This question is prompted by a comment in a question I asked previously regarding the finances of aging parents (assets include a small savings and some property). I will summarize the comment as follows:

If a high dependency care unit is a realistic possibility for an aging parent, then selling property might not be a good idea. The government is going to make the parents use up all their cash before providing aid. Whereas, they'll leave the house out of the equation as long as the person requiring care expresses a desire to return to that home. If the person doesn't express that desire then they'll force them to sell the home and use up all that cash to pay the care costs before providing aid.

Is this accurate? Can someone shed light on this for me?

  • 2
    A little info here. The house would be safe as long as one spouse still resided there, maybe, but possibly not the land. – mkennedy Apr 10 at 17:56
  • 2
    It's more about Medicaid than Medicare, which pays for long term care or hospice when the patient's funds run out. It's usually an issue in the government reversing gifts to family in a historical time range - Related question money.stackexchange.com/questions/13334/… – user662852 Apr 10 at 22:55
  • Specifically, Medicare doesn't cover long term care (and doesn't care about your assets for things it does cover). Medicaid does but only if you are poor according to government standards, which may vary some based on state because Medicaid is funded more than half Federally but administered by each state. – dave_thompson_085 Jul 22 at 0:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.