Connect with us

Business

New eligibility rules mean nearly 2 million on Medi-Cal can now save for a rainy day

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.’”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

KFF Health News, formerly known as Kaiser Health News, is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Business

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Published

on

David Ellison hits CinemaCon, vowing to make more movies with Paramount-Warner Bros.

Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison made his case directly to theater owners Thursday, pledging to release a minimum of 30 films a year from the combined Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery company during a speech at the CinemaCon trade convention in Las Vegas.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” Ellison said in a brief on-stage speech, adding that Paramount has already nearly doubled its film lineup for this year with 15 planned releases, up from eight in 2025.

He also said all films will remain in theaters exclusively for 45 days, starting Thursday. Films will then go to streaming platforms in 90 days. The amount of time that films stay in theaters — known as windowing — has been a controversial topic for theater owners, as some studios reduced that period during the pandemic. Theater operators have said the shortened window has trained audiences to wait to watch films at home and cuts into theater revenues.

“I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life to elevating and preserving film,” said Ellison, clad in a dark jacket and shirt with blue jeans. “And at Paramount, we want to tell even more great stories on the big screen — stories that make people think, laugh, dream, wonder and feel — and we want to share them with as broad an audience as possible.”

Ellison’s CinemaCon appearance comes as more than 1,000 Hollywood actors and creatives have signed a letter opposing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Supporters of the letter have said the deal would reduce competition in the industry and “further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape.”

Advertisement

Some theater operators have also questioned whether the combined company could achieve its goal of releasing 30 films a year, particularly after the cost cuts that are expected after the merger closes.

“People can speculate all they want — but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment,” Ellison said. “And we’ll show you we mean it.”

The speech came after a star-studded video directed by “Wicked: For Good” director Jon M. Chu that was shot on the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue and showcased directors and actors including Issa Rae, Will Smith, Chris Pratt, James Cameron and Timothée Chalamet that are working with the company.

The video closed with “Top Gun” actor Tom Cruise perched atop the Paramount water tower.

“As you saw, the Paramount lot is alive again,” Ellison said after the video. “And we could not be more excited.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Published

on

Video: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

new video loaded: Why Your Paycheck Feels Smaller

Ben Casselman, our chief economics correspondent, explains why wages are not keeping up with inflation and what that means for American workers and the economy.

By Ben Casselman, Nour Idriss, Sutton Raphael and Stephanie Swart

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Published

on

Civil case against Alec Baldwin, ‘Rust’ movie producers advances toward a trial

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

Advertisement

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

Advertisement

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

Advertisement

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Advertisement

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending