Page 164

Page 4 of 8 § 10:71-4.8 Institutional eligibility; resources of a couple In the introductory paragraph of (a), substituted "welfare agency" for "board of social services" twice; in (a)1, substituted "$ 109,560" for "$ 95,100"; in (a)1i, substituted "$ 21,912" for "$ 19,020"; in (a)2i, deleted "et seq." following the N.J.A.C. reference; in the introductory paragraph of (a)3, substituted "CWA" for "CBOSS"; and in (a)4 and (a)5, updated the N.J.A.C. reference. Administrative change. See: 44 N.J.R. 1780(b). Administrative change. See: 45 N.J.R. 1960(b). Administrative change. See: 47 N.J.R. 115(a). Annotations Notes Chapter Notes Case Notes Income subject to transfer from an institutionalized spouse was not limited to the income he was earning as of the date when the couple's resources were allocated for purposes of determining Medicaid Only eligibility. The other spouse's minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance deficit could be made up with the Social Security disability income the institutionalized spouse was reasonably expected to earn thereafter. N.E. v. New Jersey Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 399 N.J. Super. 566, 945 A.2d 109, 2008 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78 (App.Div. 2008). Claimant was not eligible for Medicaid Only Benefits for nursing home costs because, as of the first day of the month of the current period of institutionalization, his resources exceeded the maximum amount permitted by N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5(c). N.E. v. New Jersey Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 399 N.J. Super. 566, 945 A.2d 109, 2008 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78 (App.Div. 2008). Medicaid eligibility when one spouse is institutionalized and the other is living in the community is determined by reference to total assets owned by the couple at time of application, and amount of exempt assets attributable to community spouse that was previously established at time of institutionalization, plus $ 2,000 of assets attributable to institutionalized spouse, constitute the asset cap that cannot be exceeded at the time of application, unless that cap was increased to reflect a rise in the consumer price index. A.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance, 350 N.J.Super. 175, 794 A.2d 835. Federal Medicaid statute requiring that state's methodology for determining resource eligibility of medically needy person be no more restrictive than for categorically needy person required exclusion of husband's individual retirement account from computation of wife's resources for purposes of determining eligibility. Mistrick v Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, 299 N.J.Super. 76, 690 A.2d 651 (A.D.1997). Individual Retirement account (IRA) in husband's name is includable resource for purposes of determining a wife's Medicaid eligibility when wife enters a nursing home but husband remains in the community, despite claim that the "no more restrictive" provision excluding IRAs from supplemental security income (SSI) eligibility determinations