The Senate Democrats proposal for a $3.5 trillion spending plan includes expanding Medicare to provide dental, vision, and hearing benefits. The proposal is now being negotiated in Congress. 

Currently Medicare does not offer much in the way of dental, vision, and hearing benefits. Medicare Part A will cover certain emergency or necessary procedures that are received in the hospital. For example, if you are hospitalized after an accident and require jaw reconstruction, Medicare Part A will pay for the dental work required as part of that procedure. 

Medicare Part B offers very limited coverage of some vision and hearing services. For example, while Medicare Part B won’t cover routine eye exams, it does cover yearly glaucoma screenings for people at high risk and cataract surgery, among a few other limited exceptions. Part B will also cover some diagnostic hearing and balance exams if they are ordered by a doctor, but it will not cover routine hearing exams or hearing aids. There is no coverage at all for routine dental work.

Many people choose Medicare Advantage plans, which are run by private insurers, instead of traditional Medicare because it is possible to get some dental, vision, and hearing benefits in most plans. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent of people in Medicare Advantage plans have vision coverage, 74 percent have dental coverage, and 72 percent have hearing aid coverage. 

Under the Democrats’ proposal, Medicare beneficiaries would be able to receive dental, vision, and health benefits through traditional Medicare. The exact details of the proposal are unknown, but in a 2019 bill that passed the House, Medicare beneficiaries would have paid 20 percent of the cost for basic dental coverage and routine eye and hearing exams. Democrats want to pass the spending bill through the reconciliation process, which requires all 50 Democrats to agree to the plan. Negotiations are currently underway to craft a bill that has the support of all the Democratic senators.

For more information about the Democrats’ proposal, click here.

Britney Spears’s legal fight to wrest back control over her personal and financial affairs has flooded the issue of guardianship in Klieg lights. While a full guardianship may be necessary for many individuals who are incapable of managing their own affairs due to dementia or intellectual, developmental or mental health disabilities, the Spears case underlines the option of more limited alternatives.

Every adult is assumed to be capable of making his or her own decisions unless a court determines otherwise. If an adult becomes incapable of making responsible decisions, the court will appoint a substitute decision maker, usually called a “guardian” or a “conservator,” depending on the state.

Guardianship is a legal relationship between a competent adult (the “guardian”) and a person who because of incapacity is no longer able to take care of his or her own affairs (the “ward”). The guardian can be authorized to make legal, financial, and health care decisions for the ward. The National Center for State Courts says that about 1.3 million adults are living under guardianships or conservatorships with some $50 billion in assets.

The standard under which a person is deemed to require a guardian differs from state to state, and because guardianships are subject to state law, data on them is hard to collect and protections against abuse vary widely.  Netflix’s popular movie, I Care a Lot, spotlighted some weaknesses in the guardianship system that make it possible for an unscrupulous guardian to take control of an elderly person’s life and bleed their resources dry. 

The Spears Case: An Unusual Situation

Britney Spears has been under a court-ordered conservatorship that has controlled her career and finances since 2008. Her father, Jamie Spears, was appointed her temporary conservator when the pop singer was allegedly struggling with mental health issues and had been hospitalized, and a Los Angeles court later made the conservatorship permanent.

On July 14, a Los Angeles judge approved the resignation of Spears’s court-appointed lawyer and granted her request to hire her own lawyer. The 39-year-old singer told the judge that she wants to end the long-running conservatorship that put her father in charge of her estimated $60 million fortune and business affairs, and others in control of such personal decisions as whether she can marry and have a baby. “I'm here to get rid of my dad and charge him with conservatorship abuse,” she said.

Whatever the merits of this controversial case, what makes Spears's situation so unusual is the fact that she does not appear to be incompetent, at least when it comes to her professional accomplishments. In the 13 years since the conservatorship was put in place, she has continued her career as a pop star, earning millions from a four-year concert residency act in Las Vegas and serving as a judge on the television reality show “The X Factor.”

Another anomaly is the fact that until now Spears was represented by a court-appointed attorney who, she argued, did not represent her wishes or interests. However, while the media has given wide coverage to Spears’s side of the dispute, we have heard almost nothing from the professionals handling her affairs, who are constrained from publicly disclosing confidential information.

It’s easy to see why conservatorship, which takes away a person’s right to make decisions about significant aspects of his own life, is considered among the most restrictive legal remedies in the American judicial system. For this reason, courts are legally required to seek alternatives that will safeguard the ward’s finances and wellbeing but with the fewest restrictions, in an effort to protect that person’s rights.

Protections Without Total Loss of Control

In the case of an elderly person who may no longer be able to handle some or all of her own affairs, there are various approaches that provide protection without stripping that person of control over all decisions, as in Spears’s case.

Many people in need of help can make responsible decisions in some areas of their lives but not others (such as making major financial decisions). Families might consider setting up what’s called a “limited guardianship.” Most states allow judges to appoint guardians with limited powers that are specifically tailored to the alleged incapacitated person's needs. For example, a court can appoint a guardian to oversee a person's housing and health care, but not to manage the person's bathing, eating, and socialization. Conservators can be appointed to handle the financial affairs of someone who is not good with money, without having any power to manage health care decision making—the options are almost infinite.

Alternatives to Guardianship

Sometimes, guardianship isn't the answer at all. If a person can execute estate planning documents, she can also sign a durable power of attorney and a health care proxy, which allows someone to assist her with decisions without court involvement. This is important for several reasons. First, it prevents a court from ruling that someone is “incapacitated,” which carries with it a stigma and can be hard to undo, as Britney Spears is finding. Second, it puts the person in the driver's seat. Third, it is much less expensive and time-consuming. Another option is a revocable or “living” trust that can be set up to hold an older person's assets, with a relative, friend or financial institution serving as trustee. Alternatively, the older person can be a co-trustee of the trust with another individual who will take over the duties of trustee should the older person become incapacitated.

Experts say that Britney Spears faces a long, difficult path if she seeks to terminate her conservatorship. She would need to file a formal petition, which would require presenting evidence in hearings and depositions. She could face objections at every stage from attorneys representing her father and others involved in her care. (Spears has indicated her unwillingness to submit to a mental evaluation or test in her effort to end the conservatorship.)

If you have questions about what type of guardianship may be right for your family member, or if you are currently under guardianship and are looking to gain control of your affairs, talk to your elder law attorney today.

For an article on what may lie ahead in the Britney Spears case, click here.

For an article on how guardianships can lead to abuse by University of Virginia Family Law Professor Naomi Cahn, click here.

For more on guardianship, click here.

Studies have found that workers overestimate how much they will receive in Social Security benefits when they retire. Having a good understanding of the realities can help you plan for retirement. 

Researchers from the University of Michigan studied the expectations of workers and found great uncertainty about future Social Security benefits as well as a tendency to overestimate the amount they think they will receive. Half of the workers surveyed in the study did not know their benefit amount. The average overestimation of the benefit was $307 a month, more than one-quarter of the average forecasted benefit. 

The study found that as workers got older, however, they were more likely to understand their benefits and less likely to overestimate benefit amounts. 

Nationwide Retirement Institute’s annual Social Security survey similarly found that future retirees over age 50 expect to receive a higher payment than what actual retirees receive.  In this survey, respondents were off by nearly $200 a month. And almost 70 percent of Baby Boomers mistakenly believe that if they claim Social Security early, their benefit will go up automatically when they reach full retirement age. Not surprisingly, the Nationwide survey also found that more than half of workers are not confident in their understanding Social Security or how much money they will receive. 

Not understanding how much you will get from Social Security could lead to you to save less money for retirement while you are working. Setting aside money in a retirement account early can lead to big dividends later. The University of Michigan study found that spending and saving choices based on incorrect expectations lead to less ability to spend in retirement. 

Confusion about benefits could also cause you to start taking benefits before you should. Both the University of Michigan study and the Nationwide survey found that workers have misconceptions about claiming Social Security benefits early. Many people do not understand that if they take Social Security benefits early, it will permanently reduce their benefits. 

Individuals who file for Social Security benefits at age 62 – before their full retirement age — will receive around 72 percent of their full benefit. On the other hand, if you delay taking Social Security benefits beyond your full retirement age your benefit will increase by 8 percent for every year that you delay, in addition to any cost-of-living increases, up to age 70.

For those retiring in 2021 at their full retirement age, the average monthly Social Security benefit is $1,543 for an individual and $2,596 for a couple who both receive benefits, meaning that many will receive less than this amount based on their work and earnings history. The maximum monthly Social Security benefit that an individual can receive in 2021 is $3,895 if they wait until age 70 to collect.  And keep in mind that many retirees have their Medicare Part B and Part D premiums deducted from their Social Security checks.

To gain a solid understanding of your expected Social Security benefits, you can create a my Social Security account. The account will give you retirement benefit estimates based on what you are currently earning. 

For more information about Social Security, click here.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case disputing how much states can recoup from Medicaid recipients’ settlements in personal injury cases. The decision has the potential to affect anyone who receives government assistance with their medical care following a disabling injury that results in a lawsuit.  

If you are injured due to another person's negligence and you receive care through your state's Medicaid program, the state has a legal right to recover funds it spent on your care from your personal injury settlement or award. The question is, how much of the settlement or award is the state entitled to, versus how much may you keep to help compensate for your injury and maintain your quality of life?

Here are the facts of the case the High Court will decide: In 2008, a truck struck and seriously injured 13-year-old Gianinna Gallardo in Florida. The state’s Medicaid agency provided $862,688.77 in medical payments on Gianinna's behalf. Her parents sued the parities responsible, and the case eventually settled for $800,000, of which $35,367.52 represented payment for past medical expenses. The settlement also included funds for future medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages. 

Under the formula used by the state to calculate reimbursement, the Medicaid agency claimed it was entitled to $323,508.29 in medical payments from Gianinna's settlement. The state’s formula included money in the settlement that was specifically allocated for future medical expenses. 

Gianinna’s parents sued the state Medicaid agency in federal court, arguing that Florida’s reimbursement formula violates federal law because the state should only be able to recover from that portion of her settlement allocated to past medical expenses. The Medicaid agency countered that it was entitled to satisfy its lien from the portion of the settlement representing compensation for both past and future medical expenses. 

When a U.S. district court ruled in favor of Gianinna, the Medicaid agency appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that federal law does not “prohibit the agency from seeking reimbursement from settlement monies for medical care allocated to future care.” (Gallardo v. Dudek, 11th Cir., No. 17-13693, June 26, 2020) The 11th Circuit’s decision in Gallardo directly conflicts with a 2018 decision by the Florida Supreme Court that decided that federal Medicaid law preempts Florida law and requires that the state only seek reimbursement from settlement amounts attributable to past medical expenses. Other state and federal courts have also differed on this question. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to resolve the dispute among the lower courts. The decision will likely come during the Court’s 2021-2022 term. 

In December 2018, the Social Security Administration (SSA) had a nasty surprise for Laura Marshall (not her real name), a 74-year-old woman just scraping by in senior citizen housing in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood: The agency demanded that she repay more than $10,000 in benefits, claiming that she owned two properties — one in Washington, D.C., the other in Massachusetts — that made her ineligible for the Supplementary Security Income (SSI) she had been receiving. Local SSA officials wouldn’t believe her when she told them that she had never lived in those two places, let alone owned property there. They suggested she get a lawyer, which she had no money for — the cut in benefits left her barely able to pay her rent.

The same has happened to thousands of other SSI recipients, many of them elderly, according to a joint report by the National Consumer Law Center and Justice in Aging. The problem started in 2018 when the SSA, in an effort to find government assistance beneficiaries owning unreported property that could disqualify them from receiving benefits, began cross-checking lists of property owners on a LexisNexis data set called Accurint for Government. Letters started turning up in the mail informing people that their benefits had been cancelled, and in some cases even demanding repayment. Often the letters did not identify the properties allegedly belonging to the recipients, making it even more difficult for the falsely accused to deny the claims and convince local SSA officials that they owned no property.

It should be of little surprise that the SSA’s initiative netted innocent people, notes the new report, titled “Mismatched and Mistaken: How the Use of an Inaccurate Private Database Results in SSI Recipients Unjustly Losing Benefits”. Accurint for Government's database is “riddled with errors,” the report states. Accurint drew up its list of alleged property owners by simply plugging first and last names into the LexisNexis database, without even checking to see if middle initials or Social Security numbers matched those of assistance recipients,

Such laxity would never have passed muster with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA). So to get around this, LexisNexis inserted a disclaimer at the bottom of its Accurint website, which reads: “Accurint for Government is not a consumer report (as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and may not be used for any purpose permitted by the FCRA.” For its part, the SSA is using the disclaimer to strip benefits recipients of their rights; the FCRA would have otherwise entitled them to be notified before action is taken, and given them the right to have inaccurate information investigated and corrected, the report points out.

The SSA claims that it did not act on the LexisNexis data alone, but rather used it as a starting point for further investigation to determine whether recipients did own property. But advocates around the country challenge this assertion, pointing to numerous cases like that of Ms. Marshall where action was taken without further investigation, the report says.

In her case, Ms. Marshall’s social worker connected her with a a legal aid attorney, who was finally able to convince SSA officials that she had no connection to the properties in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts.  Her SSI was fully reinstated, but others whose cases have not come to the attention of advocates may not have been so lucky.

Among several recommendations, the National Consumer Law Center and Justice in Aging together recommend that LexisNexis and SSA acknowledge that Accurint for Government is a consumer report, and they call on both to abide by FRCA standards. The report also calls for the SSA to implement an appeals process that allows benefits recipients to challenge claims against them before any action is taken.

To read the report, click here.

 

 

Qualifying for Medicare hardly means free health care — there are still premiums and deductibles. However, people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid (called “dual eligibility”) receive help paying their out-of-pocket costs. 

Medicare is a federal program available to anyone 65 or older. It consists of four major parts, each of which have premiums and co-pays associated with them: 

• Part A covers hospital stays and some limited nursing home stays
• Part B covers office visits, physician fees, medical equipment, home care, and preventative services
• Part C (called Medicare Advantage) permits Medicare beneficiaries to receive Part A and B benefits from private insurance companies
• Part D covers prescription medications

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides health insurance to low-income adults, children, and people with disabilities. It is also the primary method of paying for nursing home care. To qualify for coverage, applicants must have limited assets and income.  

To be considered dually eligible, beneficiaries can be enrolled in either Medicare and full Medicaid or in Medicare and one of Medicaid’s Medicare Savings Programs. Medicare Savings Programs are state programs, run through Medicaid, that provide help paying for Medicare premiums. When Medicare and Medicaid coverage overlap, Medicare always pays for the services first. If Medicare doesn’t cover the full cost, then Medicaid may cover the remaining cost. Medicaid may also cover some costs that Medicare does not cover, like long-term nursing home care. 

The benefits available to dual eligible beneficiaries depend on which Medicaid program the beneficiary is enrolled in: 

• Full Medicaid. Beneficiaries receive full Medicaid coverage. Because Medicaid is a state-run program, additional benefits can vary by state. Some states may pay Medicare’s Part B premiums. In addition, beneficiaries do not have to pay more than the amount allowed under the state’s Medicaid program for services by Medicare providers. 
• Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program. Beneficiaries receive help paying Part A and Part B premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments.
• Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) Program: Beneficiaries receive help paying Part B premiums.
• Qualifying Individual (QI) Program: Beneficiaries receive help paying Part B premiums but help is limited on a first-come, first-served basis. 
• Qualified Disabled Working Individual (QDWI) Program. Pays Part A premiums for certain disabled and working beneficiaries under 65 who meet certain income and resource limits set by their state. 

For more on Medicare Savings Programs, click here.

For more information about Medicare, click here.  

For more information about Medicaid, click here.

The federal government has expanded access to protections for spouses of reverse mortgage holders who are not named in the loan document, allowing more such spouses the ability to stay in their home if the borrowing spouse dies or moves to a care facility. 

A reverse mortgage allows homeowners to use the equity in their home to take out a loan, but borrowers must be 62 years or older to qualify for this type of mortgage. Up until 2014, if one spouse was under age 62, the younger spouse had to be left off the loan in order for the couple to qualify for a reverse mortgage. But couples often did this without realizing the potentially catastrophic implications. If only one spouse's name was on the mortgage and that spouse died, the surviving spouse would be required to either repay the loan in full or face eviction. 

In 2014, the Department of Housing and Urban Development developed a rule that better protected at least some surviving spouses. Under the rule, if a couple with one spouse under age 62 wants to take out a reverse mortgage, they may list the underage spouse as a “non-borrowing spouse.” If the older spouse dies, the non-borrowing spouse may remain in the home, provided that the surviving spouse establishes within 90 days that he or she has a legal right to stay in the home (this could, for example, be an ownership document, a lease, or a court order). The surviving spouse also must continue to meet the other requirements of a reverse mortgage holder, such as paying property taxes and insurance premiums.

While this rule was beneficial to many non-borrowing spouses, it left some out: It applied only to loans taken out after the law became effective in 2014 and did not cover spouses of borrowers who had to leave the home due to medical reasons. In May 2021, the Federal Housing Authority issued a new rule that addresses these issues and expands the protection to the following spouses: 

• All non-borrowing spouses, not just ones whose loans began after 2014 
• Non-borrowing spouses of borrowers who had to move to a health care facility for more than 12 consecutive months 
• Spouses who were in a committed relationship with the borrower at the time of the loan, but were prevented from marrying the borrower due to their genders, provided they eventually married before the borrower’s death

The new rule also eliminates the requirement that non-borrowing spouses demonstrate that he or she has a marketable title or the legal right to remain in the home. 

This rule still does not cover spouses who were not married to the borrower at the time of the loan (except in the case of same-sex marriages that were prohibited at the time). Additionally, the non-borrowing surviving spouse still cannot access the remaining loan balance. 

To read the new rule, click here.

Medicare prescription drug (Part D) plans can have a coverage gap—called the “donut hole”–which limits how much Medicare will pay for your drugs until you pay a certain amount out of pocket. Although the gap has gotten much smaller since Medicare Part D was introduced in 2006, there still may be a difference in what you pay during your initial coverage compared to what you might pay while caught in the coverage gap. 

When you first sign up for a Medicare prescription drug plan, you will have to pay a deductible, which can’t be more than $445 (in 2021). Once you’ve paid the deductible, you still need to cover your co-insurance (also called co-payment) amount (depending on your drug plan), but Medicare will pay the rest. Co-insurance is usually a percentage (for example, 20 percent) of the cost of the drug. If you pay co-insurance, these amounts may vary throughout the year due to changes in the drug’s total cost. 

Once you and your plan pay a total of $4,130 (in 2021) in a year, you enter the coverage gap, aka the notorious donut hole. Previously coverage stopped completely at this point until total out-of-pocket spending reached a certain amount. However, the Affordable Care Act has mostly eliminated the donut hole. In 2021, until your total out-of-pocket spending reaches $6,550, you’ll pay 25 percent for brand-name and generic drugs. Once total spending for your covered drugs exceeds $6,550 (the “catastrophic coverage” threshold for 2021), you are out of the coverage gap and you will pay only a small co-insurance amount. For more from Medicare on coinsurance drug payments, click here.  

Once you are in the coverage gap, your yearly deductible and co-insurance payments count toward the amount you need to pay to reach catastrophic coverage. The amount of out-of-pocket costs that you have to pay to reach catastrophic coverage will vary, depending on the type of drugs you take. In the case of brand name drugs, you will pay only a certain percentage of the price, but the entire price will count toward the amount you need to qualify for catastrophic coverage. With generic drugs, only the amount you pay will count toward getting you out of the donut hole. For more information about the coverage gap, click here.  

Bear in mind that only payments for drugs that are covered by your plan count towards the out-of-pocket threshold. Your premium and the portion of the drug cost that Medicare pays do not count toward reaching catastrophic coverage, either. Also, any help with paying for Medicare Part D costs that you receive from an employer health plan or other insurance does not count toward this limit. 

For more information about Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, click here.

 

To qualify for Medicaid coverage of long-term care, you must satisfy very complicated financial eligibility rules—rules that often can be traps for the unwary. One of the most significant traps is Medicaid's right to recover its expenses from your estate after you die – a practice known as “estate recovery.”

Under current Medicaid law, states are required to attempt to recoup Medicaid spending for long-term care services. Since about the only asset you're allowed to own and still get Medicaid coverage is your home, this right of estate recovery is the state's claim against your home. In other words, if you own a home, Medicaid is really a loan. It will pay for your care, but your house will have to be sold when you die to repay the state for the services it provided.

Now, five elder advocacy groups are calling on Congress to eliminate Medicaid estate recovery after a congressional advisory commission concluded that the practice recoups only a tiny percentage of Medicaid spending while contributing to generational poverty and wealth inequity.

“The burden of estate claims falls disproportionately on economically oppressed families and communities of color, preventing families from building wealth through home ownership, which has been historically denied to communities of color through discriminatory public policy,” the five groups – Justice in Aging, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, the National Health Law Program, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty – wrote in a jointly authored Issue Brief, Medicaid Estate Claims: Perpetuating Poverty & Inequality for a Minimal Return. “Congress should amend Federal law to eliminate Medicaid estate claims. Alternatively, the law should be amended so that states have the choice of whether to use Medicaid estate claims, as recommended in a recent report to Congress by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC).”

In its March 2021 report to Congress, MACPAC recommended that Congress amend Medicaid law to make estate recovery optional for states, rather than required as it is now. The group, a non-partisan legislative branch agency that provides analysis and recommendations to Congress, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the states, also recommends that HHS set minimum standards for hardship waivers under the Medicaid estate recovery program.  Currently, it’s up to the states to decide what qualifies as “hardship.”

Pointing out that estate recovery recoups only about 0.55 percent of total fee-for-service long-term care spending, MACPAC recommends that states not be allowed to pursue recovery against any asset that is “the sole income-producing asset of survivors,” homes of “modest value,” or any estate valued under a certain dollar figure.

In their Issue Brief, the five advocacy groups go a step further. Noting that “no other public benefit program requires that correctly paid benefits be recouped from deceased recipients’ family members,” they call for the elimination of estate recovery “so that low-income families are better able to retain wealth and pass it on to future generations. Or, at a minimum, federal law should be amended to make estate claims voluntary.”

The Issue Brief details how Medicaid estate recovery keeps families in poverty, exacerbates racial wealth gaps, and runs counter to efforts to create more affordable housing.

To read the Issue Brief, click here.

To read the relevant chapter of MACPAC’s report to Congress, click here.

For how to protect a house from estate recovery, click here.

For more about Medicaid's rules, click here.

 

 

 

President Biden has introduced a plan to spend $400 billion over eight years on home and community-based care for the elderly and people with disabilities. The money would go to expand access to care and support higher-paying caregiving jobs. 

As the elderly population grows, our long-term care system is becoming increasingly strained. The AARP found that in 2020, more than one out of every five Americans — 21.3 percent — were acting as caregivers, either caring for a relative or a close friend. Many women have had to drop out of the workforce to care for aging family members. In the meantime, paid caregivers are typically underpaid and overworked, with one in six paid caregivers living in poverty. And our elderly population is only expected to grow: By 2030, one in five Americans is projected to be over 65.

Recognizing that the United States is “in the midst of a caregiving crisis,” President Biden has proposed boosting funding for home and community based long-term care as part of his $2 trillion American Jobs Plan. While the plan does not have specifics, it proposes to expand access to long-term care services under Medicaid that help people stay at home and avoid care in an institution. Currently, only nursing home care is mandated under Medicaid, with states providing care at home or in the community at their discretion. Waiting lists for home and community-based services under state Medicaid programs can stretch on for years, and only a small fraction of those who need care receive these services, according to Kaiser Health News.

Among other things, President Biden wants to extend the Money Follows the Person program, which is a federal initiative designed to move people out of nursing homes and into home-based care. The program provides grants to states to create innovative home and community-based programs. 

President Biden is also proposing that money be put toward creating well-paying caregiving jobs and that home health care workers be able to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. The White House states that this “will improve wages and quality of life for essential home health workers and yield significant economic benefits for low-income communities and communities of color.”

President Biden’s plan does not provide details, leaving It up to Congress to fill in the particulars when drafting its legislation. It is unclear how much of Biden’s proposed funding will make it into a final bill. 

To read about the American Jobs Plan, click here.  

For more about the home health care proposal, click here and here.