Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicare Savings Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bill to remove asset test for Medicare Savings Program; advocates cite relief for low‑income seniors
Summary
Senate Bill 545 would remove modest asset limits for New Hampshire’s Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs), expanding eligibility for help with Medicare Parts A/B/D costs and automatic enrollment in the federal Low‑Income Subsidy; supporters say it helps low‑income seniors and reduces administrative burden, while fiscal impacts remain under review.
Sen. Sydney Rosenwald introduced Senate Bill 545, the “Help for Low‑Income Seniors Act of 2026,” saying the bill would remove current modest asset tests for the state’s Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs) to help more Medicare beneficiaries afford deductibles, co‑payments and Part D drug costs. “I have the honor to represent Senate District 13,” Rosenwald told the committee as she framed the bill as a narrow change: delete an asset ceiling of $9,600 for individuals and $14,400 for couples while keeping income tests in place.
Supporters included Mary Roers of AARP New Hampshire, who said removing the resource limit would preserve modest savings for older adults and improve access to the federally funded Low‑Income Subsidy (LIS) for prescription drugs. “SB545 aligns with our mission by addressing the critical issue of health care and prescription drug cost affordability for low‑income seniors,” Roers testified. Judith Jones of New Futures and other advocates explained that expanding MSPs not only taps federal LIS dollars but can reduce reliance on Medicare Advantage plans that have tightened networks for some beneficiaries.
Cheryl Steinberg of New Hampshire Legal Assistance and Lori Raymond, a SHIP counselor, framed the change as both a financial and administrative relief: removing the asset test would ease DHS’s burden of verifying small bank balances and could help older adults remain in home‑based settings. David Chyney, the state’s deputy Medicaid director, said the department supports the concept and estimated roughly 2,000 more enrollees if the asset test were removed; earlier fiscal estimates varied between roughly $1.5–3 million to the state depending on assumptions.
Nut‑graf: Proponents say SB545 sharply targets a narrow eligibility rule that blocks people with modest savings from receiving federal help; opponents and the committee sought updated fiscal estimates and technical details about coordination with CMS to preserve automatic enrollment in the LIS program. The bill does not expand income eligibility.
Committee questions focused on implementation and fiscal impact. Rosenwald acknowledged previous versions had larger fiscal notes when both asset and income changes were proposed; this narrower bill reduces that risk but still needs updated fiscal analysis. DHS and the LBA were asked to provide more precise cost estimates and modeling so lawmakers can weigh the program’s state‑budget impact against federal dollars and the savings from reduced administrative work.
What’s next: The committee requested additional fiscal detail and technical drafting clarifications. Advocates urged quick action to reduce barriers for seniors on fixed incomes; Rosenwald said she hopes the committee will move the measure onward once questions about cost and coordination are answered.
