Business
New eligibility rules mean nearly 2 million on Medi-Cal can now save for a rainy day
Millions of Medi-Cal beneficiaries can now save for a rainy day, keep an inheritance, or hold on to a modest nest egg without losing coverage, thanks to an eligibility change phased in over the past year and a half.
The change also has opened the door for thousands who previously did not qualify for Medi-Cal, the health insurance program for low-income residents that covers over one-third of California’s population.
Until Jan. 1, 3 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries — mainly those who are aged, blind, disabled, in long-term care or in the federal Supplemental Security Income program — faced limits on the value of financial accounts and personal property they could hold and still qualify for coverage. Now, nearly 2 million of them will no longer face these restrictions, putting them on par with the roughly 12 million other Medi-Cal beneficiaries who don’t have asset limits.
They still must be below Medi-Cal’s income threshold, which for most enrollees is currently $1,677 a month for a single adult and $3,450 for a family of four. However, the change will eliminate a lot of paperwork for applicants and the county workers who verify their eligibility.
For a long time, this group of Medi-Cal beneficiaries could have no more than $2,000 in the bank — $3,000 for a married couple — though the home they lived in, as well as one car and certain types of other personal property, were exempt.
“If you had $5,000 in assets, you would have to spend $3,000 on something to prove that you were beneath the limit to qualify,” said Tiffany Huyenh-Cho, a senior attorney at the advocacy group Justice in Aging. “We had people who prepaid rent, spent money on car repairs, bought a new couch or appliances — things to reduce their assets in order to get to the $2,000 limit.”
Now, Huyenh-Cho adds, “you don’t have to remain in deep poverty. You can save for an emergency; you can save for retirement or for a security deposit if you want to move.”
And those who have hoped to leave a little something for their children when they die can now do so, even if they need expensive long-term care.
The first phase of the rule change was implemented in July 2022, when the threshold was raised dramatically to $130,000 for an individual and $195,000 for a two-person household. That was a nonfactor for the vast majority of those concerned; after all, most people with incomes low enough to qualify for Medi-Cal would not have that much saved. For this reason, the total elimination of the so-called asset test ushered in this year is expected to help fewer people financially than the first change did.
Still, there are some people with more than $130,000 in the bank whose savings would have been wiped out in shockingly short order had they needed long-term care in a nursing facility or at home. Now, they can qualify to have Medi-Cal pick up that cost.
Dr. Joanne Shinozaki, a resident of Granada Hills, hired private full-time caregiving last year for her mother, Fujiko, who has dementia. But it cost nearly $11,000 a month, which Shinozaki quickly realized would burn fast through the roughly $200,000 in savings her father had left when he died early last year. Reluctantly, she put her mom in a memory care home, which was less expensive. But after a 10% increase in January, it is now costing $9,000 a month, although that includes food and utilities.
Fujiko Shinozaki, who has dementia, is currently in a memory care home in Agoura Hills. Thanks to a change in eligibility rules that took effect Jan. 1, she may now qualify for Medi-Cal despite a nest egg her husband left when he died last year.
(Joanne Shinozaki)
Because of the money Shinozaki’s dad left, her mom did not qualify for Medi-Cal under the old rules. Now that money no longer counts against her.
Shinozaki, a veterinarian who quit her job to coordinate her mother’s care, needs to return to work soon. She has applied for Medi-Cal for her mom and is waiting for it to be approved.
“It would mean being able to bring her back to the house where she’s lived since 1988, if she’s well enough to come home,” Shinozaki says. To do that, she will need to get her mom access to caregivers via Medi-Cal’s In-Home Supportive Services program.
Indeed, another benefit of the change in eligibility rules is that it supports the caregiver economy, says Kim Selfon, a Medi-Cal and IHSS policy specialist at Bet Tzedek Legal Services, which provides free legal assistance to people in Los Angeles County.
Advocates who work with Medi-Cal enrollees and applicants say they often have to explain the difference between assets and income.
“I think a lot of people are confused,” says Stephanie Fajuri, program director at the Center for Health Care Rights, an L.A.-based nonprofit that helps people navigate Medi-Cal and Medicare. “They say, ‘What do you mean? I could be making $1 million a year?’ And we say, ‘No, that’s income.’”
So, let’s be clear: Under the new rules, yes, you can have a second house. But if you are renting it out, that’s income — and given today’s rental prices, it will probably disqualify you from full Medi-Cal benefits. You can also keep an investment account regardless of the balance, but distributions from it as well as any interest, dividends and capital gains it generates are also income.
Again, most beneficiaries are unlikely to have a large pool of assets and still have income low enough to qualify for Medi-Cal. But if you suddenly inherit a modest sum — or even a large one — now you can keep it, though it may briefly affect your coverage.
Unfortunately, the 1.1 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries receiving Supplemental Security Income are still subject to an asset test, because different rules apply to them.
Advocates and legal aid attorneys say there hasn’t been enough public education about the elimination of the asset limits and that many people still believe their bank accounts or personal property rule them out.
People may also fear the state will take their house and other assets after they die to recoup what it spent on their care. That worry could intensify now that people can keep all their assets and still be on Medi-Cal. But a 2017 change in the law restricted the state’s ability to put a claim on your house or other assets after you die and made it relatively easy to insulate them entirely.
The state can claim only up to the amount Medi-Cal spent on certain medical services, including long-term and intermediate care and related costs. Even in those cases, it cannot touch your home or any other asset if you have protected it by putting it in a living trust or through some other legal move that keeps it out of probate court. And the state can’t put a claim on it if there is a co-owner who outlives the Medi-Cal beneficiary.
“Now that people can hold unlimited assets, they need to be more cognizant of protecting them should they need long-term care,” says Dina Dimirjian, a staff attorney at Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County.
The Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal, has published an FAQ on the elimination of the asset test. Another good source of information, and legal assistance, is the Health Consumer Alliance.
The end of the asset test will also cure a big bureaucratic headache for beneficiaries and applicants while freeing up countless hours for Medi-Cal eligibility workers in county offices.
“People had to navigate this and figure out what counts and what doesn’t count, and they had to prove it, and the county had to verify it,” said David Kane, a senior attorney at the Western Center on Law & Poverty. “It’s a good thing we can say goodbye to it.”
KFF Health News, formerly known as Kaiser Health News, is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.
If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.
Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.
As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.
Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.
“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”
The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.
The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.
While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.
The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.
The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.
“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”
The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”
While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.
“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”
The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.
As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.
Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”
While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.
“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”
Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.
Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.
“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”
-
New Mexico2 minutes agoDeb Haaland Wins New Mexico Democratic Primary For Governor
-
North Carolina9 minutes agoGreenville Police Department Join Effort Promoting Safe Firearm Storage
-
North Dakota12 minutes agoToday in History, 1971: Rugby repeats as North Dakota sand greens golf champion
-
Ohio17 minutes agoU20 World Team decided at U20 World Team Trials in Geneva, Ohio – WIN Magazine
-
Oklahoma24 minutes agoOklahoma data center boom sparks backlash as Yukon leaders, residents raise concerns
-
Oregon27 minutes agoTimeline video traces SB 1008’s impact on Oregon juvenile justice, viewers can watch now
-
Pennsylvania32 minutes ago1 dead, 2 hospitalized after crash in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, police say
-
Rhode Island39 minutes agoRIIL title-game spots were on the line Tuesday. Here’s who earned them.
