BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair BILL NO: SB 33 --------------------------------------------------------------- |AUTHOR: |Hernandez | |---------------+-----------------------------------------------| |VERSION: |March 17, 2015 | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |HEARING DATE: |March 25, 2015 | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |CONSULTANT: |Scott Bain | --------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT : Medi-Cal: estate recovery SUMMARY : Limits Medi-Cal estate recovery to only those services required to be recovered under federal Medicaid law. Eliminates estate recovery against the estate of a surviving spouse of a deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary. Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to waive its estate recovery claim when the estate is a homestead of modest value in determining the existence of a substantial hardship. Narrows the definition of "estate" to mean all real and personal property and other assets that are required to be subject to a claim for recovery under federal law. Requires DHCS to provide a current or former beneficiary with the total amount of Medi-Cal expenses that have been paid on behalf of that beneficiary that would be subject to estate recovery free of charge. Existing law: 1.Requires DHCS to claim against the estate of a deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary, or against any recipient of the property of that beneficiary by distribution or survival, by an amount equal to the payments for the health care services received or the value of the property received by any recipient from the deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary by distribution or survival, whichever is less. This is referred to as "Medi-Cal estate recovery." 2.Prohibits DHCS from claiming in any of the following circumstances: a. The deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary was under 55 when services were received, except in the case of an individual who had been an inpatient in a nursing facility; or, SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 2 of ? b. Where there is any of the following: i. A surviving spouse during his or her lifetime; ii. A surviving child who is under age 21; or, iii. A surviving child who is blind or permanently and totally disabled. 3.Requires DHCS to waive its estate recovery claim, in whole or in part, if it determines that enforcement of the claim would result in substantial hardship to other dependents, heirs, or survivors of the individual against whose estate the claim exists. Requires DHCS to notify individuals of this waiver provision and the opportunity for a hearing to establish that a waiver should be granted. This bill: 1.Limits the health care services subject to estate recovery to only those services required to be recovered under federal law. Services required to be recovered under federal law are nursing facility services (NFS), home and community-based services (HCBS), and related hospital and prescription drug services. 2.Limits the definition of "estate" for purposes of estate recovery to mean all real and personal property and other assets that are required to be subject to a claim for recovery under federal law. Excludes from the definition of "estate" any other real and personal property or other assets in which the individual had any legal title or interest at the time of death, to the extent of that interest, including any assets conveyed to a survivor, heir, or assign of the decedent through joint tenancy, tenancy in common, survivorship, life estate, living trust, or other arrangement, consistent with federal law. By excluding from recovery any assets conveyed through joint tenancy and survivorship, makes a conforming change to eliminate a reference to claims against a recipient of property of the decedent by survivorship. 3.Eliminates estate recovery against the estate of a surviving spouse of a deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary when the surviving SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 3 of ? spouse dies. 4.Requires DHCS, in determining the existence of a substantial hardship, to waive its claim when the estate subject to recovery is a homestead of modest value. Defines a "homestead of modest value" as a home whose fair market value is 50 percent or less of the average price of homes in the county where the homestead is located, as of the date of the decedent's death. 5.Requires DHCS to provide a current or former beneficiary, or his or her authorized representative, with the total amount of Medi-Cal expenses that have been paid on behalf of that beneficiary that would be subject to estate recovery, upon request and free of charge. Requires DHCS to provide the information requested within 30 days after receipt of the request. 6.Requires DHCS to permit a beneficiary to request the information described in 5) above via the Internet, by telephone, by mail, in person, or through other commonly available electronic means. 7.Requires DHCS to conspicuously post on its Internet Web site, a description of the methods by which a request may be made, including, but not limited to, DHCS' telephone number and any addresses that may be used for this purpose. Requires DHCS to also include this information in its pamphlet for the Medi-Cal Estate Recovery Program and any other notices DHCS distributes to beneficiaries regarding estate recovery. 8.Repeals estate recovery statute struck down in court that requires "proportionate share" recovery from a former Medi-Cal beneficiary's estate when there are decedents entitled to an exemption from recovery and decedents who are not. FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. COMMENTS: 1.Author's statement. According to the author, Medi-Cal estate recovery is unfair to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, is a deterrent to signing people up for Medi-Cal, and is counter to state and federal efforts to enroll people into health coverage. SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 4 of ? California currently implements several federal options to collect from Medi-Cal beneficiaries beyond what is required under federal law, and has failed to implement a federal option to establish a "homestead exemption" that would allow Medi-Cal beneficiaries to pass a home of modest value on to their heirs. By recovering for health care services beyond those required by federal law, California forces low-income individuals age 55 and older to choose between signing up for basic health care services and passing on their home and other limited assets they possess to their children. California's estate recovery program undermines the idea of Medi-Cal as a health care entitlement program by essentially turning Medi-Cal coverage for basic medical services into a loan program, with collection taking place at death. This unfairly places part of the burden on financing the cost of health care in Medi-Cal on the estates of deceased Medi-Cal beneficiaries with limited assets. By using a broader definition of "estate" than is federally required, California forces people on Medi-Cal to choose between leaving something for their heirs and surrendering their property while they are still living. Estate recovery is also inequitable as it primarily applies to individuals age 55 and over, and does not apply to tax-subsidized coverage in Covered California or to the broadly financed federal Medicare program. In addition, California does not adequately inform individuals on how to obtain information on the amounts that will be collected from their estate when they die. For the new 100 percent federally funded Medi-Cal expansion population, estate recovery effectively makes the state a collection agency for the federal government, as all funds collected by the state for this population are required to be returned to the federal government. 2.Background and data on estate recovery. Since the beginning of the Medicaid program in 1965, states have been permitted to recover from the estates of deceased Medicaid recipients who were over age 65 when they received benefits and who had no surviving spouse, minor child, or adult disabled child. In 1993, Congress included a provision in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law No. 103-66) that required states to implement a Medicaid estate recovery program for individuals age 55 and older. SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 5 of ? Under California's Medicaid State Plan, estate recovery claims are filed when health care services paid by the state are $750 or more, or less than $750 when the amount the state expects to recover would be greater than the cost of recovery. The average claim made by DHCS in 2013-14 was around $94,000, and the average amount recovered was $15,600. In FY 2013-14, DHCS closed about 3,900 estate recovery cases with payment. DHCS indicates estate recovery amounts totaled $61 million in total funds fiscal year 2013-14, $59.4 million total funds in 2012-13, and $52.7 million total funds in 2011-12. DHCS anticipates collection of $59.4 million total funds ($29.7 million GF) in 2015-16. Federal regulations require states to pay the federal government a portion of the estate recovery collection amounts that is determined in accordance with the federal matching rate (known as Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage or FMAP) for the State. Under this provision, California would generally return 50 percent of the amounts collected, except for programs which have a higher matching rate, such as the Affordable Care Act expansion population, which is entirely federally funded for the first three years of the expansion and declines to 90 percent by 2020 and thereafter. The state's share of estate recovery revenue is placed in the state Health Care Deposit Fund, which funds Medi-Cal. 3.Scope of services subject to Medi-Cal estate recovery. Under federal law, states must seek recovery for medical assistance paid on behalf of the following individuals: a. Permanently institutionalized individuals (of any age); and, b. Individuals age 55 and older receiving NFS, HCBS, and related hospital and prescription drug services. States have the option to recover from individuals age 55 and older for health care services (services beyond NFS and HCBS), including the total amount spent on a beneficiary's behalf for any or all other items or services under the state's Medicaid plan. This includes capitation payments paid on behalf of the beneficiary to a Medi-Cal managed care plan. DHCS currently collects all payments made by the Medi-Cal program on behalf of the decedent, including nursing facility SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 6 of ? and other long-term care services, home and community based services, inpatient/outpatient services, durable medical equipment, related hospital and prescription drug services, health care and insurance premiums, and payments to managed care plans. DHCS claims do not include payments made for personal care services provided under In-Home Support Services, or the cost of premiums, co-payments and deductibles paid on behalf of either Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries or Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries. Consistent with federal guidance, when a Medi-Cal beneficiary is enrolled in a Medi-Cal managed care plan, DHCS collects based on the amount it paid to the plan, and not based on the amount of services a person received. DHCS indicates it does not track recoveries on a per beneficiary basis by whether the services are mandatory versus optional to be collected under federal law. 4.Elimination of spousal recovery. DHCS currently collects from the estates of a surviving spouse only when he or she dies, and only against what the surviving spouse received from the deceased Medi-Cal spouse "by distribution or survival." For example, if a husband who was on Medi-Cal died, and the home was in both of the husband and wife's name when he died, DHCS can file an estate claim against his half of the property after the surviving spouse (the wife) dies. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has indicated spousal estate recovery is optional for states. Medi-Cal beneficiaries can currently avoid spousal recovery through estate planning. For example, when a Medi-Cal beneficiary transfers a jointly owned home to his or her surviving spouse while the Medi-Cal beneficiary is still alive, the home is not subject to estate recovery. This effectively means the only individuals subject to estate recovery are individuals who are unaware of this option, and/or unable to afford legal advice on how to transfer their home. 5.Definition of "estate." Estate is defined under federal Medicaid law to include all real and personal property and other assets included within the individual's estate, as defined for purposes of State probate law. At state option, "estate" can be more broadly defined to include any other real and personal property and other assets in which the individual had any legal title or interest at the time of death, including assets conveyed through joint tenancy, tenancy in SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 7 of ? common, survivorship, life estate, living trust, or other arrangement. California adopted the broader federal definition of "estate," and also included annuities purchased on or after September 1, 2004, a life insurance policy that names the estate as the beneficiary or reverts to the estate, or any retirement account that names the estate as the beneficiary or reverts to the estate. The practical effect of limiting the definition of estate as this bill proposes is to allow individuals to establish a living trust or own a jointly owned home so Medi-Cal beneficiaries do not have establish an irrevocable trust or transfer their homes and assets prior to death to avoid estate recovery. 6.Hardship exemption from estate recovery. Existing state regulations require DHCS to waive an applicant's proportionate share of the claim if the applicant can demonstrate through submission of a written, completed Application for Hardship Waiver that enforcement of the DHCS' estate recovery claim would result in substantial hardship to the applicant. Existing regulations require DHCS, in determining the existence of substantial hardship, to waive an applicant's proportionate share of the claim if one or more of six factors apply, as follows: a. Allowing the applicant to receive the inheritance from the estate would enable the applicant to discontinue eligibility for public assistance payments and/or medical assistance programs; b. The estate property is part of an income-producing business, including a working farm or ranch, and recovery of medical assistance expenditures would result in the applicant losing his or her primary source of income; c. An aged, blind, or disabled applicant has continuously lived in the decedent's home for at least one year prior to the decedent's death and continues to reside there, and is unable to obtain financing to repay the State; d. When the applicant provided care to the decedent for two or more years that prevented or delayed the decedent's admission to a medical or long-term care institution; e. When the applicant transferred the property to the decedent for no consideration; or, SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 8 of ? f. Equity in the real property is needed by the applicant to make the property habitable, or to acquire the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter or medical care. The federal Medicaid manual gives states the option to exempt a "homestead of modest value" from estate recovery. DHCS estate recovery regulations do not include this federal hardship exemption option, and this bill would require DHCS to waive its claim in this instance as part of a hardship exemption. 7.Individuals seeking estimates on Medi-Cal expenditures related to estate recovery. One of the questions asked of committee staff by individuals who are either on Medi-Cal, or deciding whether to apply for coverage, is how much Medi-Cal is spending (or will spend) on their behalf that is subject to estate recovery. The DHCS estate recovery website and the current estate recovery brochure do not have guidance on how to obtain this information. DHCS indicates individuals can contact DHCS' fiscal intermediary (currently Xerox) for information on services rendered by fee-for-service providers. Denti-Cal and Medicare premium information is provided by DHCS's Third Party Liability and Recovery Division upon request. To request information, individuals can file a form requesting a claim detail report which contains claims paid by Medi-Cal for services received. The cost of obtaining this report is $25 for each request. This bill would require this information be provided free of charge. 8.Deletion of proportionate share recovery language. This bill deletes language in existing law that has been struck down in court. That language allowed DHCS to claim against a deceased former Medi-Cal beneficiary's estate for the "proportionate share" of the estate left to individuals who did not quality for an exemption. In Dalzin v. Belshe (1997), two separate deceased Medi-Cal beneficiaries left their estates to their children. Both Medi-Cal beneficiaries had sons who were disabled and thus entitled to an exemption from estate recovery. DHCS filed an estate claim against the non-disabled children of the families. The court granted a permanent injunction, prohibiting DHCS from claiming against the non-disabled child's portion of a beneficiary's estate. 9.Previous legislation. SB 1124 (Hernandez) of 2014 would have SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 9 of ? limited Medi-Cal estate recovery to only those services required to be recovered under federal law, would have eliminated recovery against the estate of a surviving spouse of a deceased Medi-Cal beneficiary, and would have required DHCS to provide a current or former beneficiary with the total amount of Medi-Cal expenses that have been paid on behalf of that beneficiary that would be subject to estate recovery. SB 1124 was vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto message, the Governor stated that allowing more estate protection for the next generation may be a reasonable policy goal, but the cost of this change needs to be considered alongside other worthwhile policy changes in the budget process next year. AB 2493 (Lieber) of 2004 would have prohibited the Department of Health Services (DHS was the predecessor to DHCS) from claiming against the surviving spouses of Medi-Cal beneficiaries; would have deleted the "proportionate share" recovery from a former Medi-Cal beneficiary's estate; required DHS to adopt regulations defining "substantial hardship" exemptions from estate recovery, required DHCS to grant estate recovery waivers consistent with regulations adopted by DHS; and, would exempt from estate recovery services provided through the IHSS program. AB 2493 was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file. 10.Support. This bill is jointly sponsored by the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR) and the Western Center on Law & Poverty (WCLP) which argue this bill would go a long way toward fixing this enrollment barrier by eliminating the portions of estate recovery which are optional. WCLP states that, under the ACA, most individuals are required to have health coverage or they will face a financial penalty. With the expansion and streamlining of Medi-Cal and the availability of tax credits through Covered California, there is an unprecedented push to enroll Californians in public and subsidized health coverage programs. However, when consumers learn about estate recovery, they are fearful that if they enroll in Medi-Cal, they will lose their homes to pay for the care they received while on Medi-Cal, effectively turning Medi-Cal into a long term loan and not a safety net program. WCLP states that, though some people would rather enroll in Covered California and pay a small premium rather than be subject to Medi-Cal estate recovery, and it has heard of many instances of consumers simply not signing up for coverage as a result of estate SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 10 of ? recovery. WCLP states that, while not eliminating Medi-Cal estate recovery altogether, this bill would limit it as much as is federally allowable. Consumers would be assured that their estates would only be recovered against for long-term care and related services and not simply for having basic health coverage. It would also help consumers know the amount their estate may be recovered against by requiring that DHCS provide them or their representative with this information as consumers currently have no way of knowing how much the monthly capitation cost for their Medi-Cal plan is or what other costs they are responsible for and consequently have no way of knowing how much their estate could be recovered against. WCLP concludes that seeking estate recovery from the new ACA adult expansion population makes little fiscal sense for the state, as the cost of Medi-Cal for this new group is 100 percent federally funded and any sums recovered against from this group must be turned over to the federal government. Consequently, recovery against this group effectively turns the Medi-Cal program into a collection agency for the federal government. CANHR states it has received numerous emails and phone calls from low income and minority homeowners who are reluctant to enroll in Medi-Cal if they are aged 55 or older, even if they eventually go off of Medi-Cal, as the estate recovery claim stays with them all of their lives. CANHR argues Medi-Cal recovery disproportionately affects minority homeowners who enroll in Medi-Cal, as they are often not informed of their rights, they are unable to afford costly estate planning attorneys to avoid recovery in the first place, and they end up with "voluntary" liens at a seven percent interest rate on homes that have been in their families for years. CANHR concludes that this bill not only addresses a major barrier to enrollment, but it brings fairness and equity to a recovery system that has for too long preyed on the inability of low-income consumers and their spouses to assert their rights under the law. 11.Amendments. The author intends to amend this bill to add legislative findings and declarations and intent language. 12.Policy question. Existing estate recovery regulations require SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 11 of ? DHCS to propose a voluntary post death lien on the real property of the estate, and other real property that the dependent, heir, or survivor has an interest in, when one or more of the dependents, heirs, or survivors is: § Living in and not willing to sell the real property; § Unable to pay DHCS' claim in full; or, § Can demonstrate that he or she is unable to obtain financing. Under existing regulations, the voluntary post death lien accrues simple interest at the rate of seven percent per annum. Given that interest rates are currently considerably below seven percent, should the seven percent per annum standard be changed? SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (co-sponsor) Western Center on Law & Poverty (co-sponsor) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles Asian Law Alliance California Association of Health Plans California Association of Physician Groups California Health Advocates California Immigrant Policy Center California Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association California Pan-Ethnic Health Network California Primary Care Association California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation California School Employees Association California State Association of Counties California State Council of the Service Employees International Union Central California Legal Services Consumers Union County Health Executives Association of California County of Santa Clara County Welfare Directors Association Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Having Our Say Justice in Aging L.A. Care Health Plan SB 33 (Hernandez) Page 12 of ? National Health Law Program Older Women's League Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network Private Essential Access Community Hospitals An individual Oppose: None received. -- END --