Page 267

Page 4 of 9 § 10:71-5.7 Post-eligibility treatment of income; institutionalized individuals See: 43 N.J.R. 804(a), 44 N.J.R. 230(a). In the introductory paragraph of (a), substituted "below" for "of this section" and "long-term" for "long term"; rewrote (c); in (g)2, substituted "$ 1,821.25" for "$ 1,383"; and added (k). Annotations Notes Chapter Notes Case Notes Patient at a state-run psychiatric hospital had no substantive due process right to additional personal needs allowance money once the patient's personal needs allowance was met through an offset of his income. Edwards v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3525 (2018). New Jersey did not violate Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act by employing "income-first" approach in determining Medicaid eligibility of spouse institutionalized in long-term care facility. Cleary ex rel. Cleary v. Waldman, 167 F.3d 801 (3rd Cir. N.J. 1999). Assets of institutionalized spouse may be diverted to cover community spouse's statutory minimum needs allowance, where community spouse's income is insufficient to meet allowance, for purposes of Medicare spend down requirements; however, resources transferred to community spouse need not be adequate to cover shortfall. Cleary v. Waldman, D.N.J.1997, 959 F.Supp. 222. 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). Under the "income-first" approach, before any of the institutionalized spouse's share of the couple's countable resources could be allocated to the community spouse to meet the shortfall in her minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance (MMMNA), the institutionalized spouse's Social Security benefits had to be applied to that deficit. Moreover, because the monthly Social Security disability benefits were sufficient to meet the MMMNA deficit, there was no basis for increasing the community spouse's share of the couple's countable resources beyond the limits established by N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.8(a). 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). Final agency decision of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services finding that the community spouse monthly income allowance (CSMIA) for petitioner's wife in a nursing home should be calculated in accordance with 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B) and N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.7(e) and not a family court non-dissolution separate maintenance order was upheld because the order was without notice to the Division and was designed to circumvent the regulations governing the CSMIA. R.S. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Hlth. Servs, 434 N.J. Super. 250, 83 A.3d 868, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 12 (2014). Having sought administrative relief by challenging her minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance pursuant to New Jersey Medicaid regulations, the wife of a Medicaid recipient could not file suit in the family court seeking