In re Rasmer Estate, et al.
Docket Nos. 153356, 153370, 153371, 153372, and 153373
Trial Lawyer’s Takeaway: Legislature’s MMERP warnings sufficient to recover Medicaid benefits from beneficiaries’ estates dating back to July 2010.
The issue in these consolidated cases was whether Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services could recover Medicaid benefits paid from the beneficiary’s estate. In 1993, Congress required states to execute programs to recover certain Medicaid benefits from beneficiaries’ estates. To that end, Michigan enacted the Michigan Medicaid Estate-Recovery Program. Michigan’s Medicaid application forms did not warn about MMERP when Rasmer initially applied for benefits in 2008. By the time Rasmer’s patient representative sought a redetermination in 2013, the form did include such a warning.
Rasmer first argued that DHHS could not recover the benefits for the period of time that her initial application was effective because there was no notice regarding MMERP. This argument depended on the two provisions of MMERP, MCL 400.112g(3)(e) and (7), which stated that DHHS should provide “written materials” and “written information” when a person is applying for Medicaid benefits. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Larsen, the Court noted the issue with timing. When Rasmer initially applied in 2008, MMERP was not finalized and was not approved by the federal government until 2011.
Rasmer next argued that the written notice that DHHS eventually provided in 2013 was deficient. The Court acknowledged that DHHS could have provided greater detail, but held that the statute provided nothing more than DHHS provided.
The Court then addressed the argument that DHHS violated the statute’s requirement to wait until federal approval by giving an effective date to MMERP of July 2010, which was a year before federal approval. The Court dismissed this with little analysis, stating that DHHS clearly waited for federal approval to begin implementing MMERP. “Because an effective date may predate approval and because implementation must be contemporaneous with or postdate approval, it follows that the MMERP-related state-plan amendments could lawfully be given effect as of a date before implementation.”
The Court likewise dismissed the argument that DHHS violated due process by setting an effective date before implementation. The plaintiffs articulated their property interest as “the right to plan during their lifetimes for the disposition of their property after death,” which was denied because they did not know of MMERP. The Court didn’t rule on whether this was a constitutionally protected interest and instead held that DHHS provided sufficient process.
Lastly the Court held that the statute was not retroactive because MMERP was initially signed into law in 2007. Therefore, the statute did not apply “to events antedating its enactment.” The Court refused to address the argument that recovery violated the statute’s prohibition of DHHS seeking recovery “if the costs of recovery exceed the amount” available or “if the recovery is not in the best economic interest of the state.” The agency had argued that this standard was not judicially enforceable. The Court passed on the question.
Full opinion here.