Increases the amount of the savings exemption for eligibility for Medicaid

• Democratic12

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Cordell Cleare says this is needed

Increasing the asset test is necessary to meaningfully address racial disparities in access to health care, exposed so vividly by COVID-19. Older New Yorkers and people with disabilities with monthly incomes below 138% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPO ($1563/month) are dispropor- tionately people of color. The savings people at this income level have are typically minimal and tend to be in cash rather than in a home or in retirement accounts. When reviewing assets, however, Medicaid counts cash but does not consider an applicant's home and retirement accounts. Given the disparities in homeownership and retirement savings between New Yorkers of color and white New Yorkers, this leads to racial inequi- ties, as well as disparities for people with disabilities. The asset poverty rate in New York varies dramatically by race. * New York has the highest asset poverty rate for Latinx households nationally-53.4% compared to 17.2% for white households in New York State. * New York has the sixth highest asset poverty rate nationally for households of color-40.S% compared to 17.2% for white households. * New York has the sixth highest rate for households with an adult with a disability-47.4% compared to 25.3% for non-disabled households. We recognize political and fiscal realities may make it difficult to repeal the asset limit this year as California has done, so we suggest an incremental approach with the increase of the asset test effective January 1, 2025 and a full repeal in the future. Prior to the full repeal, increasing the liquid asset limit will make access to health care more equitable. A home worth $995,000 is exempt from Medicaid, but a tenant who cannot afford to buy a home, and saves $100,000, is disqualified from Medicaid. An asset limit of six times the annual income limit would be $112,536 in 2022 (single person). This is lower than California's asset limit, now increased to $130,000 as Cali- fornia phases in full repeal of the asset test.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.