Sunday, July 15, 2018
Over the weekend, a reader asked about the ultimate outcome of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization, involving Sears Methodist Retirement System's CCRC properties in Texas, that we reported on back in 2014. The specific question was "what happened to the refundable entrance fees?"
The bankruptcy court approved escrow and repayment terms of refundable fees for "certain" residents as part of a proposed reorganization plan, with the purchaser(s) of one or all of the 8 involved CCRCs having the option of "assuming" or reaffirming resident agreements; but I need to research more to find out the ultimate outcome, once the dust settled. I've reached out to a few folks to see if there was a final accounting.
In picking up the research on the Sears Methodist case, that reminded me I had not reported in this blog on another CCRC bankruptcy court proceeding, filed as a reorganization under Chapter 11 in late 2015 involving what was then known as Westchester Meadows CCRC in New York.
The August 23, 2016 opinion for In re HHH Choices Health Plan, LLC is interesting, thoughtful, and remarkably accessible for nonlawyers. The issues addressed carefully include:
- Where the debtor in the Chapter 11 proceeding is a nonprofit organization, what rules apply for possible for-profit and nonprofit bidders? For example, could state law governing and limiting transfers of assets of a nonprofit organization apply? The Court concludes that although a new operator would need to comply with state laws (such as the Department of Health's licensing rules), the Bankruptcy Code controls bidding and sale of a bankrupt debtor's assets.
- What standards apply if one bidder, for a lower price, would continue operations as a nonprofit, while the other bidder, for a higher price (and thus more attractive to unsecured creditors), would convert to for-profit operations? Here, the Court observes that New York state law makes it "clear that price alone is not determinative, and that fulfilling the corporate mission can be decisive if creditors are all being paid in full." However, that rule was "clear" only if all the debtor's creditors would be fully paid, which would not be the outcome here. After careful consideration of case precedent, the Court concludes it can confirm a lower-priced sale of the assets, where the buyer satisfies certain standards and is better aligned with the charitable mission of the operation, including in this instance protection of the interests older residents.
The Court's concludes:
July 15, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
How Far Can Courts Go in Reassigning Income to a Community Spouse When it Affects Medicaid Payments?
It is a while since I've had a chance to report on an interesting Medicaid planning case. Perhaps that alone is a sign of the times?
Last month in Michigan, however, an appellate court weighed in on an interesting question about the power of courts to reallocate income, from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse, where such a decision would impact payment sources for the nursing home. In a per curiam decision, the court considered a pair of similar cases, where the state probate courts had entered protective orders that directed "all income" received by an institutionalized spouse (IS) be paid to the community spouse for maintenance purposes. The State Department of Health and Human Services objected, as clearly the state winds up paying more for the IS's care if the community spouse gets all the IS's income.
Does the probate court have authority -- jurisdiction? -- to make such a ruling? What criteria are relevant to the allocation of income? In other words, is the probate court the right place to avoid inadequate safeguards against impoverishment of the community spouse? Interestingly, the Court, at footnote 13, distinguished the two cases from past attempts to make gifts or use protective proceedings for planning purposes before an initial determination of Medicaid eligibility. The court summarized its ultimate decision:
For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the probate courts have the authority to enter protective orders providing support for a community spouse whose institutionalized spouse is receiving Medicaid benefits. However, we also conclude that the probate courts’ authority to enter such support orders under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), MCL 700.1101 et seq, does not include the power to enter an order preserving the community spouse’s standard of living without consideration of the institutionalized spouse’s needs and patient-pay obligations under Medicaid. Given that the orders in this case were entered without consideration of Joseph’s and Jerome’s needs and patient-pay obligations under Medicaid, we find that the probate courts abused their discretion by entering the orders at issue in this case. We therefore vacate both support orders and remand for a reconsideration of Beverly’s and Ramona’s need for support under the proper framework.
For more, read the full decision in In re Estate of Vansach, Michigan Court of Appeals, May 22, 2018.
Counsel representing the community spouse has posted his own take on the decision, describing it as a win, in a post titled BRMM Wins Significant Elder Law Case in Michigan Court of Appeals.
No success in finding a mirror image article from the DHHS lawyers. With the split decision, I suppose they could have written DHHS Wins Significant Elder Law Case in Michigan Court of Appeals.
Monday, June 25, 2018
For academics, this decision could be relevant to many courses, including estate planning, family law, property law, and contract law, and, of course, constitutional law. Did a state divorce law, potentially effectuating revocation of a former wife as the named beneficiary of her former husband's life insurance policy, conflict with the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution? The case has drawn attention in part because it offers an "early look" at analysis rendered by President Trump nominee Justice Gorsuch, in his lone dissent.
Naomi is also interested in the dissent. She writes in part:
Rather than critique Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of the Contracts Clause, I want to focus on another aspect of his dissent: he twice (approvingly) cites to a brief filed by more than a dozen women’s groups supporting Kaye Melin (the majority does not mention this issue at all).
It is important to acknowledge that, while virtually all states provide for revocation of beneficiary provisions in wills in favor of an ex-spouse, only about half the states (and the Uniform Probate Code) have extended this revocation to nonprobate assets, such as life insurance policies. There is a policy debate among states about whether automatic revocation is a good idea, and Congress does not provide for such automatic revocation in federally regulated nonprobate assets.
In addition, there is little empirical evidence concerning what policyholders actually want or expect will happen upon divorce. Indeed—and here is one of the two contexts in which Gorsuch cited the women’s brief—“[a] sizeable (and maybe growing) number of people do want to keep their former spouses as beneficiaries.” The growth of collaborative divorce, for example, shows that divorce is not necessarily the messy, take-no-prisoners assumption that underlies modern divorce revocation statutes. As Justice Gorsuch noted, citing to a brief filed by the U.S. government in a 2013 case that argued a state divorce revocation statute should be preempted, there may well be legitimate reasons why a decedent did not change a beneficiary designation, ranging from wanting to support the ex-spouse’s care for joint children to feelings of connection. Justice Gorsuch cited the Women’s Law Project brief again in addressing alternatives to the state’s choice. . . .
For Professor Cahn's full analysis, including her interesting conclusion, see Svenn v. Melin: The Retro View of Revocation on Divorce Statutes.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
I've been thinking a lot lately about the tone and words used by individuals in advocating for change. Part of the reason I think about that is many of our students will choose the roles of advocates for change.
Another, perhaps more obvious impetus for this contemplation is the increasing use of demonization to characterize "others" you disagree with. In the language of debate, such an approach is an ad hominem attack, where the argument is directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining. And it seems the usual adjective to add for that style is to call it a "vicious ad hominem attack."
I understand anger. I understand the emotion that can fuel heightened language. But, the plain fact of the matter is, that style often is not effective in achieving change in the law, especially in the courtroom. I get it, that rationality sometimes isn't effective either. That's enormously frustrating. But what I tend to see as a response to vicious ad hominem attacks is for the target to either respond in kind (more shouting, more name calling) or go "underground." It causes the target to double-down on his or her own personal, now equally angry, position. And courts do not respond well at all to such a style of advocacy.
As I'm typing these words, I'm thinking about some of the advocacy that is being used by opponents of guardianships. I see the occasional such comment (sometimes too long to attach to a post) on the Elder Law Prof Blog. Again, I understand the anger of family members who perceive a loved one to be the victim of a self-dealing agent, whether that bad agent was a guardian, a trustee, someone acting under a power of attorney, or simply someone who was made an accommodation party on a joint account. The anger is justified.
But, when the opponents of the bad agents cast an overbroad net against all courts or all judges or, even, all guardians, using, dare I say, "trumpian" adjectives and nouns to characterize all individuals serving in such roles, it just isn't very effective. It closes the door to change in the law. At least, that's my 2 cents on the topic. We need better solutions for instances where individuals did not choose their own trustworthy agents.
I was struck by a couple of news stories I read today by individuals who use anger to characterize disease, especially dementia. Now, here, I think the anger and harsh language as a rhetorical tool is different, and has a different effect. For example, a recent article described actor Don Cheadle's anger, sorrow, and disbelief following the loss of his mother. He is described as saying:
"She went through a real tough spell. She had dementia and it's just an evil, mean disease. To watch someone just deteriorate in that way, it's hard to believe."
Here, even though obviously the disease isn't a sentient being, the characterization of it as evil, as, in essence, an enemy, seems more effective. The desire might be for an army to rally to oppose the devastation wrought by the disease.
Just a bit of mid-week musing. Some of this is probably influenced by being the daughter of a judge who worked 7 days a week for 30+ years, far harder and longer than necessary for his job or any job. Or, it could be my musing is the result of far too much caffeine as I work on summer law reform projects, and as I try to sort out what arguments are the most likely to be effective.
Monday, June 18, 2018
One of our good readers sent us an item by CityLimits.org tracking recent complaints made to (and about) the NY Attorney General. The title of the article is They Say Legal Guardians Ripped Them Off-- and the State AG Let Them. I've come to expect that when I see an investigative piece on problems with guardians, I will read comments from a range of national advocates, such as Dr. Sam Sugar of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship or Richard Black with the Center for Estate Administration Reform. Both individuals comment in this particular piece.
There are many challenges ahead for much needed reform efforts, including the fact that different laws can govern different forms of fiduciary relationships. For example, even though the article focuses in major part on "guardians," a label used to describe individuals or entities appointed by the court to assist an individual deemed incapacitated and unable to handle his or her own affairs without such a court-appointment, the article demonstrates that the problems can arise outside the guardianship arena.
In the opening tale for the article, the individual in need of assistance, a 31 year old disabled daughter, was apparently the the beneficiary of her deceased father's trust. The father became entangled with an untrustworthy individual shortly before his death, and that person was named the trustee. The actions by that individual -- described in the article as a "disbarred" lawyer and former state senator -- control much of the dynamic. It is not clear from the article whether the daughter's parents were estranged before the death of her father, thus sidelining the mother from accessing the trust in trying to help their daughter. Guardians later appointed by court for the daughter reportedly contributed to the costs for the estate. Yet key allegations of abuse focus on the actions of the alleged untrustworthy trustee, who was selected for this fiduciary role by the father, not the court.
The article reports on this as an example where the AG has allegedly declined to intervene following reports of fiduciary abuse.
Guardianship reform is important and, thank goodness, is ongoing in many states. But true reform is needed in the hearts and minds of abusive individuals in a variety of financial caregiving relationships, not just guardianships. The challenges for courts and law enforcement officers, including AGs and other prosecutors, will only grow without a stronger ethical commitment at the core.
June 18, 2018 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1)
Monday, June 11, 2018
My good friend and colleague, Pennsylvania Elder Law Attorney Linda Anderson, has a thoughtful essay about her personal journey in elder law in a recent issue of GPSolo, the ABA journal for solo, small firm, and general practitioners. Her closing paragraphs address several core issues, comparing her elder law focus with traditional tax and estate planning concerns. I enjoyed her use of classic lines from the movie Jaws.
My early work with elder clients or their adult children across a variety of asset levels certainly involved tax and estate planning. But it became clear that serving and protecting these clients demanded more than just good lawyering, that good planning needed “a bigger boat.” It entailed comprehensive knowledge of the Social Security, Medicaid, and VA benefits bureaucracies, close engagement with insurance providers, geriatric care managers, social workers, and other professionals, as well as close monitoring of state and federal regulatory and policy changes and housing and age discrimination laws, among others. The eventual next step for me was completing the requirements to become a certified elder law attorney (CELA).
Solo or general practice attorneys do not have to become dedicated elder law experts when taking on clients seeking long-term care and funding planning. Take those clients, but be prepared to augment tax and estate planning expertise with a deep dive into areas of elder and special needs law and funding mechanisms. All this is doable, of course, but the biggest difference is in mindset. Attorneys often approach estate and long-term care planning as transactional or episodic--needs arise, documents are drafted or revised, and we and the clients move on. But the nature of the legal work I've touched on above demands a continuing, flexible outlook and a lot of homework. When in doubt, consult with or refer your client to a CELA-qualified attorney. These attorneys are listed in the website for the National Elder Law Foundation (NELF, nelf.org). Another resource for lawyers (who may or may not be CELA-qualified) is the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA, naela.org). Both organizations are excellent sources for information and referrals.
Finally, as we all learn in time, everything that we've covered here will become very personal for each of us. This may first happen through our parents or siblings as they transition and age, but it's necessarily part of our own futures as well. That's true whether you're a Baby Boomer looking at 70, a Gen Xer thinking that 40 is “old,” or any age in between.
Aging is the one shark we cannot escape. But as attorneys, we know how to plan and can build our clients' (and our own) “boats” to manage aging as well as possible.
June 11, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 7, 2018
A recent issue of the Michigan Bar Journal offers interesting practitioner perspectives on disability law and elder law issues. The January 2018 issue includes:
- Elder Bankruptcy
- Coordinating Representation: How Business and Elder Law Counsel Can Work Together to Meet Clients' Needs
- The Impact of Aging on Consumer Law
- The Intersection of Estate Planning, Family Law, and Elder Law
- Significant Regulatory Changes for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income
- Considerations When Settling a Lawsuit for an Individual Lacking Legal Capacity or a Minor
Introducing the theme of the issue, attorney Christine Caswell writes:
While there may be a perception that the section focuses on helping clients qualify for public benefits, its mission is actually much broader. Elders and those with disabilities have many of the same issues as the rest of the population— divorce, consumer problems, bankruptcy, business ownership, and litigation—but these issues are magnified when questions arise concerning competency, the need for ongoing care, and discrimination. Moreover, these different legal areas may conflict when determining what is in the best long-term interests of these clients.
June 7, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
I promised more information about the consumer protection measures signed into law by President Trump on May 24, 2018. Here's the more detailed update I wrote for WealthManagement.com: The New Senior $afe Act Encourages Reporting Senior Financial Abuse.
May 30, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Property Management | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, May 24, 2018
The "Senior Safe Act," part of a federal banking reform law that will modify Dodd-Frank, has been passed by both houses of Congress with bi-partisan support. Note the sometimes clever spelling for "Safe" as "$afe," used by proponents. From a McKnight's Senior Living report on May 23, 2018:
A bipartisan bill intended to help protect older adults from financial exploitation and fraud is on its way to the president's desk to be signed into law.
The Senior $afe Act, authored by U.S. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), passed in the House of Representatives on Tuesday as part of a bipartisan banking reform package after previously being passed by the Senate in March. President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he plans to sign the legislation into law.
Collins and McCaskill had introduced the Senior $afe Act in 2017 when they were chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Collins still leads the committee, and McCaskill remains a member.
The legislation protects banks, credit unions, investment advisers, broker-dealers, insurance companies and insurance agencies from being sued for reporting suspected exploitation or fraud as long as they have trained their employees about how to identify the warning signs of common scams and make reports in good faith to the proper authorities.
“The Senior $afe Act, based on Maine's innovative program, will empower and encourage our financial service representatives to identify warning signs of common scams and help prevent seniors from becoming victims,” Collins said in a statement.
I'll report more once I have a close look at the language, as enacted.
May 24, 2018 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Pennsylvania has several interesting bills pending that would make significant changes to the laws governing court-appointed guardians for incapacitated adults, and at least one of these could move forward this legislative session. I've learned to expect late night action from the Pennsylvania legislature once it reconvenes in late May and before it adjourns in late June or early July. The pending legislation includes:
- Senate Bill 884 (Printer's No. 1147), with Senator Greenleaf as the lead sponsor, offered as a comprehensive reform package for adult guardianship laws, relying in large part on model legislation, and drafted before the most recent high profile news stories and editorials that involve allegations of improper appointment of a particular fee-paid guardian in a number of guardianships for incapacitated adults on the eastern side of the Commonwealth. On April 16, 2018 this bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
I've seen recent drafts of proposed amendments to SB 884 that would require alleged incapacitated persons to be represented by a lawyer during the guardianship proceeding, require criminal background checks through the State Police (without creating automatic disqualifications if there is a history of convictions), and would also mandate "certification" for "professional guardians." Professional guardians are defined to include individuals or entities that are appointed to serve 3 or more incapacitated persons. The responsibility for certification of the professional guardians would be assigned to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, although the proposed language would appear to permit the department to accept certification through an outside program such as that offered by the Center for Guardianship Certifications.
- House Bill 2247 (Printer's No. 3296), with Representative Gillen as the lead sponsor, and submitted in April 2018 following the high profile articles, would mandate criminal background checks for all current or prospective guardians and provides that courts "shall disqualify a guardian or prospective guardian convicted of an offense classified as a felony under the laws of this Commonwealth or a substantially similar offense under the laws of another jurisdiction."
While the proposed amendment to S.B. 884 would require criminal background checks for potential guardians, unlike HB 2247, it stops short of banning appointment of individuals who have any particular criminal history. No doubt this decision reflects a 2003 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Nixon v. Commonwealth. In that case, a per se ban on employment of individuals as long-term care workers if they were convicted of certain crimes was deemed unconstitutional. Senate Bill 884, even if amended, would give greater discretion to the courts to consider the individual history and the nature of the offense than would HB 2247.
May 15, 2018 in Cognitive Impairment, Crimes, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (2)
Monday, May 14, 2018
As I have written in a recent post, Maryland has adopted mandatory training for guardians, effective January 1, 2018. The Administrative Office for the Maryland Courts is rapidly developing educational materials, including an orientation and topic-specific videos. In-person training programs are also under development, on a county-by-county basis.
I recently had a great conversation with Attorney Nisa Subasinghe at the AOMC and I was impressed by all her office is accomplishing in a relatively short time, with a pro-active approach to the topic of court-appointed guardians and the use of orientation videos to get the process rolling.
Nisa also provided links to the new Maryland Rules on mandatory training for guardians: Md. Rules 10-108, 10.205.1, and 10-304.1. In addition, these rules refer to Guidelines for Court-Appointed Guardians of the Person and Property. Thank you, Nisa!
The state of Washington also is developing a program for "lay/family (non-professional) guardians training."
County-by-county training can be a real problem, as I'm realizing in Pennsylvania where we have 67 counties and probably almost that many views on the need for (or best approach to) oversight of guardians.
Other states have also been active in establishing education and testing for prospective or current guardians. Several states' programs have been developed following allegations of improper appointments or lack of oversight. We've highlighted some of these states in recent Elder Law Prof Blog posts, including Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida.
A key decision point is whether to mandate certification or licensure only for so-called professional guardians or also for individuals serving as a guardian for a family member or friend, sometimes described in legislation or court rules as "nonprofessional guardians." Driven by complaints by family members about perceived high costs, mistakes, or abuse by fee-paid guardians, some states have focused only on professionals, perhaps on the theory they are affecting larger numbers of alleged incapacitated persons. Other states, such as Maryland, have taken the position that a minimum threshold of education and oversight is appropriate for all persons serving in guardian or conservator roles, including family members.
The Center for Guardianship Certification (CGC) offers a map showing certain states with mandatory guardianship programs or rules. As depicted on the map, some states have adopted CGC certifications as the state standard for approval of "professional" guardians. In addition, I noticed that CGC has a list (by exam numbers) of the recent results -- pass or fail -- of certification exams conducted by CGC.
The ABA also has an online chart (March 2018), prepared by attorney Sally Hurme for the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, with additional information about state certification or licensing rules for guardians.
You can tell there is a lot of movement in this area -- understandably so given reports across the country. As I was preparing this post, I noticed that neither of these two state charts had identified Maryland as one of the mandatory training states and I suspect I'm missing a few more states that have certification programs in the works.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Most commentaries on funding for retirement years point to insufficiency of savings or other resources. But here's a different take, drawing upon a recently published report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) that suggests retirees with significant savings are often exercising restraint in spending, From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on The Myth of Outliving Your Retirement Savings:
In the EBRI study, those with the most savings — a median of $857,450 shortly after retiring — still had $756,300 two decades later. The decrease amounts to just 11.8 percent of the original sum.
The largest drop in retirement nest eggs, 24.4 percent, was among those with the least savings, or a median of $29,975.
Frugal behavior is consistent with research led by Anna Rappaport for the Society of Actuaries. She and her team found that most people do not plan for retirement or know what they should spend, but they adapt — even when shocked by high dental bills or a roof repair.
What can devastate financially are divorce, caring for a mentally or physically ill adult child who cannot work, and long-term care expenses, according to the actuarial society’s research.
Still, debilitating health care costs are far more rare than people fear, according to the EBRI research. Half of retirees face no nursing home expenses because Medicare covers short recoveries after hospital stays and Medicaid can help when resources run out.
The medical annual out-of-pocket spending for 90 percent of retirees is just $2,000, and the big nursing home costs over $87,000 hit only 10 percent of people living longer than 95, according to the EBRI study.
For the EBRI study itself, see the April 2018 report on Asset Decumulation or Asset Preservation? What Guides Retirement Spending?
Sunday, May 6, 2018
As is true for many states, Maryland is increasing the education, support and supervision for guardians appointed by the Maryland courts. In connection with this, beginning on January 1, 2018, prospective guardians must watch a video-based "orientation program" before they are appointed guardian of a minor or disabled person. The 9-minute video introduces the "roles, duties and responsibilities" of a guardian and explains mch of what to expect if appointed by the Maryland Courts. Here is a link to the video.
What I particularly like about this video is the message "You Are Not Alone as a Guardian," and the emphasis that Court-appointed guardians are subject to the ultimate authority of the Court. I think that many courts are still struggling with their own roles in this regard, but here the lines of responsibility are explained clearly.
The balance here is delicate, requiring careful thought about how to provide threshold information essential for a candidate to make an informed decision about whether to serve, but without making the information so overwhelming that good candidates decline the role. The Maryland courts caution that this particular orientation and the related training requirements do NOT apply to public guardians or guardianships that terminate parental rights.
In my opinion, this type of video is a good first step. But just a first step.
May 6, 2018 in Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Hard to believe, but this summer will mark the 21st annual Elder Law Institute in Pennsylvania. It functions as both a gathering of the clan and an educational update, and I always walk away with new ideas for my own research and writing. On the second day of the event (which runs July 19 and 20), Howard Gleckman will give the keynote address on "Long Term Care in an Age of Disruption." Doesn't that title capture the mood of the country?!
Practical workshops include:
- Using Irrevocable Trusts in Pre-Crisis and Crisis Planning - Ms. Alvear & Ms. Sikov Gross
- Guardianship for Someone Who Is 30/30 on the MMSE (Advanced Mental Health Capacity Issues) - Ms. Hee & Mr. Pfeffer
- Medicaid across State Lines: Pennsylvania vs. New Jersey - Mr. Adler
- Medicaid Annuities in Practice - Mr. Morgan & Mr. Parker
- Business Succession Planning for Elder Law Practices - Ms. Ellis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Pappas & Ms. Wolfe
- Social Security Disability: What Elder Law Practitioners Need to Know - Mr. Whitelaw
- Drafting Trusts for Beneficiaries with Behavioral Impairments and Mental Health Problems - Mr. Hagan & Dr. Panzer
- Being a Road Warrior Attorney: Staying Organized and in Touch While Out of the Office (ETHICS) - Ms. Ellis
Mark your calendars and join us (Linda Anderson, Kimber Latsha and I are hosting a session on Day 1 about "new" CCRC issues). Registration is here.
May 3, 2018 in Books, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Frequent reader Karen Miller from Florida made a timely catch by sending me two articles that both mention the "peace of mind" that can accompany living in purpose-planned retirement communities, including CCRCs or LPCs. Thanks, Karen!
In last Sunday's edition of the New York Times, reporter Peter Finch offered "How to Talk About Moving to a Retirement Home: It's a Journey." He includes admissions by once highly reluctant residents, including one who finally gave in to his wife's desire for a new setting:
For the once-skeptical Mr. Strumsky, it took only days for him to start feeling certain that he and his wife, who is 72, had made the right decision. About a week after moving in at Charlestown [a retirement community outside of Baltimore], he went out to walk the dog at night and ran into a pair of women he didn’t know who were chatting amiably in the parking lot. About 25 minutes later, he returned home and saw the same women, still talking.
“They were so unconcerned about their personal safety, they were oblivious to anything going on around them,” Mr. Strumsky said. “And it just hit me: I really wished my mother or my sister or my aunt could have had this experience, to feel that safe and secure. At that point, it was like a light bulb going on. It was an instant turnaround for me.”
By contrast, Patricia Hunt, a columnist for the News Leader (part of the USA Today Network), writes about "friends whining about the rules of their . . . subdivision," noting that the security that some people seek can come with a regulatory price tag, even if the regulator isn't the government. She writes in part:
In retirement many people with the means to do so choose a “continuing care retirement community.” There is a big price range, but basically you pay an entrance fee, and most require that you be well enough to live independently to be admitted. They provide food service, activities, and stepped up sections for “assisted living” and for the most debilitated, “skilled nursing care.” This is the most expensive option for one’s last years.
But the rules for the residents of CCRCs are set entirely by people who do not live in them. And flexibility is the most restricted of all options. If you grandson who ran away to join the circus can be talked into living with you for a few months until he can sort things out with his parents, you cannot let him do that. If you decline in health and your granddaughter is willing to come live with you so you don’t to go to assisted living or skilled nursing care, you can’t do that either. You can hire people to come in night and day, but your family member cannot simply move in. She must have another permanent address. At least this is how most of them work.
If you[r] adult child gets sick or loses a job and needs to stay with you, it is not allowed. And you may not have the money to help him or her out if you have spent it all on the entrance fee and monthly fees.
Hunt concludes by questioning whether people "really" do hate regulation, noting "there is plenty of evidence of that some of them are not only willing to live with more regulations than many other people, they are willing to pay a lot of money to do so."
For more from Hunt, read the full column "We Hate Regulation, But We Willingly Trade Away Our Basic Freedoms for Comfort, Security."
May 3, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Retirement, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
On April 24, 2018, members of the Organization of Residents Association of New Jersey, or ORANJ, held a plenary meeting at Cedar Crest Retirement Community in Pompton Plains, New Jersey. ORANJ President Ron Whalen began the meeting with an update on pending legislation attempting to resolve residents' concerns about timeliness of payments on "refundable fee agreements." Part of the message is reflected in the history of Pat Lund, a resident of a CCRC in Waterford Township, New Jersey, who waited eight years for her "refundable fee" to be paid after moving out of her apartment. Under the terms of her contract, the refund was not "payable" until someone else occupied her specific unit but the facility seemed to have little interest or incentive to market her particular unit. For more on this topic, see my update post from last week. As summarized by Ron Whalen, "many of the 10,000 New Jersey residents in CCRCs (also known as Life Plan Communities or LPCs) have this type of contract."
James McCracken, the new president and CEO of LeadingAge New Jersey was the afternoon speaker and he provided a roundup of topics affecting older adults in New Jersey as the legislative season draws to a close, including concerns about "earned sick leave," delayed Medicaid payments by the state to care facilities, proposed minimums on CNA staffing at care facilities, and changes to minimum wage.
I spoke in the morning about issues I see affecting CCRCs and LPCs nationally and in New Jersey, including topics that challenge tax-exempt CCRCs, such as pressure to make payments in lieu of taxes to state and local authorities. On the topic of resident concerns, I addressed what I call the "big three": lack of transparency on cost and funding issues, the need for effective resident voices in governance, and excessively paternalistic attitudes of some management.
This is at least my third time speaking with ORANJ members over a period of several years, and each time I visit I'm impressed with the strength of their resident organization and their ability to get the state legislature to listen. ORANJ helped their state to be one of the first to get legislative support for CCRC residents gaining the statutory right to serve as voting members on boards of governance, and ORANJ advocacy was also instrumental in passage of an enhanced "bill of resident rights" for CCRC operations.
New Jersey has approximately 40 CCRC/LPC communities within the state. Some 87 percent operate as not-for-profit, while another 13 percent are for profit. The majority of the communities are now part of "multi-site" organizations, and I spoke with several residents who reported on pending conversions of not-for-profit to for-profit.
April 25, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Retirement, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Mark Your Calendars: Drafting Advance Planning Documents to Reduce the Risk of Abuse or Exploitation
Mark your calendars for April 18, 2018 at 2 p.m. edt for a free webinar from the National Center on Law & Elder Rights, Drafting Advance Planning Documents to Reduce the Risk of Abuse or Exploitation. Here is the description that I received in the email announcing the webinar:
In 2016, Medicare began reimbursing physicians for counseling beneficiaries about advance-care planning. At around the same time, Health Affairs released a study finding that only one-third of older adults have completed any health care planning documents. For attorneys counseling older adults, completing advance planning documents is just one part of care planning. Drafting these documents in a way that reduces the risk of abuse and exploitation is a critical component of providing good counsel.
This webcast will discuss ways to work with clients to select lower-risk agents, tools to document and communicate health care values, and tips for drafting documents to reduce the risk of exploitation.
To register, click here.
April 11, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, April 8, 2018
A while back we published a post about Swedish Death Cleaning and I'll hazard a guess that after you read that post, many of you went through your stuff and disposed of things. So here's another thought-when you don't have kids, to whom do you leave your stuff? The New York Times tackled that issue in this article, If You Don’t Have Children, What Do You Leave Behind?
The author's essay explains her dilemma as she puzzles through who of her relatives get what, and in what amount, offering her view that "wills are easier for parents because they have a natural push — the need to name guardians for their children and provide financially for them after they are gone. On the surface it’s about who gets your stuff, but it got me thinking about ways people without children create a legacy. Who will remember us?"
The author did a lot of homework, casting a wide net of inquiries and carefully considering her catch. She discovered "patterns and creative thinking [and] saw a lot of worry, too, mostly about who will take care of us when we’re old. When it comes to legacy and relationships with young people, people start close to home. Nieces, nephews and godchildren came up in nearly every response. As did the idea of meaningful work. And that’s true for [the author]."
This is an interesting piece and I think it would be useful for our students to read. It will help remind them that estate planning is not a "one-size-fits-all" exercise.
Thanks to Professor Naomi Cahn for sending this our way.
Here's an unusual case to start off a new week. In Laborer's Pension Fund v. Miscevic, the 7th Circuit faced interesting statutory interpretation questions about whether "survivor" benefits available under a murdered's man's pension must be paid to the very woman who killed him, his "surviving" wife.
The first question focused on ERISA's rules, asking whether the federal law (which does not contain "slayer" provisions) preempted any disqualifying effect of state slayer laws. Ultimately, considering the issue as a matter of first impression for federal appellate courts, the 7th Circuit rejected the ERISA preemption argument.
But that left the question of the effect of the Illinois law in light of additional, unique facts. The wife argued her state criminal court verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" barred the disqualifying effect of the Illinois slayer statute. The Court analyzed similar language of the Illinois slayer statute and the Illinois insanity law and concluded:
Put simply, an individual may not appreciate the criminality of her conduct, but still have "intentionally" and "unjustifiably" cased a death. Indeed, in this case, the judge at [the wife's] criminal trial made an explicit finding that [she] intended to murder [her husband] "without justification," despite concluding [she] was not guilty by reason of insanity."
Noting a split among state courts in analyzing the effect of "not guilty by reason of insanity" on entitlement to inheritance under other states' slayer laws, with Mississippi and New Jersey permitting recovery by a party deemed insane at the time of the murderous act, the 7th Circuit concluded that Illinois would not follow that path. The Court concluded that the Illinois slayer statute barred this wife from recovering her husband's pension benefits.
This case is interesting for reasons other than interpretation of the federal and state laws. The case was filed as an interpleader by the Pension Fund, as the Fund had received conflicting claims for survivor benefits from the wife and the couple's 11 year old daughter. The minor-aged daughter will now take the survivor benefits, but, the "minor child benefit" for the plan lasts only until the minor is 21. It is perhaps an unfortunate side effect of an already sad case that without the murderous facts, the wife would have been a survivor until her death, but the innocent (and, perhaps, needy) daughter's survivor benefits will terminate after 10 years. Should there be the option to treat any benefits payable to someone deemed "not guilty of murder by reason of insanity" as being subject to a constructive trust in favor of the next of kin?
My thanks to always eagle-eyed attorney Thomas Murphy in Phoenix, Arizona for sending the report on the 7th Circuit case, decided January 29, 2018.
During Dickinson Law's recent program on Dementia Diagnosis and the Law, one of our panelists, Elder Law practitioner Sally Schoffstall raised an issue planning professionals are seeing more often, families who are concerned about the long-range needs of children with developmental disabilities. I know that over the years I have often had law students whose interest in disability and estate planning law began with a brother or sister with special needs, and they are thinking about their own future roles in helping the family plan.
The good news is that better early health care often means an extended life for disabled children, but that very fact raises the probabilities on living longer than the people who have been primary caregivers, especially their parents. As we heard from medical professionals at our conference, individuals with Down Syndrome, for example, are now less likely to succumb to physical impairments such as developmental heart problems, but still face a significant risk of early onset of dementias, with an estimated 30 percent of those in their 50s already experiencing symptoms similar to Alzheimer's Disease.
On May 21-22, a St. Louis-based nonprofit organization, Association on Aging with Developmental Disabilities (AADD) will hold its 28th annual conference. The conference draws an audience of professionals from a wide range, including social workers, nurses and other service providers. As with most people, individuals with disabilities want to "age in place," and that takes extra planning to manage financial assets. Pamela Merkle, executive director for AADD explains:
"Sessions will focus on giving them the tools they need to successfully support people with developmental disabilities who are aging,” says Merkle.
She explains that many of the issues faced by older persons with developmental disabilities mirror those of aging individuals in general, such as isolation, depression and how to handle retirement. “Like most people, they want to ‘age in place,’ not spend their golden years in a nursing home. Given that living within the community is more cost-effective, it’s important to both the seniors and our communities that there be more public programs to support that choice,” she continues. . . .
For individuals who are 50 or older, AADD offers retirement services. While some of the participants have held community-based jobs, others spent decades in sheltered workshops. As with many members of the general population, they often tend to define themselves through the jobs they held for so many years. “So we focus on identity: ‘I’m a volunteer” or “I’m active in my church,’” explains Merkle. “If you don’t have something in place to fill the void after retirement and to maintain the skills you’ve developed, you’ll retire to your couch. You won’t be an active part of the community, and will most likely spend your “golden years” alone.”
For more, see this commentary from the Special Needs Alliance, and look for related links. My thanks to Sally for providing links to this conference information!
April 8, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Programs/CLEs | Permalink | Comments (0)