The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) did many things. It implemented new whistleblower protections, changed the annuity rules, allowed states to vary premiums and cost-sharing for Medicaid benefits, and instituted the “Money Follows the Person” rule. But the heavy hitters of the DRA were the modifications of the look-back period and the penalty period rules.

The look-back period is the time in which a Medicaid agency can scrutinize asset transfers. Certain transfers during this time may incur a penalty period where the applicant isn’t eligible for benefits. The DRA lengthened the look-back period to 60 months. Importantly, it also changed the rule that stated the penalty period began in the month the assets were transferred. After the DRA, the penalty period doesn’t begin until a Medicaid application is filed and the applicant is otherwise eligible for benefits.

How is available income for Medicaid-eligibility purposes calculated in Ohio when the applicant pays spousal support? Is gross income reduced by the spousal support payments in the available income calculation? This issue was litigated in the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio.

Here, we have Jerome, who suffered from a stroke and required long-term care. His son, Glenn, found a nursing home to provide the needed care. The nursing home filed an application for Medicaid benefits for Jerome and advised Glenn to establish a Miller Trust (also called a QIT Trust) for Jerome in case Jerome’s income level was too high to qualify for Medicaid benefits.

Malpractice. The single word can send shivers down the spine of every attorney. Most attorneys have malpractice insurance to protect themselves and clients in the event the attorney makes an error. But how far does a malpractice insurance company have to go to defend the attorney? How does an exclusion clause affect the analysis? These issues were recently litigated in an Illinois appellate court.

Lisa died, leaving a last will and testament that named her two minor children as beneficiaries. Randy was appointed executor of the estate and he retained attorney Alan’s firm to represent him in the probate case. The probate court converted the case to supervised administration, whereas Randy could not pay Alan’s firm without prior court approval.