Medicare's Open Enrollment Period, during which you can freely enroll in or switch plans, runs from October 15 to December 7. Now is the time to start shopping around to see whether your current choices are still the best ones for you.  

During this period you may enroll in a Medicare Part D (prescription drug) plan or, if you currently have a plan, you may change plans. In addition, during the seven-week period you can return to traditional Medicare (Parts A and B) from a Medicare Advantage (Part C, managed care) plan, enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, or change Advantage plans. 

Beneficiaries can go to www.medicare.gov or call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) to make changes in their Medicare prescription drug and health plan coverage.

According to the New York Times, few Medicare beneficiaries take advantage of Open Enrollment, but of those who do, nearly half cut their premiums by at least 5 percent. Even beneficiaries who have been satisfied with their plans in 2020 should review their choices for 2021, as both premiums and plan coverage can fluctuate from year to year. Are the doctors you use still part of your Medicare Advantage plan’s provider network? Have any of the prescriptions you take been dropped from your prescription plan’s list of covered drugs (the “formulary”)? Could you save money with the same coverage by switching to a different plan?

For answers to questions like these, carefully look over the plan's “Annual Notice of Change” letter to you. Prescription drug plans can change their premiums, deductibles, the list of drugs they cover, and their plan rules for covered drugs, exceptions, and appeals. Medicare Advantage plans can change their benefit packages, as well as their provider networks.  

Remember that fraud perpetrators will inevitably use the Open Enrollment Period to try to gain access to individuals' personal financial information. Medicare beneficiaries should never give their personal information out to anyone making unsolicited phone calls selling Medicare-related products or services or showing up on their doorstep uninvited. If you think you've been a victim of fraud or identity theft, contact Medicare. 

Here are more resources for navigating the Open Enrollment Period:

• Medicare Plan Finder, which helps you find a plan to match your needs: www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan
• Medicare coverage options: https://www.medicare.gov/medicarecoverageoptions/
• The 2020 Medicare & You handbook, which all Medicare beneficiaries should have received. The handbook can also be downloaded online at:  medicare.gov/forms-help-resources/medicare-you-handbook/download-medicare-you-in-different-formats
• The Medicare Rights Center: www.medicareinteractive.org
• Your State Health Insurance Assistance Program, which offers independent counseling: https://www.shiptacenter.org

The COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly devastating for nursing homes and their residents.  Aside from the tragically disproportionate loss of life, care for surviving residents has been delayed or interrupted due to infection, facility lockdowns or other health system disruptions.  In such cases, Medicare beneficiaries who qualified for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage may be eligible for an additional 100 days of coverage. Whether all qualified beneficiaries will actually get the extended coverage is another question.

Medicare does not pay for long-term care, just for “medical” care from a doctor or other health care professional or in a hospital. But there's a partial exception to this rule. Medicare will pay for up to 100 days of care per “spell of illness” in an SNF as long as the following two requirements are met:

1. Your move to an SNF followed a hospitalization of at least three days; and

2. You need and will be receiving skilled care.

After the 100 days of coverage ends, a new spell of illness can begin if the patient has not received skilled care, either in an SNF or a hospital, for a period of 60 consecutive days. The patient can remain in the SNF and still qualify as long as he or she does not receive a skilled level of care, but only custodial care, during that 60 days.

Following the declaration of a public health emergency this spring, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a letter granting a waiver to allow Medicare beneficiaries coverage for an additional 100 days in an SNF, without satisfying the new spell of illness requirement, in certain COVID-19 related circumstances. The letter stated that the policy will apply only to skilled-care beneficiaries whose process of care was interrupted by the public health emergency. (The letter also waived the three-days-in-a-hospital rule in certain cases.)

Six months after that letter, however, there is still confusion about which COVID-19 related circumstances qualify for the waiver. Importantly, according to the Center for Medicare Advocacy, CMS recently confirmed that beneficiaries do not necessarily have to have a COVID-19 diagnosis to qualify for the additional 100 days of coverage. Rather, as described by Skilled Nursing News, “[t]he question is whether the emergency situation interrupted the patient’s path to 60 consecutive days of non-skilled, custodial care.”

In an August 26, 2020, memorandum, CMS attempted to clarify how it would determine whether a disruption in care was related to the public health emergency: “This determination basically involves comparing the course of treatment that the beneficiary has actually received to what would have been furnished absent the emergency. Unless the two are exactly the same, the provider would determine that the treatment has been affected by – and, therefore, is related to – the emergency.” 

However, in some cases, nursing homes do not understand how the waiver applies or are not inclined to help patients with a waiver application. The Center for Medicare Advocacy offers a detailed case example of an individual who appears to meet the criteria for additional Medicare coverage but who has encountered multiple barriers in getting it.   

In addition to confusion over who qualifies for the extended coverage, the Center for Medicare Advocacy has found that the “waiver that extends SNF benefits by up to 100 days does not appear to afford beneficiaries the same rights as the first 100 days of statutory coverage,” including rights to appeal coverage denials. The Center reports that it “has received an increasing number of requests for guidance on expanded Medicare coverage in skilled nursing facilities.” In response, the organization has compiled self-help materials to assist beneficiaries and their advocates. 

The Center is asking those with experiences pursuing coverage under the public health emergency rules, waivers, or guidance to contact it at Communications@MedicareAdvocacy.org

 

 

 

 

 

While Medicare would cover a coronavirus vaccine approved through normal channels, if the Food and Drug Administration approves the vaccine through an emergency use authorization (EUA), Medicare will not cover it unless the government acts. 

As we previously reported, the CARES Act provides that if a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, Medicare is required to cover this vaccine under Part B with no cost sharing. Medicare Advantage plans are required to include the basic coverage offered by Medicare Parts A and B, so this coverage also applies to beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans. 

However, it is possible that the federal government will authorize the use of the vaccine through an EUA, which is a faster method of approving drugs needed in a crisis situation, like the coronavirus pandemic. Medicare does not cover costs of vaccines approved under EUAs. 

In order to ensure that the vaccine is free, the government will need to act. One option is that Congress could change the language in the CARES Act to ensure coverage. In addition, doses purchased by the federal government will be free of charge. 

The coronavirus pandemic has forced nursing homes to place a number of restrictions on their residents. These constraints are having the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for nursing home residents to vote. Hundreds of thousands of nursing home and assisted living community residents could be disenfranchised.

Older Americans are some of the most reliable voters, but nursing home residents face challenges to voting even in normal times, and they are encountering even greater barriers this election season. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, nursing homes have locked down, prohibiting family and friends from visiting residents and residents from leaving the facilities. This means residents may not be able to leave to vote and also will not be able to have help from family members or organizations in obtaining and filling out mail-in ballots. 

In past years, nursing homes and assisted living facilities often acted as polling places, but many of those are being moved due to the pandemic. In addition, nonpartisan organizations have historically been able to enter nursing homes to assist residents with their ballots, but it is unclear whether this will be allowed this year. North Carolina and Louisiana specifically prohibit nursing home staff from assisting residents with their ballots, but even in states that don’t explicitly prohibit it, overworked staff may not have the time to help residents. 

While federal law requires nursing homes to protect their residents’ rights, including the right to vote, it is “a really open question to what extent people in long-term care institutions are going to be able to participate in our election in November,” says Nina Kohn, a law professor at Syracuse University who has studied facility residents’ voting-rights issues. Kohn warns that “we should be clear that there is tremendous reason to be concerned that nursing home residents will be . . . systematically disenfranchised in this election,” 

For more information about this issue, click here, here, and here. 

 

The amount of Social Security benefits a surviving spouse receives depends, in part, on when their deceased spouse began claiming benefits. However, husbands usually don’t take survivor’s benefits into account when claiming benefits, according to a recent study, meaning that many widows will needlessly experience a significant drop in income. 

Because women typically live longer than men and men are often the higher earners, most married women will be widowed and will have their income drop below what they need to maintain their accustomed standard of living. Spouses of a worker who has died are entitled to the worker's full retirement benefits once they reach their full retirement age. If the worker delayed retirement, the survivor's benefit will be higher. Husbands have the option of increasing their surviving spouse’s income by delaying Social Security benefits, but according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, most husbands do not take their wives’ future needs into consideration. 

The study looked at whether greater awareness of Social Security Survivor’s benefits would affect claiming decisions. The study found that husbands tend to take more immediate concerns into consideration, such as their health and whether they have another pension, rather than their wives’ Survivor’s Benefits. Giving the husbands information about how they could improve their wives’ financial well-being by claiming benefits later did not change their claiming decisions. 

The study concludes that in order to protect widows, the government should consider providing Survivor’s Benefits in a way that doesn’t tie the surviving spouse’s benefits to the decision of when to claim benefits. As things stands now, however, if you are the higher earner and are nearing retirement, you may want to take into account how your decision on when to claim benefits will affect your spouse if he or she survives you. 

To read the study, click here. 

For more information about Social Security benefits for spouses, click here.

 

Choosing a nursing home for a loved one is a difficult decision and it can only be made more confusing by the various rating systems. A recent study found that using both Medicare’s Nursing Home Compare site and user reviews can help with the decision making. 

The official Medicare website includes a nursing home rating system. Nursing Home Compare offers up to five-star ratings of nursing homes based on health inspections, staffing, and quality measures. However, Medicare’s rating system is far from perfect. The staff level and quality statistics ratings are based largely on self-reported data that the government does not verify. The ratings also do not take into account state fines and enforcement data or consumer complaints to state agencies.  Nursing homes have learned how to game the system to improve their ratings. 

While Nursing Home Compare doesn’t include consumer feedback, Yelp and other online platforms like Facebook, Google, and Caring.com allow users to review individual nursing homes. These user reviews are highly subjective, and it can be difficult to judge their legitimacy. These reviews are not usually taken seriously–for example, consumer guides to finding a nursing home do not usually suggest that consumers consult online reviews.  (It should be noted, however, that Caring.com goes to great lengths to ensure the integrity of its reviews, including having senior care experts read every submission before publication.) 

In order to better understand what consumers were saying about nursing homes online, researchers at the University of Southern California evaluated 264 Yelp reviews and grouped them into categories. The researchers found that consumers rate different aspects of nursing home care than does the official rating system. User reviews were more emotional and more likely to focus on staff attitudes and responsiveness rather than on the quality of health care. 

The researchers concluded that user reviews can be used in conjunction with the Nursing Home Compare site to paint a fuller picture of life at the nursing home because they present complementary information. According to the study, online reviews shouldn’t be dismissed because they “directly capture the voices of residents and family members, precisely the kind of information [nursing homes] and their consumers need to hear and may want to act on, if resident-directed care is to be achieved.” 

Yelp has gone a step further than other consumer review sites and has teamed up with the investigative news organization, ProPublica, to provide users with additional information. ProPublica's Nursing Home Inspect site, allows users to compare nursing homes based on federal data. Yelp users viewing a nursing home review page see a ProPublica box that provides information on the nursing home’s deficiencies and fines.

To read an article about the study, click here.

 

The coronavirus pandemic is having a profound effect on the current U.S. economy, and it may have a detrimental effect on Social Security’s long-term financial situation. High unemployment rates mean Social Security shortfalls could begin earlier than projected. 

Social Security retirement benefits are financed primarily through dedicated payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers, with employees and employers splitting the tax equally. This money is put into a trust fund that is used to pay retiree benefits. The most recent report from the trustees of the Social Security trust fund is that the fund’s balance will reach zero in 2035. This is because more people are retiring than are working, so the program is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in. Additionally, seniors are living longer, so they receive benefits for a longer period of time. Once the fund runs out of money, it does not mean that benefits stop altogether. Instead, retirees’ benefits would be cut, unless Congress acts in the interim. According to the trustees’ projections, the fund’s income would be sufficient to pay retirees 77 percent of their total benefit. 

With unemployment at record levels due to the pandemic, fewer employers and employees are paying payroll taxes into the trust fund. In addition, more workers may claim benefits early because they lost their jobs. President Trump issued an executive order deferring payroll taxes until the end of the year as a form of economic relief, which could negatively affect Social Security and Medicare funds.  

Some experts believe that the pandemic could move up the depletion of the trust fund by two years, to 2033, if the COVID-19 economic collapse causes payroll taxes to drop by 20 percent for two years. Other experts argue that it could have a greater effect and deplete the fund by 2029. However, as the Social Security Administration Chief Actuary morbidly noted to Congress, this pandemic different from most recessions: the increased applications for benefits will be partially offset by increased deaths among seniors who were receiving benefits. 

It remains to be seen exactly how much the pandemic affects the Social Security trust fund, but the experts agree that as soon as the pandemic ends, Congress should take steps to shore up the fund. 

 

Litigation over James Brown’s estate has been dragging on for 14 years, but the case took a big step towards resolution when the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the woman claiming a spousal share in Mr. Brown’s estate was never legally married to him. 

Mr. Brown, known as the Godfather of Soul, married Tommie Rae Hynie in 2001. At the time, Ms. Hynie did not disclose that she was already married to Javed Ahmed. When Mr. Brown discovered the previous marriage in 2003, Ms. Hynie filed a claim to annul the marriage to Mr. Ahmed on the basis that Mr. Ahmed was already married. Mr. Ahmed did not appear at the annulment hearing, and the court granted the annulment, finding the marriage was void. In 2004, Mr. Brown filed a claim to annul his marriage to Ms. Hynie, but he eventually dropped the annulment proceeding.  He died in 2006 without having the marriage formally annulled and leaving the majority of his estate to a charitable trust. 

Following Mr. Brown’s death, Ms. Hynie filed a claim against the estate, asking for a “spousal share.” Under South Carolina law, spouses can collect one-third of an estate even if the spouse isn’t named in the will. The estate argued that Ms. Hynie was not a surviving spouse because her marriage to Mr. Brown was never valid. Ms. Hynie argued that because her marriage to Mr. Ahmed had been annulled, her marriage to Mr. Brown was valid. 

After the case wended its way through the courts for years, the South Carolina Supreme Court finally determined on June 17, 2020, that Ms. Hynie is not Mr. Brown’s surviving spouse. The court ruled that because at the time Ms. Hynie married Mr. Brown she had not resolved her marriage to Mr. Ahmed, her marriage to Mr. Brown was void under state law. The court noted that Mr. Brown’s trust was intended to be used to create scholarships for children in South Carolina and Georgia and lamented that the protracted litigation has thwarted Mr. Brown’s expressed wishes. Further litigation is possible — including resolving whether James Brown II, the child of Ms. Hynie and Mr. Brown, may inherit a portion of the estate — but experts say the ruling is a major step towards finally settling the affairs of the former “Hardest Working Man in Show Business.”  

To read the case, click here.

To read a New York Times article about the case, click here.