by Jose D. Roman | Feb 24, 2025 | Medicaid
Navigating the healthcare system can be challenging, especially for “Dual Eligible” individuals who are already on Medicare. Low income Medicare recipients in New Jersey may also qualify for Aged Blind Disabled (ABD) Medicaid which provides crucial support to help cover medical expenses and services that are not covered by Medicare. This blog will walk you through the basics of qualifying for ABD Medicaid in New Jersey, including eligibility criteria, and the application process.
What is Aged Blind Disabled Medicaid?
ABD Medicaid is a federally funded program designed to supplement the coverage provided by original Medicare Part A (hospital) and B (medical). The program pays Medicare premiums, covers Medicare co-pays and deductibles, and offers services not covered by original Medicare Part A and B such as dental coverage. The ABD program is available to individuals who are (a) aged (65 or older), blind, or determined disabled, (b) have limited income, and (c) limited resources.
Eligibility Criteria
To qualify for ABD Medicaid in New Jersey, applicants must meet specific financial and non-financial requirements.
- Aged, Blind, or Disabled: The program is open to individuals who are “Aged” - 65 years or older, Blind according to Social Security standards, or meet Social Security’s definition of Disabled, which generally requires a physical or mental condition that substantially limits one’s ability to work and is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death.
- Low Income: Income limits for ABD Medicaid are based on the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and vary depending on household size. As of 2025, the income limit is 100% of the FPL, which is $1,304 for an individual and $1,763 for a married couple.
- Limited Resources: Applicants must have limited resources to qualify. For individuals, the resource limit is $4,000, and for couples, it is $6,000. Some assets, such as a primary residence, one vehicle, and personal belongings, are excluded from these limits.
- Citizenship and Residency: Applicants must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens and reside in New Jersey.
Dual Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid
Dual eligibility means that an individual receives benefits from both Medicare and Medicaid, which can significantly reduce out-of-pocket healthcare costs. Individuals 65 and over are required to enroll in Medicare, and low income individuals are often surprised when this happens because their primary insurance transitions from Medicaid to Medicare. Many even lose Medicaid access altogether because ABD Medicaid income and asset eligibility is much harder to meet than the ordinary New Jersey Family Care Medicaid that is available to people 64 and under. Nonetheless, Medicare recipients who meet the eligibility criteria outlined above can have access to both Medicare as their primary insurance and ABD Medicaid. Even those who don’t qualify for ABD Medicaid may still have access to a Medicare Savings Program, which can help cover Medicare premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.
How to Apply
Applying for ABD Medicaid in New Jersey involves several steps. Here’s a quick guide to help you through the process:
- Gather Necessary Documents - Before applying, collect all required documentation to support your application. This will include, Social Security disability determination letter, proof of income (pay stubs, Social Security award letters, etc.), asset statements (bank accounts, property deeds, etc.), proof of U.S. citizenship or qualified non-citizen status, proof of New Jersey residency (lease agreements, utility bills, etc.).
- Submit Your Application - You can apply for ABD Medicaid online, by mail, or in person at your county’s Board of Social Services.
- Respond to Requests for Additional Information - After submitting your application, you may be contacted for additional information or documentation. Be sure to respond promptly to avoid denial of the application or delays in processing.
What Happens After Approval?
Once approved, you’ll receive a state Medicaid ID card, as well as a card from the insurance company administering your benefits, also called a Managed Care Organization or MCO. You choose your MCO when filling out the application. New Jersey currently has 5 MCOs, including, Aetna Better Health of New Jersey, Fidelis Care, Horizon NJ Health, UnitedHealthcare Community Plan, and Wellpoint (formerly Amerigroup New Jersey).
You should keep your address updated with your MCO and the state because you must renew your Medicaid eligibility annually to ensure continued coverage. The state will send you a renewal notice with instructions.
What If You Don’t Qualify?
If your application is denied, you have the right to appeal the decision. You can request a Fair Hearing. You may also reapply, which is recommended if you did not provide necessary documentation in a timely manner or were ineligible at the time of the application, but now are eligible. Additionally, other programs, such as the Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) or the Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled (PAAD) programs, may help provide assistance with Medicare premium and drug costs.
Tips for a Successful Application
- Get Organized: Collect the documets you will need for the application before submitting the application.
- Stay Organized: Keep copies of everything you submit and all letters you receive in response. It is also a good practice to use cover letters listing the documents you are sending as well as responses to questions. Also make sure you date your letters to show when responses were sent.
- Seek Assistance: If you’re unsure about the process, contact your county’s Board of Social Services or a local advocacy group for help.
- Be Honest and Thorough: Provide accurate information to avoid delays or complications.
Conclusion
ABD Medicaid is a lifeline for many aged, blind, and disabled individuals in New Jersey. While the application process may seem daunting, understanding the eligibility criteria and following the steps outlined above can make it more manageable. For those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, dual eligibility provides additional financial relief and expanded coverage, ensuring access to comprehensive healthcare services. If you have questions or need further assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to your county’s Board of Social Services or explore online resources provided by the New Jersey Department of Human Services.
by Jose D. Roman | Feb 20, 2025 | Legal Bulletin, Medicaid
Public health advocates applauded the Court’s decision in D.C. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services, 464 N.J. Super. 343 (App. Div. 2020), because it resolved a longstanding logistical issue that caused severe hardship for people transitioning from one Medicaid program to another. Specifically, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that state Medicaid agencies must screen beneficiaries for eligibility in alternative programs before terminating their existing benefits, ensuring a seamless transition and continuous benefits. Despite the Court’s clear mandate, over four years later, New Jersey has repeatedly failed to implement an effective “screen before terminate” system, leaving many vulnerable individuals exposed to gaps in coverage and financial hardship. Let’s revisit the case.
Factual Background
A married couple receiving Social Security Disability benefits were enrolled in New Jersey’s Aged, Blind, and Disabled (ABD) Medicaid Program. The program provides Medicaid health coverage for people with limited income who are blind, have been determined disabled by the Social Security Administration, or are 65 and over. However, following a change in circumstances the couple’s income exceeded the limit ABD eligibility. As a result, the Essex County Board of Social Services sent them a letter indicating that their ABD coverage would terminate effective August 31, 2017. Although they no longer qualified for ABD Medicaid, the couple still qualified for the Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries (SLMB) Program, which covers Medicare Part B premiums for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The couple applied for the SLMB Program on August 30, 2017. Although they clearly qualified, the Essex County explained that their application could not be processed until their ABD benefits were officially terminated, which caused a gap in benefits. They filed for a Fair Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge who concluded that since benefits could be applied retroactively for 90 days, the state could terminate benefits without first assessing eligibility for other programs. The ALJ’s decision was adopted by the Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services (DMAHS) and the matter was then appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Appellate Division Decision
The couple argued that federal regulations, including provisions found at 42 CFR 435.916(f)(1), mandate that state agencies screen beneficiaries for eligibility in other Medicaid programs before terminating existing benefits. They contended that the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS) failed to perform this pre-termination screening for the SLMB Program, thereby causing a gap in benefits. DMAHS argued that the SLMB Program was “a Medicare savings program that allows states to pay Medicare Part B premiums,” rather than a Medicaid program, and since beneficiaries cannot be eligible for Medicaid and SLMB in the same month, they had to wait until coverage was terminated before applying. They argued that the requirement to screen for other programs prior to termination did not apply because SLMB was not a Medicaid program.
Importantly, the ALJ and DMAHS relied heavily on the 90 day retroactivity of New Jersey Medicaid to justify forcing people to have a disruptive gap in benefits, rather than implement a more efficient system. Under these rules, SLMB benefits could be applied retroactively for up to three months. The agency’s rationale was that even if there was a gap in immediate coverage, the retroactive provisions would compensate for the period during which the petitioners were without benefits. However, the couple argued that this reasoning did not absolve the agency of its responsibility to ensure a seamless transition in coverage. They also noted that the gap created a hardship because they had current obligations such as rent, food, and utilities.
The court found that SLMB was clearly a Medicaid program and that DMAHS erred by not screening the couple for eligibility in the SLMB Program before terminating their ABD benefits. The court held that relying on retroactive benefits subverted the purpose of pre-termination screening and did not justify a policy that permitted gaps in essential healthcare coverage. The court held that this was a circumstance where DMAHS acted in a way that was clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission and legislative policy. The court concluded that DMAHS’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and erroneous, and therefore subject to being overturned. The decision was clear: DMAHS was required to proactively assess eligibility for other programs to prevent the disruption of benefits.
Current Challenges - County-Level Variability
In New Jersey, a significant portion of Medicaid eligibility decisions are handled by county-level agencies. As a result, compliance with the pre-termination screening requirement varies considerably from one county to another. Limited resources, inexperienced staff, and clerical errors lead to inconsistent application of the screening mandate. Instead of proactively transferring eligible beneficiaries between various Medicaid programs—such as SSI Medicaid, NJ Family Care/MAGI Medicaid, ABD Medicaid, MLTSS Medicaid, Workability Medicaid, and SLMB—the county offices often merely provide a referral or a new application and leave beneficiaries to navigate the system on their own.
Despite the clear mandate from the court, DMAHS has yet to develop and implement a robust, statewide system for conducting the required pre-termination eligibility screening and facilitating seamless transitions between programs. In practice, many beneficiaries continue to experience gaps in coverage because DMAHS appears to lack an integrated, automated system that cross-references a beneficiary’s eligibility for other Medicaid programs prior to terminating existing benefits. This means that the court’s requirement is not uniformly applied, leaving beneficiaries vulnerable to disruptions in care.
These challenges underscore the need for DMAHS and county agencies to collaborate on developing a comprehensive, statewide protocol. Or perhaps eliminate the county system altogether. Such a system should not only automate the screening process but also establish clear guidelines and accountability measures to ensure that beneficiaries do not experience unnecessary interruptions in their Medicaid benefits.
Final Thoughts
The ruling in D.C. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services emphasizes the critical need for proactive administrative practices in the management of Medicaid benefits. By failing to pre-screen for eligibility in alternative programs, DMAHS not only violated federal regulatory requirements but also jeopardized the well-being of vulnerable low income people. Moreover, the lack of a cohesive, state-wide system to implement this requirement further compounds the problem, resulting in inconsistent and often inadequate protections for those most in need. This case just one example highlighting the need to reexamine and overhaul Medicaid administrative processes.
by Jose D. Roman | Feb 8, 2025 | Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Trusts
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program that provides basic income support to individuals who are over the age of 65, are blind, or have been determined disabled by the Social Security Administration (SSA). In New Jersey, SSI recipients are automatically enrolled in Medicaid, which ensures access to essential medical services. This seamless integration creates a vital safety net for vulnerable populations who need extra financial and healthcare support.
In this post, we’ll break down what SSI Medicaid is in New Jersey and explain the eligibility rules—including income and asset requirements.
What is SSI Medicaid in New Jersey?
SSI Medicaid provides healthcare coverage to those who qualify for federal SSI benefits. Because New Jersey is designated as a “1634 state,” SSI recipients are automatically enrolled in Medicaid without needing to complete a separate application. This automatic enrollment guarantees that vulnerable residents have access to comprehensive healthcare services as soon as they become eligible for SSI.
Eligibility Criteria
To qualify for SSI Medicaid in New Jersey, applicants must meet the following federal SSI requirements:
1. Categorical Requirements
- Age: 65 or older,
- Vision: Blind,
- Disability: Have a qualifying disability as defined by the Social Security Administration.
2. Financial Requirements
- Income: Must fall within prescribed monthly thresholds.
- Assets: Must remain below specific limits.
3. Residency and Citizenship
- Residency: Must be a resident of New Jersey.
- Citizenship: Must be a U.S. citizen or have lawful non-citizen status.
Income and Asset Requirements
SSI Medicaid eligibility is closely tied to both income and asset levels, ensuring that benefits are directed toward those with truly limited financial resources.
In New Jersey, for 2025, income must not exceed $967 per month for an individual, and $1,450 per month for a married couple. Countable income includes not only traditional wages but also other sources of income such as pensions, Social Security benefits, or even certain types of assistance. It’s important to note that while many forms of income count toward these limits, there are also specific exclusions built into the system. For example, a modest portion of earned income is partially disregarded to encourage self-sufficiency. This means that not every dollar earned by a beneficiary will be counted on a one-to-one basis toward the income limit.
In tandem with income restrictions, asset limits are a critical factor in SSI Medicaid eligibility. For an individual, countable assets must remain below $2,000, and for couples, the threshold is set at $3,000. Here, “countable assets” refer to cash, bank accounts, stocks, and other financial resources that could be converted to cash. However, the program recognizes that certain assets are essential for an individual’s day-to-day life and therefore exempts them from consideration. For instance, the primary residence is excluded from the asset calculation up to an equity value of $1,033,000, ensuring that having a home does not disqualify someone from receiving assistance. Similarly, one vehicle is exempt—so owning a car, which is often necessary for transportation to medical appointments or work, does not negatively impact eligibility. Personal property, including household goods and certain burial funds (up to $1,500), are also not counted.
Strategies to Maintain Eligibility
Maintaining eligibility for SSI Medicaid requires ongoing attention to financial details and proactive planning. Beneficiaries can use a variety of strategies to protect their benefits while working toward greater financial independence. Below are some key strategies:
1. Timely Reporting of Changes
One of the most critical aspects of maintaining eligibility is promptly reporting any changes in your circumstances to both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and New Jersey Medicaid. This includes changes in income, marital status, residency, or asset levels. Keeping these agencies updated helps avoid overpayments, penalties, or even termination of benefits.
2. Avoiding Improper Asset Transfers
It can be tempting to make gifts or transfer assets to a family member, but doing so without proper planning can lead to penalties or periods of ineligibility. Transferring assets at below-market values or without appropriate legal guidance can count against you. Before making any such transfers, it’s wise to consult with a legal expert or benefits counselor.
3. Creating a Special Needs Trust (SNT)
A Special Needs Trust is a powerful tool for individuals who wish to preserve their eligibility for SSI Medicaid while setting aside funds for future needs. By placing assets into an SNT, beneficiaries can ensure that these resources are used for supplemental purposes (such as education, therapy, or unforeseen medical expenses) without counting toward the asset limits. This trust is carefully structured so that while the funds are available to enhance quality of life, they do not disqualify an individual from receiving benefits.
4. Monitoring Income and Savings
Regularly reviewing your income sources and savings is crucial. Even small changes in earnings—whether from part-time work, inheritances, or other windfalls—can push you over the eligibility thresholds. Establishing a budgeting strategy and working with a financial advisor familiar with SSI rules can help you plan effectively and avoid unintentional disqualifications.
5. Utilizing Work Incentives Wisely
For those able to work, taking advantage of the work incentives offered under SSI is a great way to boost income while safeguarding benefits. However, it is important to plan carefully. Make sure to keep track of how much you earn each month and consult with a benefits counselor to understand how your work might affect your eligibility. Programs like the trial work period can provide a buffer as you transition into employment, but adherence to reporting guidelines remains essential.
6. Professional Guidance
Given the complexity of the rules surrounding SSI Medicaid, partnering with professionals—a Medicaid planning attorney, benefits counselor, or financial advisor—can be invaluable. These experts can help you navigate the nuances of income limits, asset management, and work incentives while ensuring you remain in compliance with all reporting requirements.
By incorporating these strategies into your financial planning, you can help secure your SSI Medicaid benefits and maintain a safety net for essential healthcare coverage.
Key Considerations
- SSI vs. SSDI:
Remember that SSI is a needs-based program, while Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is based on work history. Medicaid rules differ between the two programs.
- NJ FamilyCare:
SSI Medicaid is part of New Jersey’s broader Medicaid initiative, NJ FamilyCare, which aims to provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to all eligible residents.
Conclusion
SSI Medicaid in New Jersey offers a lifeline for those who need extra financial and healthcare support. By understanding the intricacies of income and asset rules and staying informed about work incentives and reporting requirements (a topic for another day), beneficiaries can maintain uninterrupted coverage while exploring opportunities to improve their financial independence. If you’re facing complex situations—whether it involves asset management or navigating the work rules—it’s wise to consult with a Medicaid planning attorney or a benefits counselor.
Navigating SSI Medicaid can be challenging, but with the right information and careful planning, you can secure the benefits you need to ensure your well-being and move toward greater self-sufficiency.
by Jose D. Roman | Feb 4, 2025 | Legal Bulletin, Medicaid
In an interesting case from last year, J.R. v. Horizon NJ Health, A-2028-21 (February 5, 2024), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey, supported by advocacy groups like Disability Rights New Jersey and the National Health Law Program, took on a widespread issue affecting Medicaid recipients. The case centered on J.R., a child with medically complex needs whose Private Duty Nursing (PDN) hours were significantly reduced by Horizon NJ Health, her Medicaid provider. Despite some clever legal arguments, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of the Horizon’s decision to scale back J.R.’s care hours.
Background
Born prematurely in February 2019, J.R. faces serious medical conditions, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, hypertension, and laryngomalacia. Initially, Horizon provided her with round-the-clock PDN care to meet her intensive medical needs. However, in 2020, Horizon reassessed her condition using a form called the PDN Acuity Tool—developed by Milliman Care Guidelines—and decided to cut her nursing hours from 24 per day down to just 8. This drastic reduction, which unfortunately is a common practice, was challenged. Specifically, at issue was the fairness and reliability of the process when using an automated assessment method such as the PDN Acuity Tool.
Legal Arguments: A Fight for Fairness
The ACLU of New Jersey, advocating for J.R., presented novel arguments against Horizon NJ Health’s decision, emphasizing the following concerns:
- Inadequate Notice: J.R.’s legal team argued that Horizon NJ Health failed to provide a clear, detailed explanation for reducing her PDN hours, leaving insufficient regulatory grounding for the decision.
- Questionable Standards and the PDN Acuity Tool: Critics contend that the reliance on the PDN Acuity Tool constitutes an overly opaque method for determining medical necessity. While automated tools can standardize assessments, such systems risk oversimplifying the complexities inherent with severe disabilities. The proprietary nature of the tool—and the lack of transparency regarding its underlying algorithms—can conceal potential biases and errors that adversely affect vulnerable populations.
- Ignoring Medical Expertise: Despite J.R.’s treating physician’s strong recommendation for 24/7 care, the decision-making process largely depended on the tool’s point score, which may not fully incorporate individualized clinical judgments.
The PDN Acuity Tool and Automated Decision-Making
This case is an important attempt at taking a critical look at the implications of using automated decision-making systems in the delivery of healthcare:
- Balancing Standardization and Individual Needs: The PDN Acuity Tool was designed to convert complex clinical data into a quantifiable score. However, this case highlights the fact that while such tools promote consistency, they may fall short when addressing the multifaceted nature of a patient care. In J.R.’s case, the tool’s reduction from 24 to 8 hours was based on a standardized scoring system that her attorneys argued failed to fully capture the child’s nuanced clinical needs, and was contrary to the recommendation of her physician.
- Transparency and Accountability Concerns: Critics argue that using algorithmic forms such as the PDN Acuity Tool lack transparency because there is no clear disclosure of how individual variables are weighted. The forms simply have pre-determined point values without disclosing how the point value was determined. As a result, consumers are left with little means to challenge potentially arbitrary reductions in care. This analysis underscores the necessity for state agencies to ensure that automated assessments are accompanied by detailed, accessible explanations that uphold due process rights. It also highlights a roadmap for future legal challenges.
- Impact on Individuals with Unique Needs: While automated decision-making systems may be efficient, they may inadvertently disadvantage those with complex or atypical care needs. The legal discourse around J.R.’s case illustrates how reliance on proprietary tools can obscure critical nuances and lead to decisions that appear “reasonable” on paper but are ethically problematic when applied to individual patients.
The Court’s Decision: A Disappointing Outcome
The Appellate Division ultimately upheld the decision to reduce J.R.’s care hours, concluding that Horizon NJ Health had acted within Medicaid regulations. The ruling was based on several key points:
- Sufficient Notice: The court found that, despite lacking explicit regulatory citations, the notice provided adequate information about the reasons for the reduction.
- Legitimacy of the PDN Acuity Tool: No evidence was presented showing improper use of the tool. The court accepted its results as a “reasonable and objective” method to determine medical necessity, even as critics warned that such assessments might not fully address individual clinical complexities.
- Consideration of Medical Evidence: The review included extensive clinical records and expert testimony, which the court deemed sufficient to support the decision.
What This Means for Medicaid Recipients
J.R.’s case brings to light the ongoing tension between cost containment measures and the rights of Medicaid beneficiaries to receive personalized, medically appropriate care. While automated tools like the PDN Acuity Tool offer efficiency, they also underscore the need for transparency, individualized assessment, and robust safeguards against the potential biases inherent in algorithm-driven decisions.
Looking Ahead
Although the ruling was not favorable, it highlights an important conversation regarding the use of automated decision-making systems. The Appellate Division seemed to indicate that it was looking for more evidence from J.R.’s side that could be a roadmap for future litigation. Specifically, the court noted that at the hearing stage “J.R. had the right to discovery, to subpoena witnesses, and to call her own witnesses, including experts.” Perhaps depositions of Horizon representatives and experts, as well as testimony from experts who are critical of the PDN tool could change the outcome in a future case. In the meantime, advocacy organizations will continue to call for clearer guidelines, enhanced transparency, and more comprehensive evaluations that integrate both standardized assessments and individualized clinical judgments. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role legal advocacy plays in ensuring that technological advancements in healthcare do not come at the expense of patient rights and quality care.
by Jose D. Roman | Jan 28, 2025 | Irrevocable Family Trusts, Legal Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Trusts
In a recent Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division decision, W.F. v. Morris County Department of Family Services, the court reversed the imposition of a Medicaid transfer penalty for funds placed in trust to meet future child support obligations.
Background of the Case
The case involved W.F., an incapacitated individual living in a Care One nursing home due to a long-term alcoholism-related disease. Years before his incapacitation, W.F. entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) during his divorce, agreeing to pay $23,400 annually in child support and cover half of his children’s future college expenses.
As W.F.'s financial situation deteriorated, his assets became insufficient to cover both his nursing home debts and child support obligations. To ensure his children received the necessary support, an irrevocable Family Trust was established with the approval of the court. This led to a dispute with the Morris County Department of Family Services regarding the classification of these trust funds in the context of Medicaid eligibility. When considering his eligibility for long-term Medicaid (MLTSS), the County argued that the transfer of funds to the trust was improper and imposed a 190 day transfer penalty.
Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis
The County considered the funds in the Family Trust to be W.F.’s available assets or money he could have used to pay for his care. The County further found the transfer to the Trust for his children to be an improper gift for the purpose of qualifying him for Medicaid. As a result the improper transfer/give resulted in a period of ineligibility for Medicaid benefits, that is, a transfer penalty. However, W.F.’s guardian challenged the imposition of a penalty, arguing that the child support payments were legitimate, court-ordered debts and should not be treated as voluntary transfers.
The Appellate Division examined several key points:
- Definition of Available Resources: Under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(b), resources include any property that can be converted to cash for support and maintenance. Only resources that are “available,” meaning the individual has the right or power to liquidate them, are counted towards Medicaid eligibility. N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(c).
- Transfer Penalty Rules: N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) imposes a penalty if assets are transferred below fair market value during a look-back period (the 60-month period before the Medicaid application is filed). The presumption is that such transfers are made to qualify for Medicaid, unless proven otherwise by the applicant.
- Court-Ordered Transfers: The regulations specify that transfers ordered by a court, not acting at the individual’s behest, may indicate that the transfer was for purposes other than establishing Medicaid eligibility. N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(k).
Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division reversed the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services’ (DMAHS) decision, which upheld the County’s imposition of the transfer penalty. The court found several faults in the DMAHS's approach:
- Misinterpretation of Gifts: The court held that the transfer of assets to the Family Trust was not a gift by W.F. but a court-ordered reallocation to fulfill pre-existing child support obligations. This distinction is crucial because gifts imply voluntary transfer of assets, whereas court-ordered payments are mandatory and binding.
- Lack of Control Over Assets: W.F. had no control over the funds once they were placed in the irrevocable trust. The trial court, recognizing the children’s entitlement to support, ordered the division of W.F.’s assets accordingly.
- Erroneous Legal Standards: The Appellate Division found that DMAHS misapplied the legal standards of eligibility, and that its actions were unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. The court emphasized that the allocation of assets to meet pre-existing child support obligations, as mandated by a divorce judgment, was clearly not a gift under the circumstances of this case.
Final Thoughts
By reversing the transfer penalty, the court has once again shown that it favors upholding court-ordered support obligations versus strict interpretation of Medicaid regulations. This case will provide further guidance to Medicaid planning professional dealing with the issue of allocating competing debts and support obligations. It reinforces the principle that mandated child support payments are not gifts but essential support mechanisms protected by law.
by Jose D. Roman | Jan 27, 2025 | Legal Bulletin, Medicaid, Medicaid Planning, Medicaid Updates
The New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services issued Medicaid Communication No. 25-01 on December 24, 2024. The document includes updates to certain eligibility and post-eligibility calculations, and reflects a 2.5% federal cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for SSI eligibility standards.
Notable changes effective January 1, 2025, include:
- Assisted Living Residence (ALR) and Comprehensive Personal Care Home (CPCH): Monthly room and board rates set at $973.40, with a maintenance needs allowance of $143.65.
- Adult Family Care (AFC): Monthly room and board rates set at $854.60, with a maintenance needs allowance of $143.65.
- Community Spouse Resource Allowance: Minimum increased to $31,584; maximum raised to $157,920.
- MLTSS Income Cap/Living at Home Monthly Standard: Increased to $2,901.
- In-kind Support Income Amounts: Updated to $342.33 for individuals and $503.33 for couples.
For full details on eligibility calculations, refer to the updated administrative manual sections (N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.8, 5.4-6, and 5.9). Practitioners should be mindful of these changes and update staff to ensure clients receive the most up to date advice. Read the full document here.