|
Superior Court Rules Son Responsible for Mom's Nursing Home Bills
July 17, 2012 Parsippany, NJ
Would your advice about long term care planning change if adult children were held responsible for their parents' nursing home bills?
This provocative question is worth considering, in view of the recent spotlight thrown on filial responsibility laws. Though rarely enforced, such laws require spouses, children, and parents to financially support needy adults. Until recently the number of states with filial responsibility laws was 30, but is now 29 , since the repeal of Connecticut's statute. A recent Pennsylvania court ruling under the filial law has many advisors concerned.
In Health Care & Retirement Corp. Of America v. Pittas, a trial court allowed a nursing home to sue an adult son for his mother's unpaid $93,000 bill. The mother had applied for Medicaid; however, the nursing home sued before the Medicaid claim was resolved. Upon appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (Pa. Super. Ct., No. 536 EDA 2011, May 7, 2012), upheld the lower court decision and ruled that the nursing home had the right to seek payment from any family member who had the means to pay.
If filial laws are enforced more widely in the future, the logical result, it seems to me, is that there will be a huge incentive for adult children to make sure their parents have long term care insurance (LTCI)! And I think it would be short-sighted to think that LTCI only makes sense if one lives in a filial responsibility state. Given the ailing finances of some federal programs in light of our nation's aging population, it's arguably likely that there will be changes in this area of the law.
The aversion to purchasing insurance or the denial of aging may cause people to turn a blind eye to long term care planning and LTCI. Perhaps their children, whose own finances may be in jeopardy, will influence the purchase.
This brings up the question of whether a person of very modest means should purchase long term care insurance. Traditionally, the answer was no. Given the possible consequences of the new ruling, the argument may be made that, if only from a financial point-of-view, adult children of means should purchase LTCI for their financially-impaired parents.
|