«

»

Changes to OHP and “Estate Recovery”

video preview image

MEDFORD, Ore. — When Oregon Health Plan applicant Kathy Lillie called her agent Monday to check the status application, he told her about a detail in the Oregon Health Plan that would recover costs from her estate once she passed on.

“So he said to me, exact words, ‘you need to talk to your children and see if they want you to have insurance or if they want an inheritance,’” said Lillie.

Lillie is self-employed and has been without health insurance for a couple years. She said she is more than willing to pay her part for coverage, but not at the cost of her family.

“We own something and those things that we’ve worked hard for, I want to leave to my kids. What we’ve worked for belongs to them, not to the state of Oregon,” said Lillie.

The Oregon Health Authority announced one week ago that the estate recovery clause of Oregon Health Plan would not apply to applicants who have applied since October first and who are not seeking long term care. Cover Oregon agents said they were told the stipulation was removed because of the changing health care landscape.

“There are now so many adults being added to the Oregon Health Plan that are not long term care patients, it just didn’t make sense to have this language in there because it was confusing and concerning for folks,” Cover Oregon assister Michelle Glass.

Lillie said she will get back in touch with her Cover Oregon agent to see if the Oregon Health Plan still makes sense for her and her family.

“I would sign back up if I knew I wasn’t risking everything. I have no problem paying my part for insurance, I have no problem with that, ” said Lillie.

13 comments

No ping yet

  1. Common Sense says:

    The story here isn’t the fact that there is a “estate recovery”, but that once again some one wants to benefit from the system without paying for it. It should be noted that the OHP is not insurance under ACA (Obamacare). OHP is free or reduced health insurance offered by the state for low income individuals. Doesn’t it make sense that she should have to pay this back if she has the assets to afford it. Why should the taxpayers pay for her insurance just to protect her kids inheritance? In my book that’s freeloading.

    1. Kathy Lillie says:

      To address the reply to the story, you should check what the OHP really is. Under the affordable health care act, they have raised the income amount so that middle class fall into that category. I am will to pay my share and am not “freeloading”. But I am not willing to use my home that we have work hard to have, as a reverse mortgage to have a insurance policy that by law I am required to have. Cover Oregon and OHP are one and the same!

    2. SAM says:

      You are absolutely correct! OHP is NOT something that people are entitled to. State programs are for low income applicants and the application clearly states that there is a state recovery for Medicaid programs. Sadly, people want these free benefits but don’t want their assets or estate touched because they want to leave it to their kids…. well perhaps your kids should help pay for your health insurance then.

  2. Kathy Lillie says:

    Oh and by the way, I have never asked anyone to to pay anything for me but, I thought the whole idea of insurance was to protect your assets!

  3. jane doe says:

    I wouldn’t say that she is a freeloader for wanting to benefit her family. She says that she would have no problem paying if she knew that what she worked hard for wasn’t at risk. you can’t fault her for that.

  4. Ron says:

    So the taxpayers are supposed to just “gift” the healthcare? I have no idea what assets are held, but if there is anything at all they should be surrendered to repay costs. I’ve needed some things in my life and have had to sell things I had in order to get them. Same thing here, either sell the assets now to buy health insurance or surrender them at the end, what is so unfair about that?

    1. Dean says:

      Your taxes will remain or increase whether people get free health care, food benefits , or any kind of government assistance. The surrendered assets will never go back in to yours or any other taxpayers pocket. Your taxes , or “gift” , is to a greedy , overpaid government. I would rather see poor people get health coverage than the government get fatter. Your government is on an all out land grab right now. What are we going to do when all the private property becomes owned by the government? Sounds scary to me.

  5. TheTownCrier says:

    I agree that those getting benefits should try to pay…BUT, those getting food stamps, subsidized housing, etc, etc, who NEVER put sweat equity into a home, will NEVER have to pay a cent, will they?? The entire system SUCKS. Oregon isn’t the only state, California for one does the same thing.

  6. Sammie says:

    While it may not apply to you today for ‘long term care,’ what happens when you wind up in a nursing home or foster care down the line? Does the clause kick in then?

  7. smiles says:

    Makes since to me… and btw ohp is not for middle classes… I’m on the line of lower class and middle class and guess what I’m paying for my insurance all on my own because I got denied by ohp… if I have to pay out of my own pocket for healthcare why can’t all the users of ohp.. they’re lucky that the state allows them to pay for it after they’re dead instead of while they’re kicken. they could deny you all together due to your accrued assets. If your so happy to pay your portion for health insurance, than pay it.

  8. jennifer mcfarland says:

    my mother in law owned land and then put her “boyfriends” name on the land as co owner, (shes foolishly big hearted and he had kids… it was cold, ….etc.) he then got very sick and slowly passed away . before he died she asked him to please sign off on the land that was rightfully hers, fearing OHP’s estate recovery. he died and my poor mother in law is now paying for land she had already owned outright. HAD PAID FOR COMPLETELY !!! she is now paying $500.00 monthly to the State Of Oregon on HER land to pay HIS OHP bill .@$50.000 plus interest (mind you this man would never marry this woman, and ran around on his motorcycle while she was working ) How can the State of Oregon make her pay for his bill being unmarried and him having passed away? He was not the one who paid for the land and she owned it before he came along. She added his name later.

    1. duh says:

      This is your mom’s fault and nothing more. I for one am glad to see the state trying to recover monies from people who think money grows on trees!

  9. Karen Rotter says:

    I have contacted my Washington State Congressman and State Representatives over this same issue; not resolved in our State. My husband and I have never been on State Benefits, but paid into the system for years, using our TAXABLE income to pay off our mortgage. He was diagnosed with cancer, and lost his job of over 40 years. For the first time in our lives we had no insurance, and he purchased an individual plan with his reduced Social Security benefits. After qualifying for the ACA Apple Care, I was shocked to discover that Washington State could lien our home for not only long-term care and medical services, but for the actual “cost of coverage” because I was over 55; all those below 55 are not subject to any recovery; is that fair? How long has a 22-year-old paid into the system? It’s not our fault that, because of the ACA, my husband may not be able to keep his insurance, and we are legally required to accept Apple Care. Those qualifying for other plans get huge subsidies, and they don’t need to pay them back; perhaps that isn’t perceived as a hand-out. In any event, it is deceptive to promote Apple Care as insurance, if you are going to have to pay it all back out of your estate. Even more disturbing is the blatant discrimination against those age 55-64. Makes one question the motivation and integrity of whatever State Officials allowed such a provision to even surface. Thank God that at least Oregon State was made to come its senses, and I Pray Washington State does the same.

Comments have been disabled.