Last Updated: 7/7/2011 4:01:49 PM
Connecticut reportedly will soon issue a policy directive implementing a "full return" rule regarding transferred assets. Elder law attorneys in the state, spearheaded by Whitney M. Lewendon of the New Haven firm Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger LLC, had been trying to persuade lawmakers and Governor Dannel Malloy that the move would be bad public policy that will actually result in fewer private funds being used to pay for long-term care services. ( Click here for ElderLawAnswers' earlier article on these efforts.)
But elder law attorneys in the state report that their labors in the past legislative session have been for naught. "Right now our state budget and potential state employee layoffs are the only issues any policy maker wants to consider," Lewendon said. But he said attorneys intend to continue to press for a change.
It has been the former practice in Connecticut, as in most states, that if a penalty period is imposed due to an asset transfer, the state will shorten the length of the penalty period by the amount of returned funds, even if only a portion of the funds are returned. Under the forthcoming policy, there will be no reduction at all in the length of the penalty for partial returns -- the penalty will be reduced only if there is a full return of the transferred assets.
The Connecticut attorneys are wondering what have been the experiences in other states that have a full-return rule. Their argument in opposing the rule is that people who received gifts that have caused the donor to be denied Medicaid are unlikely to make a partial return if it has no effect on the penalty. They wonder whether their colleagues in other states have any experience that could be used to support this theory.
Lewendon added that he and his colleagues are challenging another state practice related to the full-return rule, one that rests on a theory that Connecticut couldn't persuade the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to approve but that the state employs nonetheless. This is the theory that returned gifts can be counted as having been available to a Medicaid applicant from the date of gift to the date of return. Connecticut uses this theory to justify a delay in the start date of the penalty for the gift.
To contact Lewendon, e-mail: mailto:%20wlewendon@coanlewendon.com
But elder law attorneys in the state report that their labors in the past legislative session have been for naught. "Right now our state budget and potential state employee layoffs are the only issues any policy maker wants to consider," Lewendon said. But he said attorneys intend to continue to press for a change.
It has been the former practice in Connecticut, as in most states, that if a penalty period is imposed due to an asset transfer, the state will shorten the length of the penalty period by the amount of returned funds, even if only a portion of the funds are returned. Under the forthcoming policy, there will be no reduction at all in the length of the penalty for partial returns -- the penalty will be reduced only if there is a full return of the transferred assets.
The Connecticut attorneys are wondering what have been the experiences in other states that have a full-return rule. Their argument in opposing the rule is that people who received gifts that have caused the donor to be denied Medicaid are unlikely to make a partial return if it has no effect on the penalty. They wonder whether their colleagues in other states have any experience that could be used to support this theory.
Lewendon added that he and his colleagues are challenging another state practice related to the full-return rule, one that rests on a theory that Connecticut couldn't persuade the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to approve but that the state employs nonetheless. This is the theory that returned gifts can be counted as having been available to a Medicaid applicant from the date of gift to the date of return. Connecticut uses this theory to justify a delay in the start date of the penalty for the gift.
To contact Lewendon, e-mail: mailto:%20wlewendon@coanlewendon.com
No comments:
Post a Comment