coverage gaps in states that have not adopted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Under Medicaid, states must cover certain populations, such as very low-income parents and children, pregnant women, and poor people with disabilities who receive federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. States then choose from a variety of optional coverage pathways and waiver authorities to expand coverage, especially for children with significant disabilities and seniors and adults with disabilities who need long-term care. While all states currently adopt at least one of these optional expansions, Medicaid eligibility criteria differ across states. Medicare-for-all programs would eliminate the need for specialized eligibility determinations based on disability or functional status. How current Medicaid enrollees, particularly those with complex health care needs, would be transitioned to a new coverage plan, is an important policy and implementation issue in the new proposals.

Immigrants’ eligibility for coverage under Medicare-for-all is unclear, while their coverage under Medicaid today is subject to limitations. Medicare-for-all proposals grant authority to the Health and Human Services Secretary to define residency when determining eligibility for coverage, so it is not yet known how undocumented immigrants would be treated, though some proposals specifically cover legal immigrants and certain undocumented immigrants. Many Democratic candidates running for President say they support coverage for undocumented immigrants. Most legal immigrants are barred from Medicaid coverage for five years after entering the United States (except in the 35 states that have taken up the option to eliminate the five-year waiting period for Medicaid/CHIP coverage for lawfully-residing immigrant children and/or pregnant women). Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid coverage, although state Medicaid programs reimburse providers for emergency care for individuals who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid except for their immigration status.

A process for auto-enrolling individuals into coverage under Medicare-for-all programs would replace existing application and renewal processes in Medicaid. Once established, all of the Medicare-for-all proposals call for automatically enrolling individuals in coverage at birth. Auto-enrollment would result in higher coverage rates compared to the current Medicaid program, since not everyone who is eligible for Medicaid presently is enrolled. Each state administers its own Medicaid eligibility determination system. The ACA included new policies and strategies to streamline the eligibility and enrollment process, such as greater reliance on electronic data sources instead of paper verification, in an effort to keep eligible people enrolled in coverage. Nevertheless, the need to apply for and periodically renew Medicaid coverage can sometimes result in eligible individuals churning in and out of coverage.

Benefits

Medicare-for-all programs would cover a comprehensive set of health care services for adults that would eliminate the current variability in Medicaid benefit packages across states. For example, the Medicare-for-all proposals include some benefits that are optional in Medicaid for adults and consequently not available in all states, such as dental and vision care. The Medicare-for-all benefit package also would include mental health and substance use treatment services. While all state Medicaid programs cover mental health and substance use disorder services, the scope of coverage for adults can vary. Many states rely on Medicaid to cover specialized behavioral health services, and the Medicare-for-all proposals would include some of these benefits. For example, the Sanders and Jayapal proposals include day treatment and psychosocial rehabilitation for those with chronic mental illness. Also, although prescription drug coverage is not required by the Medicaid statute, all states cover this benefit. Medicaid must cover all drugs with a rebate agreement as medically necessary, but states may apply utilization controls such as prior authorization, a preferred drug formulary, or quantity limits on drug refills or pills per prescription, and those differ across states. While Medicare-for-all proposals would establish uniform coverage for prescription drugs across states, it is unclear if coverage would be as comprehensive. Under both Medicare-for-all and Medicaid, all covered services must be determined medically necessary.

Medicare-for-all would cover certain services important to vulnerable populations that currently are covered by Medicaid but not other payers. In current Medicare-for-all proposals, these include the EPSDT benefit that provides a comprehensive set of services for children as well as non-emergency medical transportation to access medical appointments, with the Sanders and Jayapal proposals limiting this benefit to those with low incomes and/or disabilities.

One of the most fundamental changes under Medicare-for-all would be uniform coverage of community-based long-term care services; Medicaid is the primary payer for these services today, with substantial state variation in eligibility and coverage. Medicare-for-all would cover many of the community-based long-term care services covered by Medicaid today. And, unlike Medicaid, where most community-based long-term care services are optional, these services would be required, and explicitly prioritized over institutional services, under Medicare-for-all. With community-based long-term care services included in the Medicare-for-all benefit package, everyone would be eligible to receive covered services without regard to income or assets, unlike in Medicaid today. The Jayapal proposal includes functional eligibility criteria (e.g. limitation in an activity of daily living) to qualify for LTSS; today, states set Medicaid LTSS functional eligibility criteria. Unlike other Medicaid services, states are allowed to cap enrollment for many community-based long-term care services, which means that some people who meet the eligibility criteria do not receive them. Including these services in Medicare-for-all could mean that individuals currently on state Medicaid waiver waiting lists as well as others who are not financially eligible for Medicaid could have access to these services. However, it could take time to develop adequate system capacity in terms of infrastructure and workforce to accommodate such an expansion in paid LTSS. Additionally, the cost of providing a universal long-term care benefit package could result in some limitations or restrictions on these benefits as more details are known and Medicare-for-all is implemented.

Medicare-for-all proposals vary as to whether they would include institutional long-term care, such as nursing homes, or instead continue the current Medicaid coverage of these services. Under a scenario where Medicare-for-all includes institutional long-term care, all enrollees would receive these services as part of their basic benefit package as medically necessary, without regard to income or asset limits. The Jayapal proposal includes functional eligibility criteria for institutional long-term care, as it does for HCBS. The Jayapal benefit package includes a range of institutional services, which could also include institutions for mental disease (IMDs) and intermediate care facilities for those with intellectual or developmental disabilities (ICF/DD). Medicaid currently covers ICF/DD services but generally does not cover services in IMDs for individuals ages 21-64. If institutional services are carved out of Medicare-for-all and instead continue to be provided through state Medicaid programs, as under the Sanders bill, then individuals would need to continue to meet current eligibility criteria for these services, which vary across states. Under this approach, states would also be required to continue to pay their state share of costs for these services based on the current federal Medicaid matching rules. Those not eligible for Medicaid would continue to have to pay for institutional long-term care out of their own income and assets or through private long-term-care insurance, or spend-down to be eligible for Medicaid. The Sanders Medicare-for-all program would require states to maintain their existing Medicaid eligibility standards and spending on institutional long-term care services and would continue to provide states with federal matching payments for these services, locking in variation in eligibility standards across states.

Premiums and Cost Sharing

Medicare-for-all would continue the protections that Medicaid provides against high out-of-pocket costs. Medicare-for-all programs would eliminate or reduce premiums and cost sharing. The Sanders and Jayapal proposals would eliminate premiums and deductibles, and the Jayapal proposal would eliminate cost sharing, while the Sanders proposal would include minimal copayments on prescription drugs for those with incomes above 200% FPL. Under these proposals, today’s Medicaid enrollees would continue to be protected from high out-of-pocket costs. While most Medicaid enrollees do not pay premiums and have limited out of pocket expenses, any who do would likely see these costs eliminated.

Payment and Delivery Systems

Similar to Medicaid, all licensed and certified providers would be eligible to participate in Medicare-for-all programs; however, given the scope of Medicare-for-all programs, it is likely a broader array of providers will participate, expanding the choice of providers for current Medicaid enrollees. State Medicaid programs are required to contract with federally qualified health centers, and most contract with other essential community providers, and consequently, these providers are an important source of care for Medicaid enrollees. While these contracting requirements are not part of current Medicare-for-all proposals, it is expected that health centers and other essential community providers would participate to the same extent they participate in Medicaid programs today.

Medicare-for-all programs would create a national fee schedule for paying providers, eliminating variation in payment rates across states and payers in Medicaid today. While few details are available, Medicare-for-all programs would establish payment rates for hospitals, physicians, and other providers, subject to a global budget process and negotiation under some proposals. In general, states have flexibility in setting Medicaid provider payment rates, leading for variation in payment rates across states. In general, Medicaid rates paid to physicians and some other providers are lower than Medicare rates, while other providers, such as safety net hospitals, may receive higher payments through Medicaid compared to Medicare due to supplemental payments. It is unclear whether payment rates under Medicare-for-all proposals would be based on Medicare rates or set using a different methodology. In addition, federal rules require special Medicaid payment rates for some providers, such as federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics that have contributed to their participation in the program. These providers are likely to see an increase in revenue from improved coverage under Medicare-for-all programs; however, given longstanding relationships Medicaid enrollees have with safety net providers, how they fare under a new program will matter.

The reliance on fee-for-service payments under current Medicare-for-all proposals may move away from current payment and delivery models adopted by state Medicaid programs. Medicare-for-all programs would pay physicians and other providers on a fee-for-service basis, while institutional providers would be paid through a global budget arrangement under some proposals or through fee-for-service under others. Medicaid initially relied on fee-for-service payments, but in recent years, states have experimented with innovative payment designs in their Medicaid programs that seek to improve quality of care, control costs, and address social determinants of health. In addition, through their contracts with managed care organizations as well as managed fee-for-service models, states have emphasized care management for people with complex health needs. Some proposals would allow for these types of payment and delivery models, including private managed care plans, while others would not. While moving to global budgets and a national fee schedule will likely lower costs, some of the benefits of care management strategies, particularly for people with multiple or complex conditions and other vulnerable patients, may be lost.

State Responsibilities

The state role in health care financing would change substantially under a Medicare-for-all program compared to Medicaid. The state share of spending for Medicaid was $222 billion in 2017. Medicare-for-all proposals vary in how much states could save and how much funding states would be required to contribute relative to current spending. For example, under the Jayapal proposal, states could see significant savings relative to current Medicaid spending because Medicaid would be eliminated, and there would be no state financing requirements. However, under other proposals, states would remain responsible through a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement for all or part of current state spending on Medicaid. The Sanders Medicare-for-all program would require states to maintain their existing Medicaid eligibility standards and spending on institutional long-term care services and would continue to provide states with federal matching payments for these services, locking in variation in eligibility standards and financing across states. Long-term care accounts for more than one in five dollars of Medicaid spending and in 2016, community based long-term care services accounted for 57% of all Medicaid spending on long-term care nationally, although this varies by state. The level of state savings under the Sanders proposal will vary based on current state spending on institutional long-term care services. Under the Harris proposal, states would be required to make MOE payments to the new program equal to the amounts they currently spend on Medicaid and CHIP, increased over time by inflation. Since Medicaid costs have typically increased at higher rates than inflation, states could see some savings over time, but significantly less relative to the Jayapal and Sanders proposals. It is not clear in the Harris and Sanders proposals how state spending from provider fees or taxes (a mechanism used by nearly every state to finance the state share of Medicaid) would be factored in the MOE calculation.

In addition to transferring fiscal responsibility, the proposals would shift the role of designing and implementing much of health policy from states to the federal government. Under current programs, states have significant flexibility to design and administer Medicaid and other related health programs. Medicare-for-all programs would create more uniformity in eligibility and benefits and could result in state savings, but the proposals would also limit states’ ability to leverage Medicaid funding to implement innovative payment and delivery system reforms. Without a comprehensive Medicaid program – and the substantial financing of health care that comes along with it – state policymakers would have a much more diminished role in the health care system generally. Some role for states may remain. For example, the Sanders proposal calls for a regional administrative structure that would include state directors. While the proposals may open other avenues for innovation, the state role in administering all aspects of Medicaid and running insurance departments would diminish under Medicare-for-all programs as these functions shift to federal responsibility.

Looking Ahead

Many details about how a new Medicare-for-all program replacing all or most current public and private health insurance would be implemented and financed are not yet known. As proposals continue to emerge and develop, it is important to focus on the implications related to Medicaid, the program that currently covers 75 million low-income and vulnerable Americans. As with other parts of the health care system, there will be trade-offs. Medicare-for-all proposals would generally eliminate current variation in eligibility, enrollment and renewal processes, benefits, and payment and delivery systems that are part of the current structure of Medicaid, where states now have considerable flexibility to design programs within broad federal rules. However, the transition to a new program, even one with equally comprehensive benefits and cost sharing protections, could be particularly disruptive for current Medicaid enrollees who tend to be sicker with more complex health conditions, and for whom the ability to maintain relationships with current providers will be important. A smooth transition to any new system also will be critical for current Medicaid enrollees who rely on personal care and other services to meet daily self-care needs and maintain independent community living.

More broadly, Medicare-for-all programs would extend coverage for some Medicaid services to more Americans, most notably community-based long-term services and supports. For states, the role in health care financing would change substantially under a Medicare-for-all program. Some proposals would have the federal government assume all or a significant share of the nearly $222 billion in state spending on Medicaid, leading to significant state savings. However, other proposals call for a state maintenance of effort around spending broadly or for specific services. The details about how the MOE would be implemented are not clear. In addition, the proposals would shift responsibility for much of health policy from states to the federal government. As the debate continues and additional details emerge, it will be important to continue to evaluate how Medicare-for-all proposals affect coverage, benefits, out of pocket costs and access to care for the low-income and vulnerable populations currently covered by Medicaid.

Medicaid’s Asset Transfer Rules

October 8, 2019

In order to be eligible for Medicaid, you cannot have recently transferred assets. Congress does not want you to move into a nursing home on Monday, give all your money to your children (or whomever) on Tuesday, and qualify for Medicaid on Wednesday. So it has imposed a penalty on people who transfer assets without receiving fair value in return.

This penalty is a period of time during which the person transferring the assets will be ineligible for Medicaid. The penalty period is determined by dividing the amount transferred by what Medicaid determines to be the average private pay cost of a nursing home in your state.

Example: If you live in a state where the average monthly cost of care has been determined to be $5,000, and you give away property worth $100,000, you will be ineligible for benefits for 20 months ($100,000 / $5,000 = 20).

Another way to look at the above example is that for every $5,000 transferred, an applicant would be ineligible for Medicaid nursing home benefits for one month. In theory, there is no limit on the number of months a person can be ineligible.

Example: The period of ineligibility for the transfer of property worth $400,000 would be 80 months ($400,000 / $5,000 = 80).

A person applying for Medicaid must disclose all financial transactions he or she was involved in during a set period of time — frequently called the “look-back period.” The state Medicaid agency then determines whether the Medicaid applicant transferred any assets for less than fair market value during this period.  The look-back period for all transfers is 60 months (except in California, where it is 30 months).  Also, keep in mind that because the Medicaid program is administered by the states, your state’s transfer rules may diverge from the national norm.  To take just one important example, New York State does not apply the transfer rules to recipients of home care (also called community care).

The penalty period created by a transfer within the look-back period does not begin until (1) the person making the transfer has moved to a nursing home, (2) he has spent down to the asset limit for Medicaid eligibility, (3) has applied for Medicaid coverage, and (4) has been approved for coverage but for the transfer.

For instance, if an individual transfers $100,000 on April 1, 2017, moves to a nursing home on April 1, 2018, and spends down to Medicaid eligibility on April 1, 2019, that is when the 20-month penalty period will begin, and it will not end until December 1, 2020.

In other words, the penalty period would not begin until the nursing home resident was out of funds, meaning there would be no money to pay the nursing home for however long the penalty period lasts.  In states that have so-called “filial responsibility laws,” nursing homes may seek reimbursement from the residents’ children. These rarely-enforced laws, which are on the books in 29 states, hold adult children responsible for financial support of indigent parents and, in some cases, medical and nursing home costs.  In 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.

Exceptions

Transferring assets to certain recipients will not trigger a period of Medicaid ineligibility. These exempt recipients include the following:

  • A spouse (or a transfer to anyone else as long as it is for the spouse’s benefit)
  • A trust for the sole benefit of a blind or disabled child
  • A trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances).

In addition, special exceptions apply to the transfer of a home. The Medicaid applicant’s home may be transferred to the individuals above, and the applicant also may freely transfer his or her home to the following individuals without incurring a transfer penalty:

  • A child who is under age 21
  • A child who is blind or disabled (the house does not have to be in a trust)
  • A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home
  • A “caretaker child,” who is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s institutionalization and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.

Congress has created a very important escape hatch from the transfer penalty: the penalty will be “cured” if the transferred asset is returned in its entirety, or it will be reduced if the transferred asset is partially returned. However, some states are not permitting partial returns. Check with your elder law attorney.

Medicaid’s Gift to Children Who Help Parents Postpone Nursing Home Care

September 3, 2019

In most states, transferring your house to your children (or someone else) may lead to a Medicaid penalty period, which would make you ineligible for Medicaid for a period of time. However, there are circumstances in which transferring a house will not result in a penalty period.

One of those circumstances is if the Medicaid applicant transfers the house to a “caretaker child.”  This is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s entering a nursing home and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.  In such cases, the Medicaid applicant may freely transfer a home to the child without triggering a transfer penalty.  Note that the exception applies only to a child, not a grandchild or other relative.

Each state Medicaid agency has its own rules for proof that the child has lived with the parent and provided the necessary level of care, making it doubly important to consult with your attorney before making this (or any other) kind of transfer.

Others to whom a home may be transferred without Medicaid’s usual penalty are:

  • Your spouse
  • A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled
  • Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances)
  • A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Revision of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities Arbitration Agreements (CMS-3342-F)

July 30, 2019

NAELA eBulletin:

Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a final rule, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Revision of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Arbitration Agreements” (CMS-3342-F). The final rule revises the requirements for arbitration agreements when they are used by long-term care (LTC) facilities to resolve disputes with their residents. Provisions in this rule establish substantial protections for residents and their representatives and ensure transparency in the arbitration process in LTC facilities, also known as “nursing homes”. The rule is part of the agency’s five-part approach to ensuring a high-quality nursing home system that focuses on strengthening requirements for nursing homes, working with states to enforce statutory and regulatory requirements, increasing transparency of nursing home performance, and promoting improved health outcomes for nursing home residents.

This final rule repeals the prohibition on LTC facilities entering into pre-dispute, binding arbitration agreements with their residents, as proposed. However, this final rule includes protections of residents’’ rights by prohibiting LTC facilities from requiring residents to sign binding arbitration agreements as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, that facility. It strengthens the transparency of arbitration agreements and the arbitration process with specific requirements for the LTC facility, such as the requirement that LTC facilities that resolve a dispute with a resident through arbitration retain copies of the signed arbitration agreement and the final arbitrator’s decision for five years and make such documents available for review by CMS or its designee. It also protects residents’ rights to make informed choices about their health care by ensuring that residents or their representatives have the right to understand what the arbitration agreement says and the consequences of signing the agreement.

Background

On October 4, 2016, CMS published in the Federal Register a final rule titled, “Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities” (81 FR 68688) (2016 final rule). The rule banned binding pre-dispute arbitration agreements in LTC facilities. In 2016, the American Health Care Association (AHCA) and a group of affiliated nursing homes filed a complaint in the U.S. District court for the Northern District of Mississippi seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining CMS from enforcing the ban on LTC facilities entering into pre-dispute, binding arbitration agreements with their residents. After the court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of that regulation, the agency determined that further analysis of the rule was warranted. On December 9, 2016, CMS issued a nationwide instruction to State Survey Agency Directors, directing them not to enforce the 2016 final rule’s prohibition of pre-dispute, binding arbitration provisions.

On June 8, 2017, CMSCMS published a proposed rule, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Revisions of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities: Arbitration Agreements” (82 FR 26649) in the Federal Register. The agency received over 1,000 public comments on the proposed rule from a number of stakeholders, including nursing homes and beneficiary advocates. That proposed rule focused on the transparency surrounding the arbitration process and proposed the following:

  • The prohibition on LTC facilities entering into pre-dispute, binding arbitration agreements with their residents would be repealed.
  • All agreements for binding arbitration must be in plain language.
  • If signing the agreement for binding arbitration is a condition of admission into the facility, the language of the agreement must be in plain writing and in the admissions contract.
  • The agreement must be explained to the resident and his or her representative in a form and manner they understand, including that it must be in a language they understand.
  • The resident must acknowledge that he or she understands the agreement.
  • The agreement must not contain any language that prohibits or discourages the resident or anyone else from communicating with federal, state, or local officials, including federal and state surveyors, other federal or state health department employees, or representatives of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
  • If the facility resolves a dispute with a resident through arbitration, it must retain a copy of the signed agreement for binding arbitration and the arbitrator’s final decision so it can be inspected by CMS or its designee.
  • The facility must post a notice regarding its use of binding arbitration in an area that is visible to both residents and visitors.

Final Rule Revisions to Arbitration Requirements

After careful consideration of the public comments, CMS is modifying our proposed changes.  We are not finalizing the requirements for plain language in the arbitration agreements and that the facility post a notice regarding its use of binding arbitration. We believe these proposed requirements are unnecessary due to other requirements finalized in this rule.  In addition, we are retaining some of the requirements finalized in the 2016 rule.  We are finalizing following provisions.  An LTC facility must:

  • Not require that a resident or his or her representative sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, the facility.  This must be explicitly stated in the agreement to ensure.  This ensures that no resident or his or her representative will have to choose between the resident obtaining the skilled nursing care he or she needs and signing an agreement for binding arbitration.
  • Ensure that the agreement is explained to the resident or his or her representative in a form and manner that he or she understands, including in a language that he or she understands, and that the resident or his or her representative acknowledges that he or she understands the agreement.  These two requirements ensure that the arbitration agreement is transparent and the resident or his or her representative understand what he or she is agreeing to.
  • Ensure that the agreement provides for the selection of a neutral arbitrator agreed upon by both parties and a venue that is convenient to both parties.  These requirements helps to ensure that the arbitration process is fair to both parties, especially the residents.
  • Ensure that the agreement does not contain any language that prohibits or discourages the resident or anyone else from communicating with federal, state, or local officials, including Federal or state surveyors, other federal or state health department employees, or representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This protects the resident and his or her representative from any undue influence by the LTC facility to not discuss the circumstances surrounding a concern, complaint or grievance.
  • Retain copies of the signed agreement for binding arbitration and the arbitrator’s final decision for 5 years after the resolution of any dispute resolved through arbitration with residents, and make these documents available for inspection upon request by CMS or its designee.  This will ensure that CMS will be able to obtain information on how the arbitration process is being used by LTC facilities, and on the outcomes of the arbitrations for residents.

For more information, please visit: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/18/2019-14945/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-revision-of-requirements-for-long-term-care-facilities-arbitration

 

How the Democratic Candidates Responded to a Health Care Policy Survey

July 2, 2019

When the 2020 Democrats were asked the best way to improve the health care system, a split in the field was revealed. Here are full responses from 19 candidates.  The New York Times asked all 23 Democratic presidential candidates for their views on the best ways to improve the health care system. We received responses from 19 of them.

[Read our analysis of the responses here.]

The first three questions asked whether the candidates supported three possible routes for
changing how Americans receive health insurance: by creating a “Medicare for all” system
that would eliminate private insurance; by providing a choice between a “public option”
health care plan run by the government and private insurance; or by making more modest
changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Candidates could indicate support for more than one option. But in the fourth question, we
asked which of the three options would be the best way to improve the health care system,
and that is where a split in the field was revealed.
The survey also included several other questions about health insurance and coverage, how
the candidates would finance their plans, and other matters like prescription drug prices.
Below are the responses from each of the 19 candidates. Many of the questions were posed
in a yes-or-no format but also allowed the candidates to add additional comments. Some of
the responses we received were written in the first person, while others were supplied by
campaign staff members. Aside from a few corrected typos and minor punctuation changes
for clarity, these are the full, unedited answers we received.

No.

We need to have universal coverage, lower costs, and improve quality — those are the three objectives we should be working toward. The best path to achieve those objectives is with Medicare-X, my plan to create a strong public option that provides people with the choice of buying into that option or keeping the insurance they receive through their employer or union.

In just four years, Medicare for All would take health insurance away from about 180 million Americans who receive their insurance through their employer or their union, the vast majority of whom like it. And it would take insurance away from another 20 million people who receive insurance through Medicare Advantage.

Yes.

All Americans.

The best path to covering all Americans with high-quality, affordable health insurance is with Medicare-X, my plan to create a strong public option that provides people with the choice of buying into that option or keeping their private insurance.

Medicare-X would start in rural areas where there is one or no insurer to increase competition and lower costs. It would then expand to every ZIP code, and become available as an option on the small business exchange. Medicare-X would also, for the first time, allow the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of the American people. By using the existing Medicare framework, it does all of this without adding any bureaucracy.

No.

We should build upon the Affordable Care Act, including by extending premium assistance to more middle-class Americans who are above the A.C.A. cliff of 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. My Medicare-X plan would do that, in addition to increasing support to families under the 400 percent threshold who are currently receiving tax credits to help pay for insurance.

But we shouldn’t stop there. Medicare-X would also provide everyone with the choice of purchasing a public option, and it would allow the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices. We also need to reduce the cost of health care by increasing transparency and modernizing how we care for people.

Public option.

If you went into a living room anywhere in the country and told everyone about Medicare-X, my plan to create a true public option, I believe it’s a plan they could get behind. We don’t need to blow up our current health care system to provide everyone with high-quality, affordable care. And we don’t need to take insurance away from people who receive it through their employer and like it. Medicare-X starts in rural areas where the market is failing too many people. It covers essential health benefits and uses Medicare’s network of doctors and providers. It allows the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices. And it does all of this without creating any new bureaucracy.

Yes.

All Americans should be covered by high-quality, affordable health insurance. For people who are already eligible for Medicaid and other programs, our default should be for those programs to cover them. States that have yet to take advantage of the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare should do so in the best interests of their residents. Ultimately, by offering a strong public option through Medicare-X, we can accomplish universal coverage.

My Medicare-X plan would save taxpayer dollars relative to the current health care system, even as it covers millions more people. For example, a more modest public option has previously been projected by the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office to save $158 billion for taxpayers over a decade (source: bit.ly/2MH8b1V). That’s because a public option like Medicare-X requires premiums, but also cuts health care costs relative to private health insurance. We would then take those savings and reinvest them in improving upon Obamacare, so that more middle-class Americans are able to afford health insurance.

Notably, this differs dramatically from Medicare for All, which the nonpartisan Urban Institute has suggested would cost more than $32 trillion over the next 10 years (source: urbn.is/2WEIH9H). Regardless of whether people think this is the right approach, we have to acknowledge that nobody has shown how they would specifically pay for even a significant fraction of this total cost. According to Vox, when single-payer failed in Senator Sanders’s home state of Vermont, it failed when taxpayers were confronted with the fact that it would necessitate an increase in payroll taxes of 11.5 percent and income taxes by 9 percent (source: bit.ly/2VCeMOW).

My Medicare-X plan does not require a tax increase at all, because it saves taxpayer dollars relative to private health insurance. It allows the American people to choose this high-quality, affordable option instead of taking away their current health insurance.

Yes.

Undocumented immigrants should have the option of purchasing health insurance on the exchange.

Yes.

Americans are growing older, and we need to figure out how to provide them with long-term care.

Health coverage in long-term care is fragmented, insufficient, and inefficient. Americans shouldn’t be forced to spend down their life savings in order to be covered by Medicaid for long-term care. There are a number of ways to ensure that coverage is lifelong, and we should have that discussion.

No.

The United States government should negotiate drug prices through Medicare Part D and other federal programs on behalf of the American people. Medicare-X does that.

Importation from Canada is not a sustainable solution, because the reason drugs cost less in Canada is that the Canadian government uses its leverage to negotiate prices downward. Even if Canada allowed us to import all of its drugs (which it will not), we would still not be able to supply the demand in the United States, and it would have a limited effect on overall prices. We are nine times the size of Canada, and Canada would be left with drug shortages, which it would never allow.

After writing and passing legislation to secure our supply chain, I’m also concerned about counterfeit medications sold through supposedly Canadian online pharmacies, which are often not even based in Canada.

Yes.

I support allowing the United States government to negotiate drug prices through Medicare Part D and other federal programs. That’s the only way to get drug prices under control for the American people. Medicare-X does that.

Public option.

[The Biden campaign did not complete the survey, but indicated that Mr. Biden preferred a public option and referred to his statements on the campaign trail.]

Yes.

I support Medicare for All. There are different ways we can get there. Right now, there are several bills in the United States Senate that move our country closer to Medicare for All, and I’m a sponsor of them. The most important thing is to keep the ultimate goal in mind: affordable health care for every American, because health care is a human right.

Yes.

All Americans.

I am a co-sponsor of several bills in the Senate to create a public option, a powerful tool to introduce real competition into the market and drive down costs for consumers.

Yes.

I support strengthening the A.C.A., including by extending premium assistance to more middle-class Americans and undoing the Trump administration’s sabotage around enrollment, as one part of a broader effort to improve care and lower costs.

“Medicare for all.”

I believe our country needs to work towards Medicare for All and have co-sponsored several bills to help do just that, including through a public option and lowering the Medicare eligibility age.

Yes.

It is important that every American has health insurance not only to keep individuals and families healthy, but also to help keep health costs stable.

High out-of-pocket costs for people with insurance is one of the most concerning problems in our current system. On the path to Medicare for all, I support concrete steps to increase access and lower costs — including lowering the Medicare eligibility age and introducing a public option — all of which would be financed differently. Whatever the plan, we must do more to help low- and middle-income Americans, many of whom can’t afford to go to the doctor or get even basic preventative care due to prohibitive cost-sharing.

Our country already spends trillions of dollars on health care every year. By directing existing spending into a more efficient system, reducing the outrageous cost of many prescription drugs, and leveraging Medicare’s lower cost structure system, we can achieve savings that offset many of the costs of improving affordability and access. We can also raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, while ensuring that most families are paying less for better care.

Yes.

Access to quality, affordable health care is a human right. We need to make our health care system more effective and efficient, and we must pass comprehensive immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for those already living in the United States.

Yes.

Long-term care is an integral part of health care, especially for people with disabilities.

Yes.

I wrote and introduced the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act along with Senators Bernie Sanders and Bob Casey to allow for the safe importation of prescription drugs.

Yes.

I am an original co-sponsor of the Affordable Medications Act, which includes a number of provisions to bring transparency and competition to pharmaceutical companies responsible for outrageous drug prices. By allowing Medicare to directly negotiate with manufacturers, we can leverage the federal government’s buying power and cut costs for taxpayers and beneficiaries.

No.

Everyone should have access to health care — and it should be affordable to the individual and to the taxpayers. Access to health care shouldn’t depend on the size of your paycheck. It should be a right for all.

Through the A.C.A., we have been able to make great strides in ensuring coverage for more Americans, beginning to reduce the growth in health care costs, and providing better care inclusive of prevention, drug and alcohol treatment, screenings, and mental health care.

Yet even after the A.C.A., many people still can’t access care. And most of us are paying too much. More can be done.

About 156 million Americans are enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance plans. Moving immediately to a Medicare for All system would both undermine existing employer sponsored health care, upset a significant portion of the economy, and result in significant payroll tax increases for working Americans to cover Medicare for All.

At the same time, 25 million Americans still lack coverage, and the Trump administration is only making things worse.

I believe that we can increase access and affordability by providing a public option for Americans who want to buy into government insurance which will also ensure competition in the private market; allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices and bring down the costs of prescription drugs; automatically enrolling Medicaid eligible people in Medicaid; and ending surprise billing and out of network charges.

Yes.

All Americans.

Yes.

The Affordable Care Act began to put America on a path toward significantly improved health care coverage, better health prevention and results, and reduced expenses. The Trump administration has worked aggressively to block the important changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act resulting in reduced coverage, lower quality coverage options, and increased costs to consumers.

I believe by fully implementing the Affordable Care Act, providing a public option, allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices, automatically enrolling people eligible for Medicaid, and ending surprise billing and out of network charges, we can significantly improve health care for all Americans.

Public option.

As a Governor, I am on the front lines of implementing health care solutions. I will never forget testifying in front of the U.S. Senate about implementation of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid Expansion, and how they had meaningfully impacted health care in our states. At the same time, as we were testifying, Republicans were trying to repeal the A.C.A. and take our country backward. While some have the luxury of debating the ideal health care system, governors must implement effective systems that work for our constituents — and that’s what I have been doing in Montana.

Estimates indicate that a Medicare for All system would require between $2.5 and $3 trillion in new revenue each year. When you consider that the U.S. government is expected to bring in $3.6 trillion in 2020, an additional $2.5 to $3 trillion is a 69 percent to 83 percent tax increase.

The Affordable Care Act increased access to health care, behavioral health care, stabilized rural hospitals, improved health care in Indian country, provided preventative care, increased access to substance abuse treatment, and provided incredible improvements throughout Montana. Continuing to strengthen the Affordable Care Act while adding a public option and automatic enrollment for people eligible for Medicaid will go a long way toward full coverage, reduced costs, and improved health outcomes throughout the country.

No.

The vast majority of health insurance is provided by employers. We must make it both more affordable to employees, and for employers to offer health care. Those who are not covered by employer-based health care must be incentivized to have coverage through a public option — and we should help with the incentives. A mandate, however, is not an incentive.

The first thing we have to address is health care costs — for employers and families. Improving affordability will make it easier for everyone to access health care whether it is employer-based or publicly available.

Businesses that choose not to provide their employees with benefits, or businesses avoiding employee benefits through excessive use of contract employees, need to be examined.

No.

Comprehensive immigration reform that protects our border, helps the Dreamers who have known no other home than ours, and provides a path to citizenship for immigrants who have been part of the fabric of our country for many years is the best way to address health coverage for people who want to become American citizens.

No.

Long-term care is an increasingly important challenge for many families, and we should explore ways to make long-term care more affordable and accessible for all Americans without adding crushing costs to working families.

No.

Americans pay more for prescription drugs than nearly anyone else, yet we have nothing to show for it. Rather than focusing on importing drugs from other countries, we need to get our pharmaceutical companies to charge Americans less for vital medicines. If these efforts are unsuccessful, moving toward a safe drug reimportation program would remain an option.

Yes.

As Governor of Montana, I negotiated health care costs between our hospitals and the state employee insurance plan resulting in significant cost savings. It is long past time that the federal government did the same to lower pharmaceutical costs. With the purchasing power of the federal government and its many health care systems — Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Service, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program — we have significant leverage in these negotiations.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

I support universal health care and believe that a Medicare-type buy in provides the best glide path to a Medicare for All environment. Even then, private insurance can play a role, but only on a supplemental basis. Medicare for All is our goal because it represents a fairer, more efficient health care system that will spend less money on profits and bureaucracy and more on patient care.

Yes.

All Americans.

The path to Medicare for All that I believe makes Americans better off along the way is one that starts with a Medicare-like plan as a public option for people who want it. It will challenge private options to become more affordable and efficient; I am skeptical that they will be able to do so, and expect that this will lead to a Medicare for All environment in the future as more Americans opt in to the Medicare-like plan.

No.

I am in favor of strengthening the Affordable Care Act while we work to implement full reform.

Public option.

Yes.

New health spending should be financed by a combination of premiums and tax-based funding to ensure it is affordable.

Federal spending that makes health insurance affordable could be offset by taxes on the wealthy and on corporate profits.

Yes.

Undocumented immigrants should be able to buy coverage through the public option.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

America needs a comprehensive, universal insurance program for long-term care. This can either be done within a universal Medicare plan, or in parallel to it, but the United States must establish such a program so that families can count on long-term care.

Yes.

Such importation must be done in a way that ensures safety and quality.

Yes.

No.

I support Medicare for all with a role for private insurance for individuals that choose it.

Yes.

All Americans.

I support universal health care with Medicare as the foundation. Americans should have options to choose either a complementary or supplementary private insurance.

No.

[This multiple choice response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

The best way to improve the health care system is to provide Medicare for all, with an option to choose either a complimentary or supplementary private insurance.

Yes.

An expanded Medicare program should be financed mostly through a restructured tax code. Premiums and co-payments may still exist, but my proposal will prioritize keeping these payments low.

I would support repealing the Trump tax plan and replace it with one that asks corporations and the wealthiest elite to contribute their fair share.

Yes.

Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and are contributing members of our communities. I believe they should be eligible for government health care support and put on a pathway to citizenship. I look forward to putting forward a health care plan that addresses the health care gap for undocumented families.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

I support the Universal Healthcare plan that I have crafted, which provides health care to every American as a right. It will allow Americans to have the option of having private insurance.

link: https://www.johndelaney.com/issues/health-care/

Yes.

All Americans.

No.

The first thing that the next President should do is fix the A.C.A. The A.C.A. was a good law and has been under attack from Republicans since the day it was signed. Our primary obligation should be to first stabilize our health care system before we begin overhauling it.

A.C.A. fixes.

Your question does not fully capture my views — I would first fix the A.C.A. and then work to create universal health care. The A.C.A. has been under attack from Republicans since the day it was signed. The best way to improve the A.C.A. is to stabilize premiums and bring down costs.

No.

Every American should have health care as a right via a federal program but have the option of purchasing health insurance.

A combination of revenues is the best path forward. Americans who are struggling financially should not have to pay co-payments that will restrict their ability to receive proper care whereas Americans with more resources would contribute. I also believe a government-only (single-payer) system would result in lower quality and more limited access.

My universal health care plan is fully paid for by eliminating the deductibility of employer-provided health care. https://www.johndelaney.com/issues/health-care/

No.

I support comprehensive immigration reform which provides a pathway to citizenship.

Yes.

Yes.

We should also tax big pharma when they charge other countries less than they charge Americans, thereby inflating the price of prescriptions drugs for Americans. https://www.johndelaney.com/issues/prescription-drugs/

Yes.

“Medicare for all.”

[The Gabbard campaign did not complete the full survey, but provided additional comments.]

I support Medicare-for-All. It is unacceptable that in our country we pay far more for health care than any other country in the world, yet we have far worse outcomes. No one in this country should be sick and in need of care and not able to get that care simply because they don’t have enough money.

We have to address the high cost of prescription drugs and hold pharmaceutical companies like Purdue accountable for deceptive sales practices. Right now, Medicare today still can’t negotiate with prescription drug companies to bring down the cost of health care. That has to change.

Like many other countries in the world that have universal health care, I believe there is a role for private insurance but we have to re-evaluate what that looks like — we need to create transparency in the system, break up what is essentially an oligarchy in the pharmaceutical and health care industries and ensure Americans aren’t being gouged for services they need to live.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Senator Gillibrand is a co-sponsor of the Senate Medicare for All bill and wrote the transition piece in the legislation. She supports the goals of that legislation and believes a single-payer system is the best way to achieve universal health care coverage, and to guarantee high quality and low-cost health care to all Americans.

Senator Gillibrand believes that a Medicare for All system will eventually displace the private insurance industry from providing health care. She believes that private insurers are welcome to compete with Medicare, but because Medicare is a nonprofit program, without shareholders or high C.E.O. pay, their prices will consistently be lower than private insurers, who will no longer have a role in health care.

Private insurers could still have a role in providing consumers additional elective medical services that they want to pay for individually, such as cosmetic plastic surgery.

Yes.

All Americans.

Senator Gillibrand’s overarching goal is to get Americans to universal coverage, and supports several pieces of legislation to that end. While she believes that Medicare for All is the ideal and best way to accomplish universal coverage, she also co-sponsors both Senator Stabenow’s Medicare at 50 Act, and Senator Schatz’s State Public Option Act.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Senator Gillibrand would of course support modifications to improve the cost and access to health care provided through the Affordable Care Act. But her main focus is achieving universal coverage and she believes the best way to do that is through a single-payer system like Medicare for All, with a critical public option as a transition.

“Medicare for all.”

Senator Gillibrand believes that a single-payer system like Medicare for All will get America to universal coverage quickest, while also providing the most affordable and highest quality health care. She believes that a nonprofit health care system that focuses solely on its patients’ health and well-being, and that does not have to worry about shareholder value or C.E.O. pay, will deliver the best care to the American people.

Yes.

Senator Gillibrand believes that extending health care coverage to all Americans is the most efficient way to ensure low prices. Moving to a single-payer system, where everyone is covered, will provide all Americans with health insurance they can afford.

Under Senator Gillibrand’s ideal system, health care would be financed through a combination of employer-matched co-payments and taxes.

Senator Gillibrand supports a financial transaction tax, repealing the corporate tax cuts, eliminating subsidies for excessive C.E.O. pay and for companies that ship jobs overseas, and restoring the estate tax.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

As is outlined in the Senate Medicare for All bill, Senator Gillibrand supports extending health care coverage to all U.S. residents as defined by H.H.S. Residents will receive coverage provided that they are paying into the health care system, and are on a pathway to citizenship.

Yes.

Yes.

Senator Gillibrand supports the importation of generic drugs and is a co-sponsor of the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act.

Yes.

Senator Gillibrand supports giving the federal government the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. Medicare for All would empower the government to negotiate all prescription drug prices. She also co-sponsors the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices in Medicare, and the Empowering Medicare Seniors to Negotiate Drug Prices Act, which would allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs.

Yes.

Medicare for All will guarantee access to health care, with no premiums or co-pays, for every single American. Private supplemental insurance for procedures not covered under the Medicare for All plan would still be allowed, but it is time to stop letting big insurance companies put profit over people’s health care.

Yes.

All Americans.

Medicare for All is my preferred plan. I am also supportive of other measures to expand insurance to more Americans, which is why I am a co-sponsor of the State Public Option Act, the Choose Medicare Act, and the Medicare-X Choice Act.

No.

Protecting the A.C.A. from repeal is one of the proudest moments I’ve had in the Senate, and I am for strengthening it and building on its success. That’s why I support Medicare for All, so that we can ensure every American has access to health care.

“Medicare for all.”

Medicare for All will extend health insurance to every single American, with no co-pays or premiums. It will cover most procedures, as well as dental, vision and hearing aids, and will allow you to choose your doctor, without worrying about who’s in-network or not. We have to change a system that allows big insurance companies to put profit over people’s health.

Yes.

Republicans’ decision to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate has destabilized our health care system, made costs go up for families, and increased the number of uninsured Americans.

I support the system set up under the Medicare for All bill I sponsor, where every American can have access to health care with no co-pays or premiums.

The U.S. spends more on health care than any country. In the next decade, we’ll spend $50 trillion on our current health care system. We simply can’t afford to do nothing. Budget estimates of Medicare for All show the system would save the system money.

Yes.

I support the process outlined in the Medicare for All bill, which ensures universal coverage.

Yes.

Too often, elderly Americans and people with disabilities are forced to leave their homes, live in poverty, or go without critical long-term care. It’s unacceptable. That’s why I’m proud to support Medicare for All, which would provide much-needed support for millions of Americans.

Yes.

I co-sponsor legislation to allow importation of prescription drugs from countries with safety standards as strong as the U.S., such as Canada. It will help lower costs for Americans who need access to medicine.

Yes.

I co-sponsor legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which would significantly reduce costs for our seniors.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

I believe that health care is a right for all Americans. As president, I am committed to achieving the goal of universal coverage. This week, I signed into law the nation’s first public health care option to create another pathway for delivering affordable coverage. I believe the public option should be a key first step toward delivering universal health care in our country. We must also lower the age of enrollment for Medicare, allow Americans to buy into or automatically enroll in Medicare, allow Medicare to import and negotiate the price of drugs, and end the Trump administration’s outrageous effort to strip millions of Americans of their health care. I am proud of my record as governor in expanding health care to 800,000 Washingtonians, passing the first public option in the country and passing the first long-term care insurance program in the country. As president I will build on this record of success to achieve universal health coverage for all Americans.

Yes.

All Americans.

Yes, and I believe the unprecedented accomplishments we have made in Washington State show that we are able to get this done. I believe that we must lower the age of enrollment for Medicare, including allowing all Americans to buy into Medicare or automatically enrolling in Medicare at birth. The Cascade Care public option plan that I have signed into law makes public health plans available to all Washingtonians, regardless of income, by 2021. It also requires establishing cost-sharing agreements that will reduce, by up to 10 percent, the cost of plans on the health care insurance exchange, which currently serves 266,000 Washingtonians.

No.

I am the only candidate in this race who has both voted for and implemented Obamacare, which now provides health insurance to over 800,000 Washingtonians. Because of Obamacare, we slashed our uninsured rate from 14 percent to 5.5 percent. I support efforts to shore up the Affordable Care Act, and when I am president, I will end the Trump administration’s persistent undermining of Obamacare that threatens the health care of millions of Americans. But we must also do more to build upon the progress we’ve made thanks to Obamacare with policies such as lowering the Medicare enrollment age, allowing Americans to buy into or automatically enroll in Medicare, and allowing Medicare to import and negotiate the price of drugs.

Public option.

Yes.

Health insurance should be financed through a combination of public subsidization for those who need assistance to obtain health insurance and premiums that are affordable. Our fundamental goal must be providing health insurance and health care to everyone in America.

[This response was left blank.]

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Our goal must be to ensure that everyone in America has health insurance and enjoys a right to health care. To help accomplish this, we must also quickly create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and I will do so as president.

Yes.

I signed into law the nation’s first publicly funded long-term care benefit, and I believe this is a model for national policy. Washington State’s Long-Term Care Trust Act leads the nation by providing support to care for an aging loved one, or for people of any age to receive long-term care for unexpected injuries or illnesses. It will provide dignity and peace of mind for people everywhere in our state, and it’s the right thing to do.

Yes, and I voted to do so repeatedly in Congress.

Yes, and I voted to do so in Congress.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

The Senator wants to see universal health care and there are many ways to get there. She believes the smartest transition right now would be to do a public option — which could be done by expanding Medicaid or Medicare — and that this will get us there more quickly.

Yes.

All Americans.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

The Senator supports a public option and she favors modifications to the Affordable Care Act, including extending premium assistance to more Americans.

Public option.

Yes.

Combination.

[This response was left blank.]

[This response was left blank.]

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

The Senator believes that all seniors should have access to high-quality long-term care.

Yes.

The Senator leads the bipartisan bill that allows for the importation of safe, less-expensive drugs from countries like Canada.

Yes.

The Senator leads the bill on lifting the ban on Medicare negotiating prices directly with drug companies on behalf of the 43 million seniors in the Part D program.

No.

Every American deserves excellent, affordable care. But as the only candidate in the race who receives single-payer health care today (through the V.A.), I’ve experienced such a system firsthand — and there are serious problems with it.

There are 150 million Americans who currently receive private health care, and they should be able to choose public health care if they want it — but they shouldn’t be forced onto a plan if they don’t. That’s why the right answer is a public option, exactly what President Obama had in the original plans for the Affordable Care Act, not Medicare-for-All.

Yes.

All Americans.

A public option would force public and private insurers to compete against each other for our business, which would give Americans the benefits they deserve: better coverage, cheaper prescriptions, lower costs, and health care that isn’t tied to a job.

Imagine having Congress and the next President force UPS and FedEx out of business, making everyone use the U.S. Postal Service whether they wanted to or not. Does anyone honestly believe that lack of competition would improve the U.S.P.S.? Just as we have choices for delivering packages, we should have choices for delivering health care. It’s a better, healthier, more efficient, and fundamentally more American system.

Yes.

I would be happy to sign premium assistance into law. It would extend benefits to the middle class, making health care more affordable for millions of Americans.

But we also need to go further; premium assistance is a great step forward, but it won’t drive costs down far enough, or for enough Americans. We need a public option to truly fix our system.

Public option.

I had private insurance growing up but now get my health care from the V.A. — one of the closest things we have to Medicare-for-All today — so I’ve seen the ups and downs of both systems firsthand. Neither one is good enough on its own.

The right answer is an aggressive public option, where all Americans can buy into a Medicare-like program if they want and keep their current insurance if they don’t. Competition between the private sector and a public option will drive improvements to both.

Yes.

For health care to be affordable, both healthy and sick folks need to be covered on our plans. Everyone does. That’s because if only sick or injured people received health care, the cost of health care would spiral out of control. And any of us can get sick or injured at any moment, so everyone needs coverage to drive down costs and keep everyone healthy. Having everyone enrolled in health care is also critical for preventative care, which saves lives and keeps down costs.

A combination of taxes, co-payments and premiums.

Our system is currently funded through a combination of taxes, co-payments, and premiums, all of which totaled 18 percent of G.D.P. in 2017. That’s twice as much as nearly every other wealthy country in the world. A well-designed system, including an aggressive public option, will address that problem and reduce the overall taxes needed to fund the system. For plans to compete, they will need to bring down the astronomically high bureaucratic costs in our current health care system.

Yes.

They would be allowed to buy into my public option. Under current law, hospitals in the U.S. cannot refuse to treat patients who need care. Therefore, our system already pays for health care for undocumented immigrants — usually through emergency rooms, which are the most expensive form of care.

By allowing everyone to buy into a public option, more folks will be covered, the risk pool will be younger and healthier, and fewer hospital bills will go unpaid. Everyone deserves good health care, and it makes the system stronger and more efficient overall.

No.

We should fund long-term care through government programs, as most other nations do. We should also invest more in home care and senior-adapted home technology to increase the quality and quantity of housing for seniors.

No.

Importing cheaper prescriptions from other countries is not the solution to our high drug costs. Prescriptions are cheaper in other nations because they negotiate drug prices. We should import their system, not their drugs. Importing their drugs has the potential to undermine safety, and more than that, it would risk exporting our drug prices to other nations — thus spreading the problem instead of solving it.

Yes.

Negotiating drug prices will make prescriptions more affordable for all Americans.

I made a commitment to continue receiving my health care through the V.A. even as a Member of Congress. Because the V.A. negotiates drug prices, any prescription I get is 40 percent less expensive than the same medications on private insurance. We should be doing that in all of our health systems to keep costs down for all Americans.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Beto supports universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care. He believes the surest, quickest way to get there is a proposal like the Medicare for America bill, which says that everyone who does not have insurance today is enrolled in Medicare and that everyone who has insurance they cannot afford, premiums they cannot pay, a deductible they cannot bridge, is free to choose Medicare while letting Americans have the choice of keeping the employer-sponsored and private insurance plans that work for their family’s needs.

Yes.

All Americans.

No.

The Affordable Care Act allowed millions of people to get insurance, see a doctor, afford their medications, receive lifesaving procedures that allow them to live up to their full potential. Beto believes that we need to build on that success by getting to a place where there is guaranteed, universal, high-quality health care. He believes the surest and quickest way of getting there is through a plan like Medicare for America.

Public option.

Beto supports universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care. He believes the surest, quickest way to get there is a proposal like the Medicare for America bill.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Beto supports a system like the one proposed under Medicare for America which would automatically enroll every uninsured individual and provide universal coverage. Those insured through their employer could choose to stay on that plan or enroll in the Medicare for America system.

Under the current system, the costs of health care are increasingly being shifted onto consumers. Beto is committed to reducing out of pocket costs. Beto supports a plan like Medicare for America which eliminates out of pocket costs for lower-income families, eliminates deductibles for all families, and limits out of pocket costs for middle income and upper income families to levels far below costs under the ACA or the current Medicare program. Such a plan would also set premiums based on a sliding scale as a percentage of income — with free care or subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans. Overall, we will reduce what America will pay on health care costs.

At a time when corporations and the wealthiest among us received a $2 trillion tax cut, we know we have the means to achieve universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care. By using existing allocations more wisely, controlling costs, and letting working families take the money they pay to private insurers and instead let them pay into a public option at a lower cost, we can ensure that every person can see a doctor, afford a prescription, and be well enough to live up to their full potential.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

This issue is one of many reasons Beto believes that comprehensive immigration reform must be a top priority. Because our laws rightly require hospitals to provide care to everyone, the cost of care for uninsured individuals is currently shifted onto other consumers. Therefore, it is in everyone’s interest to provide a pathway for obtaining insurance.

Yes.

Beto supports a plan like Medicare for America, which covers long-term care, including nursing homes as well as home and community-based services. By providing an option to every business and individual to buy into this system at an affordable cost, we ensure people can get the coverage they need.

Yes.

Beto has supported legislation that facilitates the import of safe, low-cost medicine from Canada and Europe where the same medications are available for cheaper.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All Americans.

Yes.

“Medicare for all.”

We need to think big when it comes to making health care more accessible and affordable, which is why I am a long time supporter of Medicare for All. But as we move towards that ultimate goal, we need to be realistic on how we get there. That is why I also support making modifications to the Affordable Care Act and adding public option that would allow Americans to buy into Medicare without eliminating private health insurance options until we as a country can implement Medicare for All in a way that will move our country forward.

Yes.

A combination of taxes, co-payments and premiums.

A surcharge on very wealthy people. But we also need to reform these broken system so we are not throwing money at things that aren’t working. We need more revenue, but we also need to maximize what we have through deep reforms to how our government works.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Bernie is running for president because the time is long overdue for the United States to join every other major country on Earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program. Health care is not a commodity. It is a human right. The goal of a sane health care system should be to keep people well, not to make stockholders rich. That is why we need Medicare for All. Bernie’s Medicare for All program would provide comprehensive health coverage to all with no premiums, deductibles, co-payments, or surprise bills.

No.

The question we face is whether we will guarantee health care as a human right. The only way to do that is to pass Bernie’s Medicare for All plan. The current system is completely dysfunctional, and in the current profit-driven health care system, we are at the mercy of the private insurance and pharmaceutical companies, whose greed dictates the cost of health care. The U.S. federal government has failed to rein in health care costs, which many of our peer nations have successfully done.

A public option or other buy-in plans fail to address the underlying problem in the U.S. health care system: corporate greed and profiteering off of the sick. The other proposals do not address skyrocketing prescription drug prices. They fail to simplify the current confusing and dysfunctional administrative system that makes up 17 percent of health care expenditures. Under Bernie’s Medicare for All plan, we slash administrative costs by relying on one payment and billing entity — the federal government — instead of hundreds.

Buy-in and other option plans still leave millions of Americans at the whim of their employers. 30% of employers change plans every year. On top of that, 66 million people separated from their job sometime last year, and by age 50, the average worker has held 12 different jobs. Medicare for All provides stability. After a four-year transition period, every man, woman, and child in the United States will have health care coverage from birth, with no changes or confusing “open enrollment,” no networks, and no surprise bills.

Medicare for All completely eliminates premiums, deductibles and co-payments for services. Under Medicare for All, health care is free at the point of service for all people in the U.S. regardless of income.

No.

Making only minor tweaks to the status quo is not enough. More than 30 million people do not have insurance. 41 million people are underinsured, meaning they have insurance but cannot afford to use it because the deductibles and other cost-sharing is too high. Keep in mind that 40 percent of Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency, yet deductibles routinely run into the thousands of dollars. Making small tweaks to the system may help a few of those tens of millions Americans, but small tweaks are not enough to solve the fundamental problems underlying our health care system.

[This response was left blank, but it was not applicable, since Mr. Sanders indicated support only for “Medicare for all.”]

Yes.

Bernie will guarantee health care as a human right, not a privilege or commodity. The United States must join the rest of the major countries in the world to guarantee health care to every person regardless of income. The only way to do that is to pass Bernie’s Medicare for All plan. Under Medicare for All, every American would be guaranteed care as a right and automatically enrolled in this new system.

Completely by taxes.

Let’s be clear, study after study shows that Medicare for All will save workers and average families thousands of dollars every year on health care, all while making sure corporations like Amazon and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share.

Health care costs are a crushing tax for middle class families right now. If you count health care premiums as taxes, the United States is the second-highest taxed nation in the world. We can guarantee health coverage to all Americans while bringing down costs, just like every other developed country.

For decades, the American people have been told a lie: that we cannot afford to do what every other major country already does, and guarantee health care to all our people as a right, not a privilege. What the insurance industry’s lies fail to mention is that we already spend more per capita on health care than any other major country, with worse health outcomes, and that moving to a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system would actually end up saving the American people trillions of dollars.

By cutting unnecessary administrative costs, bringing down the outrageous prices of prescription medication, and ensuring large corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, we can afford to bring the United States, the richest country in the world, in line with every single other industrialized nation and guarantee quality health care coverage to all Americans.

Yes.

Medicare for All means just that: all. Bernie’s plan would provide coverage to all U.S. residents, regardless of immigration status.

Yes.

Bernie believes that as a nation, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that all Americans have the supports and services they need. Under Medicare for All, health care will be guaranteed as a right and home and community based services and supports will be fully covered.

Yes.

We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It does not have to be that way. Bernie introduced the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act, which would allow the importation from Canada and other major countries.

Yes.

If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them. Bernie’s Medicare for All plan will allow drug prices to be negotiated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Medicare Part D. Bernie also introduced the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which will index the price of prescription drugs in the U.S. to the median price of the same drug in five other major countries.

No.

I support coverage for all, i.e., Medicare for all who want it. This would serve as a public option for any American, operating alongside and competing with private insurance plans, in order to drive prices down for everyone. If you’re sick you should be seen, and if you’re seen you shouldn’t go broke.

But we also should do what we do best as Americans: Find the unfindable, solve the unsolvable, and cure the incurable. We must invest in and commit to finding cures and more effective treatments in our lifetime, an initiative to publicly invest in genomics, targeted therapies, and data sharing. We’ll drive down the cost of care, increase our quality of life, and put a new generation of scientists to work while we’re at it.

Yes.

All Americans.

Americans should have a choice between coverage provided by private companies and that provided by the government. While I do not want to bring an end to private insurance, I support coverage for all, which would be a public option that would drive down the pressure on the private insurers and ultimately lead to more affordable plans for all Americans.

No.

It’s not the only solution, but we can and must protect, restore, and improve the protections that the Affordable Care Act gives all Americans regarding coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for maternity care, allowing people to remain on their parents’ plans through age 26, and so on.

Public option.

Public option, while restoring/protecting A.C.A. rules for private insurers.

Yes.

Requiring all Americans to have insurance, either public or private, means our health care system no longer has to bear the cost of treating uninsured patients.

A combination.

[This response was left blank.]

Yes.

It is in society’s interest to have everyone be as healthy as possible, and that’s achieved through access to affordable health care for everyone.

Yes.

We have the opportunity to expand a care economy in which we invest in retraining mid- and end-of-career workers, including those displaced by technology, to work in providing long-term care — jobs for those who need them, care for those who need it.

Yes.

I support importing drugs if they meet safety standards and the manufacturers can be held liable.

Yes.

I will do anything that is safe for patients — from negotiating prices to better enforcement of antitrust laws — to make prescription drugs more affordable, because prices are simply too high now for too many Americans. When my son, Nelson, got sick recently, we took him to the doctor and then I went to a chain-store pharmacy to have a prescription filled. The pharmacist told me I was lucky to have insurance because what cost me $5 would cost an uninsured person $250. Later, I talked with one of my district’s few remaining independent pharmacists; he said the prescription’s actual wholesale cost is about $80, so he would have charged an uninsured person about $100. This is a broken system.

There are a variety of additional steps the government could take, such as increasing access to generic drugs and improving access and opportunity for clinical trials, to help lower costs. Whatever is done should reduce prices, maintain incentives for innovation, and ensure drugs continue to be safe and effective.

And our public investment in finding cures, and making those available and affordable, would bring costs down too.

Yes.

I support Medicare-for-All so that everyone is covered, no one goes broke because of a medical bill, and we start treating health care like the basic human right that it is.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Every proposal on the table right now would layer coverage expansions that add up over time, but there’s no excuse for stopping at half-measures. The aim has to be very clear: make sure every single person in this country has guaranteed health care coverage.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

I have a bill to crack down on shady behavior by insurance companies and improve the quality and affordability of health insurance purchased on the A.C.A. exchanges or provided through employer coverage. We have to protect the A.C.A., but we can’t stop there.

“Medicare for all.”

Our aim should be to cover the most people at the lowest cost, and for me that means Medicare for All. Health care is a basic human right and no one should go broke to pay a medical bill.

Yes.

Massachusetts was a leader in health care reform, including by adopting a requirement that everyone have coverage. This requirement is one of several features that has made health care coverage in Massachusetts some of the very best in the nation.

Studies show that health care costs will decrease under Medicare for All. Families are going broke today from medical bills, and Medicare for All will ensure that co-pays, deductibles, emergency room visits, and prescription drugs don’t drown families with sky-high medical expenses.

Yes.

Health care is a basic human right.

[This yes-or-no response was left blank, but the campaign left additional comments.]

Medicare for All would guarantee long-term care coverage for everyone in this country. I also believe we must fight against Republican attacks on Medicaid, which is the backbone of our long-term care system for millions of Americans.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

I want to make Medicare available to everyone as an option, but not eliminate private insurance.

Yes.

All Americans.

Yes.

We should keep and strengthen the A.C.A.

Public option.

Medicare provides good quality care at affordable rates, and should be available to those who want it. But millions of people like their private insurance and should be able to keep it. So the best is including Medicare as an option on the health exchanges, a public choice along with the private choices.

Yes.

Through a combination of taxes, co-payments and premiums.

Repeal the 2017 tax breaks for big corporations and very wealthy, retain for middle class.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Often the same drug is less expensive in other countries. However we need strict monitoring to ensure good quality.

Yes.

Medicare could negotiate lower drug prices for consumers.

Yes.

We pay more than any other major industrialized country for our health care to worse results. When Americans get sick, they’re focused more on how to pay for their care than how to get well. Our current system is dysfunctional and we need to move towards a Medicare for All system that provides coverage for all Americans from birth. I wouldn’t eliminate private health insurance, but I don’t imagine it being an economically viable business outside of supplemental plans since it’s competing against a no-cost alternative.

Yes.

All Americans.

A public option for all would be a major step in the right direction and can serve as a good option for people during the transition from our current system to Medicare For All.

No.

Our health care system today is fundamentally broken and we need to make bigger moves to fix it — not just incremental modifications.

“Medicare for all.”

While all these policies would move us in a better direction than our current system, I believe the best path forward is Medicare for All. This system will ensure coverage for all Americans while allowing us to keep costs under control.

Yes.

By ensuring everyone has coverage, we can promote preventative care and keep costs under control, while also making administrative costs lower for both the federal government and individual providers. And, most importantly, we can make sure that all Americans are taken care of when they’re ill or injured.

A combination of taxes and co-payments, not premiums.

Employer-sponsored health care already represents a huge percent of our spending in this area, and that money can be used to largely fund Medicare for All through a payroll tax. The Medicare for All system will be cheaper because of lowered administrative and other costs, a lack of profit motive, and a focus on preventative care.

Yes.

I believe in a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants. Anyone who applied for that pathway would be eligible to buy into the Medicare for All system.

Yes.

Long-term care, especially end-of-life care, is an important part of anyone’s lifetime health care needs, and as such should be a part of a Medicare for All plan.

Yes.

Many Americans are paying as much as 8-10 times the prices as Canadians for the very same prescription drugs. While we should start by trying to control prices in the domestic market through mechanisms such as international reference pricing, forced licensing, and public manufacturing of generics, if these efforts don’t work, then we should allow for the importation of prescription drugs.

Yes.

It’s ridiculous that this isn’t allowed already.

 

 

NAELA Praises House Passage of Bill to Ensure Access to Home Care

July 1, 2019

courtesy of NAELA eBulletin:

The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) praises House passage of H.R. 3253, the Empowering Beneficiaries, Ensuring Access, and Strengthening Accountability Act of 2019, introduced by Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Fred Upton (R-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Greg Walden (R-OR), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Michael Burgess (R-TX), and Tim Walberg (R-MI).

The legislation extends, through March 2024, funds for the Medicaid Money Follows the Person Demonstration Project (MFP) and the guarantee that Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment protections will apply to home and community-based service (HCBS) waivers.

Medicaid provides the primary coverage for long-term services and supports (LTSS). Unfortunately, its strict means testing and bias toward restrictive institutional settings puts a severe strain on families. Providing spousal impoverishment protections in HCBS settings better ensures that families can stay together while reducing the risk that the spouse will end up poor due to his or her significant other’s disability.

Additionally, MFP allows individuals with disabilities of all ages to voluntarily transition from a nursing home back into the community. Since the program’s creation, more than 88,000 individuals have been able to move out of a nursing home to a less restrictive setting.

“Keeping families together at home in the face of a chronic illness sadly remains difficult in many cases. Unfortunately, too many individuals wind up in an institution against their wishes. That’s why we are extremely thankful for this bipartisan bill to extend Money Follows the Person, which covers transition services out of a nursing home, and the guarantee that Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment protections applies to home and community-based services,” said NAELA President Jennifer VanderVeen, CELA, CAP, NAELA Fellow.

About NAELA
Members of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) are attorneys who are experienced and trained in working with the legal problems of aging Americans and individuals of all ages with disabilities. Upon joining, NAELA member attorneys agree to adhere to the NAELA Aspirational Standards. Established in 1987, NAELA is a non-profit association that assists lawyers, bar organizations, and others. The mission of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys is to educate, inspire, serve, and provide community to attorneys with practices in elder and special needs law. NAELA currently has members across the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit NAELA.org, or to locate a NAELA member in your area, please visit NAELA.org/findlawyer.

Updated 2019 Spousal Impoverishment Standards

July 1, 2019

courtesy of NAELA eBulletin:

CMCS Informational Bulletin
DATE: May 30, 2019
FROM: Chris Traylor, Deputy Administrator and Director
Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services
SUBJECT: Updated 2019 Spousal Impoverishment Standards

This CMCS informational bulletin provides an update to the 2019 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Spousal Impoverishment Standards.

Click here for the complete CMCS Informational Bulletin

‘Medicare for All’? How About ‘Medicaid for More’?

June 3, 2019

On Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed the nation’s first “public option” health insurance bill. Other states aren’t far behind.

BY  MAY 13, 2019 AT 9:19 AM

SPEED READ:

  • Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed the nation’s first “public option” bill. 
  • Similar legislation is pending in 10 other states.
  • Some states may need the federal government’s permission.

Colorado and Washington state both passed legislation in April that could offer a new health insurance option to people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health coverage.

Most Medicaid recipients pay no premiums, but the idea of letting some people buy a form of Medicaid is gaining steam.

The public option was first introduced in Nevada in 2017 at a time when Congress seemed poised (yet ultimately failed) to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave millions of people without health coverage. The state legislature passed a bill that would have let anyone buy publicly run insurance. It was vetoed by then-Gov. Brian Sandoval, but similar proposals have since been introduced in states across the country. In addition to Colorado and Washington, legislation to study or start a public option or Medicaid buy-in program is currently pending in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Oregon.

No state, however, has pushed the proposal further than Colorado, where the bill has been sent to Gov. Jared Polis, or Washington, where Gov. Jay Inslee — a 2020 candidate for president — signed the bill on Monday. The expansion of public health insurance is a key talking point among Democrats running for president — several of whom have endorsed a “Medicare for All” bill in the U.S. Senate.

“It’s a landmark move, and [states] are a great testing ground to see how much the public option can reduce costs,” says Tara Straw, a senior policy analyst for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

According to a survey by the United States of Care, a significant majority of voters — Democrats and Republicans — support Medicaid buy-in. Advocates believe a public option could offer a lower-cost alternative to the health-care marketplace and spur enough competition to lower premiums overall.Critics, including the insurance industry, argue that introducing a public option would force private insurers off the marketplace, resulting in fewer options for care.

“Introducing the concept of a public cure for what is broken in Obamacare seems hypocritical,” Jim Smallwood, a Colorado state senator and insurance broker, told the Associated Press.

No two of the proposed Medicaid buy-in bills are the same.

Minnesota’s would allow people to sign up for Medicaid if they don’t qualify for tax subsidies on the exchange or live in a county with only one plan.

Washington’s will have the agency that runs Medicaid contract directly with at least one privatehealth insurer to offer a “qualified health coverage” plan that meets Affordable Care Act standards on the state’s marketplace. It will expand subsidies to people making up to 500 percent of the federal poverty line, or $62,450 a year, for a single person.

Colorado’s bill, on the other hand, is lighter on details. It directs the state’s departments of Health Care Policy and Regulatory Agencies to draft a public option that would compete with private insurance plans. It’s unclear whether this public option would be sold on or off the marketplace and whether it would offer subsidies. Some say the subsidies are key.

“If you don’t offer tax credits, I don’t think there’s a super good chance for them to be competitive,” says Emily Johnson, director of health policy analysis at the Colorado Health Institute.

Subsidies aren’t the only element of Medicaid buy-in that states would have to decide. There are many other questions surrounding eligibility, benefits and whether the federal government would greenlight their plans. If states want to offer federal tax subsidies, they may need the federal government’s permission to implement Medicaid buy-in. Washington, however, won’t need its approval since the state would contract with a private insurer. While the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, reiterates that she wants to give states more health-care flexibility, she has publicly lambasted “Medicare for all.”

Colorado’s proposal is due by November. Some observers commend the state’s “pass first,
figure out the details later” tactic.

“It’s a smart approach to complicated policy,” says Straw. “It’s understandable they want
time to figure out what’s going to work best.”

Both Colorado and Washington have a blue trifecta — Democratic governors and majorities in the House and Senate. It’s a level of power that Democrats have only had in Colorado since November.

“This is the year to do stuff like this,” says Johnson. “Also our bill is the study of the state option, not the actual design of the state option, making it a bit easier to pass.”

Legislative Victory for Aging-in-Place in Maryland

May 30, 2019

Credit: Executive Office of the Governor, “Bill Signing” by Patrick Siebert & Joe Andrucyk, May 13, 2019 used under CC BY 3.0 / cropped from original
Standing L to R: Morris Klein, Esq., Jason A. Frank, Esq., Federico Salas, J.D.
Sitting L-R: Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., Governor Lawrence J. Hogan, Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones

By Federico Salas, J.D.

On May 13, 2019, Governor Larry Hogan signed into law Senate Bill 699, helping hundreds of Marylanders who receive services at home through Community First Choice (CFC) to avoid losing access to those services once they get Medicare. Beginning July 1, 2019, affected Marylanders will be allowed to apply to the Medicaid Home & Community Based Options Waiver without having to go on its eight-year waiting list or having to go through unnecessary and extremely costly nursing home admission.

Background

Under federal law, Medicaid Expansion coverage ends at age 65, or when the individual gets Medicare (i.e., either enrolls due to disability or turns age 65). In Maryland, if the individual qualified for CFC services through their Medicaid Expansion coverage, this also means that they will lose their CFC services when they get Medicare.

For most, or about 75% of those affected with too much income or assets, the only viable option to resume receiving CFC services is to access the Medicaid Home & Community Based Options Waiver. However, the Waiver currently has a 22,000-person, eight-year waiting list. In addition, prior to Senate Bill 699, the only way to bypass the waiting list was to transition back into the community after a qualifying 30 day nursing home stay while on Medicaid. Thus, for many Marylanders who lost their CFC services after getting Medicare, accessing the Waiver typically meant that they had to first go through unnecessary and extremely costly nursing home admission.

How Do I Know If I Am Affected?

Generally, those that may be affected are Marylanders who both: (1) have or had Medicaid Expansion coverage; and (2) receive or received Community First Choice services at home. In addition, those at risk of losing access to services tend to have monthly incomes of $771 – $1,396 (in 2019)*, or, assets greater than $2,000 (not including the home and one car).

To find out if you or a loved one can benefit from Senate Bill 699, contact your local Maryland Access Point office or the lawyers at Frank, Frank & Scherr, LLC.

*These figures are subject to change annually. Refer to the current income limits for SSI and Medicaid Expansion, respectively.