The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 27, 2010, by Katherine Webster, who is the niece of the late Anthony J. Ferrantino and the executor of Mr. Ferrantino’s estate.

Knowing that he had only a few months to live, Mr. Ferrantino asked Ms. Webster in July 2007 to help him use LegalZoom to execute a will and living trust. Based on LegalZoom’s advertising, Ms. Webster says she believed that the documents they created would be legally binding and that if they encountered any problems, the company’s customer service department would resolve them.

But after the living trust documents were created and signed, Ms. Webster could not transfer any of her uncle’s assets into the trust because the financial institutions that held his money refused to accept the LegalZoom documents as valid. Ms. Webster tried to get help from LegalZoom, with no success. The trust was still not funded when Mr. Ferrantino died in November 2007.

Ms. Webster was forced to hire an estate planning attorney, who petitioned the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust. The attorney then had to convince the banks to transfer the funds — a more difficult task following Mr. Ferrantino’s death. The attorney also discovered that the will LegalZoom created for Mr. Ferrantino had not been properly witnessed. All this cost Mr. Ferrantino’s estate thousands of dollars.

The lawsuit claims that Ms. Webster and others like her relied on misleading statements by LegalZoom, including that LegalZoom carefully reviews customer documents, that it guarantees its customers 100 percent satisfaction with its services, that its documents are the same quality as those prepared by an attorney, and that the documents are effective and dependable.

“Nowhere in the [company’s] manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are only ‘customized’ to the extent that the LegalZoom computer program inputs your name and identifying information, but not tailored to your specific circumstances,” the lawsuit states, adding that “the customer service representatives are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice.”

Ms. Webster is suing not only on her behalf but on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, living will, advance health care directive or power of attorney. The lawsuit estimates this class embraces more than 3,000 individuals.

“LegalZoom’s business is based on nurturing the false sense of security that people do not need to hire a traditional attorney,” says San Francisco attorney Robert Arns, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “The complaint points out that LegalZoom advertises that you don’t need a real attorney because its work is legally binding and reliable. That’s misleading. Improperly prepared estate planning documents are a ticking time bomb that can result in improper tax consequences and other items that could cost the estate and heirs huge sums.”

“LegalZoom preys on people when they’re at their most vulnerable, when they are of advanced age or poor health and need a will or a living trust,” adds San Francisco elder abuse attorney Kathryn Stebner, Ms. Webster’s lead counsel.

One of the defendants named in the suit is LegalZoom co-founder Robert Shapiro, who appears on the LegalZoom Web page and TV ads and who is best-known for being one of O.J. Simpsons attorneys.

This is not the first suit against LegalZoom. In December 2009, a Missouri man who paid LegalZoom to prepare his will sued the company for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (Janson v. LegalZoom). The lawsuit is also seeking class action status. LegalZoom is trying to have the case removed from Missouri state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

For a copy of Ms. Webster’s complaint, click here.

For news articles on the case, click here and here.

So what are the prospects that the law will be made permanent?  Near non-existent.   At best, we can hope for a reinstatement of the estate tax at a reduce rate and with a higher estate exemption limit.  There are a number of pending bills most of which calling for the reinstatement of the federal estate tax, and with estate exemptions ranging from $1 million to $3.5 million. 

The latest comments made in the press seem to indicate that Congress will not address the estate tax law until after the November election.  Reports indicate that certain members of Congress want to wait to address the issue of all taxes until after the Debt Commission issues its report in early December.  That would mean they would not have time to do anything before the session of Congress ends in December.

Senate Finance Chair Baucus says he will address the Bush tax cuts until the Senate deals with the “extenders”.   He means the bill that would extend into 2010 certain tax provisions that expired at the end of 2009 (the itemized deduction for sales taxes, the additional standard deduction for real property taxes, and deductions for tuition and teacher expenses). 

Senate Majority Leader Reid commented about dealing with the Bush tax cuts and by implication the estate tax:

“Maybe if they (the Republicans) stop stalling everything that comes to the floor we might be able to get to that stuff. We’ll get to that when we get through unemployment insurance, Wall Street reform, and a few other things.”  Chaos continues.

Thus, there is much uncertainty.  However, you can be certain of this, if Congress continues to fail to act then the estate tax comes back and the estate exemption will revert to $1 million.

The prospect of a $1 million exemption means many more families need to plan for the federal tax. Tally up the value of a house, life insurance (if you are foolish enough to die owning it yourself), retirement and other accounts, and you may be surprised to find yours is one of them.  To learn more about the planning you can do to protect yourself, visit the Estate Planning section of our website.

One scam involving con artists calling, e-mailing or even showing up at the door to say that under the new law you must have health insurance, otherwise you go to jail.  They even go so far as to identify themselves as governmental officials and describe the policies that they’re selling as “ObamaCare” insurance.  Since people are often confused and frightened about the impacts of the new law, they many times divulge private information that under normal circumstances they would not.

In fact, the provisions mandating that you obatin health insurance coverage does not begin until 2014 and, even then, would not imposed a criminal penalty.  To be certain, there is no “limited enrollment period” which exist and there is no such coverage called “ObamaCare.”

There are a couple ways to protect yourself and your loved ones, especially the elderly, against such scams.  First, never purchase an insurance policy without calling your state insurance department to find out whether the policy is legitimate and the seller is licensed.  Utilized professionals that you know or who are recommended by friends.  Never give out your credit card, bank account or Social Security number to anyone that you don’t know.

The next major scam revolves around the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole “rebate” checks which just began to be mailed out last month.  “Doughnut hole” is the term used for a notorious “gap” in prescription drug coverage under Medicare Part D. In most cases, the plan covers 75 percent of drug costs, up to $2,830. Once seniors hit that limit, they must pay all their own costs until total spending reaches $6,440 in a year.

Federal officials report that scam artists call seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries, telling them they need to provide personal information to get the rebates checks - including their Medicare, Social Security or bank account numbers. However, the checks are being sent out automatically, so any request for information is a con. 

There are a couple ways to protect yourself and elderly family members against such scams.  First, never purchase an insurance policy without calling your state insurance department to find out whether the policy is legitimate and the seller is licensed.  Utilized professionals that you know or who are recommended by friends.  Never give out your credit card, bank account or Social Security number to anyone that you don’t know.

Most retirement accounts allow the owner to choose a designated beneficiary to receive the funds in the account if the owner dies. This beneficiary designation is especially useful because it allows the funds in the retirement account to pass to the owner’s heirs without the cost and hassle of probate. In general, an owner names a so-called “primary” beneficiary who is first in line to receive the benefits, as well as a “secondary” or “contingent” beneficiary who would get the funds if the primary beneficiary has died or refused to accept the account. Account owners can usually name multiple people as beneficiaries, and they can often name a class of people, like “my surviving children” or “my nieces and nephews,” instead of designating people by name.

This ability to name a class of beneficiaries often leads to trouble when a member of the particular class has special needs. Problems also arise when parents name account beneficiaries when they first join a company, often before having a child with special needs. The retirement account grows over time, but the owner never revisits the beneficiary designation she created when she was just starting out. Many years later, when the account owner dies, the old beneficiary designation springs up and creates havoc for the child with special needs.

For instance, if an employee fills out her IRA beneficiary designation form to give her $200,000 IRA to “her children” on her death, and she dies with four surviving children, each child will receive a $50,000 retirement account. If one of these children has special needs and is receiving needs-based government benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid or Affordable Housing, her receipt of her share of her mother’s IRA could compromise her access to benefits. This is not just a problem for large retirement accounts; given the strict income and asset limits for many government programs, even an inheritance of a few thousand dollars can lead to the loss of health insurance worth a great deal more.

There are several ways to deal with this problem. The easiest way is to avoid class designations by specifically naming the beneficiaries of the retirement account and not including a relative with special needs as a beneficiary. The obvious drawback of this strategy, especially when the retirement account makes up the majority of a family’s net worth, is that the child with special needs loses his inheritance. A better option for families who want to leave a share of a retirement account to a person with special needs is to create a special needs trust and name it as a designated beneficiary. If properly drafted, the special needs trust can receive the retirement funds without negative income tax implications, and the funds will assist the person with special needs without compromising his benefits. If the family has other assets outside of the retirement plan, it may make sense to fund the special needs trust with those assets while leaving the retirement plan to other beneficiaries.

Employer-sponsored life insurance can be essential, especially for younger families. In many cases, companies will provide small policies that pay a death benefit equal to a year or two of salary. Employees usually have the option to purchase additional insurance, often at a discount, through their employer’s benefit program. The same concerns regarding retirement account beneficiaries apply when naming beneficiaries of life insurance policies. However, life insurance may be a great option for funding a special needs trust, because it provides a relatively low-cost way to provide a much larger benefit to the person with special needs. In some cases, employees who have children with special needs may consider naming a special needs trust as the primary beneficiary of their company life insurance policy, and they will often purchase additional insurance to guarantee that funds will be available for their child with special needs if they were to pass away.

If you are just starting to save for retirement or if you have an old IRA that you never paid any attention to, a qualified special needs planner can make sure that your retirement plan does not interfere with the benefits of your child with special need.

To learn more about special needs planning, click here.

The current ultra-low interest rate environment is a key reason for the rate hikes. Low rates have cut sharply into the investment earnings that insurance companies depend upon to fund benefit payouts. Investment returns fund up to 60 percent of the funds used to pay benefits, according to the American Association for Long Term Care Insurance (AALTCI).

Another factor is the rising longevity of policyholders, and their tendency to hang on to their policies. Insurers expect a certain percentage of customers to drop their policies before they ever draw benefits and that’s not happening in the case of LTC policies.

Investment News magazine reported recently that rate hikes are being sought by Prudential Insurance Company of America, Met Life Inc. and John Hancock Life and Health Insurance Co. The increase requests — which won’t cover all of the companies’ policies — range from 18 percent to 25 percent.

Notably, Hancock plans to raise premiums by up to 25 percent on policies held by up to 140,000 federal employees under age 65, according to the trade publication. MetLife — the only insurance company to respond to my inquiries — said it initiated the rate hikes in 2008, and has received approval from 41 states, with most of the increases set at 18 percent. In most cases, no rate increases have been put through for policyholders who were age 70 or older at the time the policies were sold.

LTC coverage can help protect you and your family from the potentially ruinous cost of care. The Urban Institute estimates that 25 percent of people over 65 will need help for an extended period of time with some aspect of basic personal care — bathing, eating, getting in or out of bed or dressing. The average annual rate for a home health aide is $27,000, and the average semi-private nursing home rates are $72,270 per year, according to the Metlife Mature Market Institute.

If you do have LTC coverage and find yourself facing a big rate hike, here are some key questions to ask as you consider how to respond.

–Should I drop my coverage? Probably not, especially if you bought your policy years ago. Your premium almost certainly is much lower than you’d get on a new policy today at an older age even with a steep rate hike thrown in.

–Is the policy still right for me? “Start with a review of why you bought the policy in the first place,” says Joel Larsen of Navion Financial Advisors. “Does it still make sense? Remember, you’re not just looking at long-term care insurance. You’re also planning the what, where, when and how of care delivery. While the expense and funding is certainly important, it’s what that expense does for you that matters.”

–Has the policy value increased? About 40 percent of LTC policies have compound inflation riders that boost the value of daily benefits and total dollars available to policyholders. If you have that kind of coverage, assess the current value of the policy’s benefits. An inflation-rider policy bought in 1998 by a couple aged 55 and 49, respectively, with an inflation rider and a $100 daily benefit would have a $171 daily benefit now; total pooled benefit dollars available to the policyholder would have jumped from $109,500 to $187,000, according to AALTCI. By 2018, when the husband hits age 75, the benefits would be $278 and $320,000, respectively.

–Can I save money by changing the coverage level? If you just can’t afford the rate hike, cutting back the coverage always is an option — and it’s better than canceling the policy altogether. Cut back either the daily benefit or the period benefits are paid. “I’d look for ways to reduce the premium while maintaining the same daily benefit, such as increasing the elimination period,” says Jon Beyrer, a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) with Blankinship and Foster.

Resources

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners publishes useful guide to long-term care insurance.

Visit RetirementRevised’s guide to long-term care.

Moneywatch.com offers an excellent analysis of major long-term care carriers, including AARP.

Between copayments, deductibles, and coverage exclusions Medicare does not cover all medical expenses. To supplement Medicare coverage, you may purchase a Medigap policy from a private insurer. There are currently 12 Medigap plans that are identified by letters A through L. Each plan package offers a different combination of benefits, allowing purchasers to choose the combination that is right for them.

Beginning June 1, 2010, plans E, H, I, and J will no longer be sold. Individuals who already have one of the plans can keep it as long as they like, but no new policies will be sold. At the same time, two new plans — M and N — will be added. Plan M will pay 50 percent of the Part A deductible and some of the cost of foreign travel emergencies. It will not cover the Part B deductible. Plan N will pay the full Part A deductible, but it will require a $20 copayment for Part B office visits and up to a $50 copayment for emergency room visits. Plan N will also cover foreign travel emergencies.

There will also be some changes to the benefits offered by plans. The home health recovery benefit and preventive care benefit offered by some plans will be dropped. The preventive care benefit is duplicative of services that regular Medicare offers. The home health recovery benefit covered some personal services for individuals receiving skilled care through Medicare, but was underused. In addition, all plans will include an additional benefit to cover the out-of-pocket costs imposed by the Medicare hospice benefit.

For more information on the changes, click here.

For more information on Medigap, click here.

• Do read the trust document. It sets out the rules under which you will operate, so you need to understand it completely.
• Do create a checking account for the trust. All income and expenses should go through this account. While you can and should invest the money, a checking account will enable you to make distributions and payments and keep track of them.
• Do keep the best interests of the beneficiaries in mind at all times. You have what’s called a “fiduciary” duty to them, which is an extremely high standard.
• Don’t have any personal financial dealings with the trust. For instance, you cannot borrow money from the trust or lend the trust money to anyone.
• Do provide the beneficiaries and anyone else indicated in the trust with an annual account of trust activity. This can be a copy of the checking and investment account statements or a more formal trust account prepared by an accountant or attorney.
• Do invest the trust funds prudently and productively. You cannot simply leave the trust funds in a savings account. And you can’t put them all into a promising new company. You need to diversify the trust portfolio among stocks and fixed income securities. It is wise to get professional investment advice.
• Do keep in regular contact with the beneficiaries to understand their needs.
• Do be aware of any public benefits the beneficiaries may be receiving and make sure you do not jeopardize the beneficiaries’ eligibility.
• Do file annual income tax returns for the trust.
• Don’t fly solo. Get professional advice to make sure you are correctly fulfilling your role.

For a brief overview of a trustee’s duties, click here.

For more on trusts, click here.

The Extra Help program which is administered by the Social Security Administration subsidizes Medicare Part D prescription drug premiums for eligible seniors. While the program isn’t new, eligibility rules have been changed this year in a way that expands its availability dramatically.

The government estimates the average annual benefit to Extra Help participants at $3,900. That should be welcome news for low-income seniors coping with soaring Part D premiums. Average monthly premiums jumped 11 percent for 2010, and they’ve risen 50 percent since 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Seniors are eligible for Extra Help if their income is no greater than $16,245 a year for singles, and $21,855 for married couples living together. The value of stocks, bonds and bank accounts cant exceed $12,510 for singles and $25,010 for married couples. The income definition doesn’t include the value of homes or automobiles.

But there are two significant changes in eligibility rules this year. The cash value of life insurance policies is no longer counted as a resource, and assistance received from friends and relatives to pay for household expenses such as food or utilities also no longer are included. The Social Security Administration is urging anyone who didn’t meet the income standards in the past to re-apply.

The assistance helps with monthly premiums, any annual deductibles, co-insurance and co-payments. The program even plugs the notorious doughnut hole the current coverage gap in Part D that starts when beneficiaries exceed $2,830 in total drug costs for the given year. At that point, the beneficiary pays 100 percent of costs up to $6,440, when so-called catastrophic coverage kicks in.

Unlike standard Part D enrollment which occurs annually between Nov. 15 and Dec. 31 seniors can apply for Extra Help anytime during the year. But you’ll receive the maximum benefit if you’re in a Part D plan with a monthly premium below a certain benchmark monthly premium set by Medicare for each region of the country.

“If you enroll in one of these plans, you receive no bills and don’t have to pay up front and get reimbursed,” says Kelly Brantley, a senior program manager for Health Assistance Partnership, a non-profit Medicare education organization.

If you’re already enrolled in a Part D plan and enter the Extra Help program, you’ll be informed whether your premium is entirely covered, or that you need to pay the difference between the premium and the benchmark amount. However, you also have the right to change to a different plan at any time.

Low-income seniors who aren’t already enrolled in a Part D plan should apply for the Extra Help subsidy, and simultaneously enroll in a drug plan. “If you are eligible, the benefit is retroactive to the first day of the month when you apply,” Brantley explains.

If you’re switching plans or enrolling in Part D for the first time, use the Medicare websites plan finder to select a plan that maximizes your Extra Help benefit. You’ll input data about your specific prescriptions and some other personal data; the tool will take into account the expected subsidy when it presents Part D plan options to you. You’ll be looking for the plan with the fewest restrictions on your specific prescriptions, and one that works with a pharmacy you want to use. To learn more about shopping for plans, visit our page on how to shop for Medicare plans.

You can also get free counseling and assistance in selecting a plan from your local State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), a government-sponsored counseling service for Medicare beneficiaries. To find the SHIP near you, visit http://www.hapnetwork.org/ship-locator/.

To apply for Extra Help, just complete Social Security’s Application for Extra Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs (SSA-1020). Here’s how:

• You can apply online at www.socialsecurity.gov;
• Call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778) to apply over the phone or to request an application; or
• Apply at your local Social Security office.

After you apply, Social Security will review your application and send you a letter to let you know if you qualify for the Extra Help. Once you qualify, you can choose a Medicare prescription drug plan. If you do not select a plan, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will do it for you. The sooner you join a plan the sooner you begin receiving benefits.

The Good – The Estate Tax Is Repealed, For Now

Effective January 1, 2010, there is no longer a tax on the estates of those dying during 2010. Although Congress may reinstate the tax retroactively in 2010, perhaps as part of broader tax reform, this is by no means a certainty. 

If Congress fails to act, the beneficiaries of a small number of very large estates will have reason to celebrate, but tens of thousands of taxpayers of more modest means will pay capital gains on inherited assets — and executors will face additional and confusing administrative burdens. If Congress does change the law retroactively, extensive litigation over inheritances is almost guaranteed.

Congress has had nine years to prevent this from happening but hasn’t been able to. Under the provisions of a tax-cut bill enacted in 2001, the value of estates exempt from the tax has been gradually raised over the past eight years while the tax rate on estates has been reduced, so that in 2009 only an individual estate worth $3.5 million or more is taxed, at a rate of 45 percent. For the year 2010, according to the 2001 law, the estate tax disappears entirely, only to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more, which is where things stood before the 2001 change.

The Bad – Loss of “Step-Up” Means Step Down for Many Taxpayers 

The catch for taxpayers of more modest means, however, is that for 2010 the estate tax is replaced with a 15 percent capital gains tax on inherited assets that are later sold. Normally someone inheriting property at an individual’s death gets a “step-up in basis” in the property. That is, the value of the property for determining capital gains tax due is calculated at the time it is inherited, not when it was originally bought.

But the law eliminating the estate tax in 2010 also largely does away with the basis step-up rules. This means that those inheriting estates will have to pay capital gains taxes on any assets sold based on the original price paid for the asset, after an exemption for the first $1.3 million in capital gains (plus $3 million for assets transferred to a surviving spouse).

Let’s say your father dies and leaves you a home worth $1.5 million and a $500,000 portfolio of stocks purchased at various times over the past 40 years. If you decided to sell any of these assets, you’d normally pay little or no capital gains tax on the sales. The new provisions mean that you have to calculate capital gains based on the value of the home and the stocks when your father bought them, not when you inherited them. That could be very expensive, not to mention time-consuming in trying to ascertain the original price your father paid for everything.

“If we do not extend our estate tax law, all taxpayers, all heirs will be subject to massive, massive confusion in trying to determine the value of their underlying asset,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said on the Senate floor.

The chief tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee estimates that while extending the 2009 estate tax law would affect about 6,000 estates, 71,400 estates could face new capital gains taxes if the estate tax disappears. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “at least 62,500 of these are estates that would not owe any estate tax if the 2009 rules were continued and that thus would be adversely affected by estate tax repeal. Farm and business estates would constitute a disproportionately large share of this group.” Small farms and businesses are the groups whose interests opponents of the estate tax have claimed they are defending.

The Ugly – Congress May Seek “Repeal” the “Repeal” 

Sen. Baucus has pledged to try to restore the estate tax retroactively in 2010. This would undo the capital gains increase, but it could also create fertile ground for lawsuits by those whose family members die between January 1, 2010, and the date when any retroactive law is enacted.

“I can guarantee this: if they succeed in getting retroactive in hiking the death tax from zero to 45 percent, there are going to be lawsuits,” said Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Foundation, which opposes the estate tax. “Its going to be messy, its going to be noisy.”

In a 1994 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s ban on the enactment of ex-post facto laws doesn’t apply to tax legislation, provided the retroactive application is “supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means”. United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). Since most estates don’t file tax returns until about nine months after someone dies, if Congress can come to an agreement quickly in 2010 the problems caused by a retroactive law may be limited.

For more on the implications of the disappearance of the estate tax, see CBS MoneyWatch’s “Estate Tax: What You Need to Know for 2010,” SmartMoney’s “The Federal Estate Tax Is Dead: Now What?,” and Kiplinger’s “FAQs on the Death of the Estate Tax.”

The “CLASS” Act

To learn more about the “CLASS Act” click here.  This initiative would establish a new national long-term care insurance program offering basic help for the elderly and disabled. After paying a monthly premium for five years, Americans would be covered under the program and eligible to receive benefits averaging around $50 a day to pay for a range of long-term care services, including in-home care services. Versions of the CLASS Act are contained in both the health reform bill passed by the House, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and the bill now being debated in the Senate, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

For an opinion article calling the CLASS Act “A Flawed But Powerful Game-Changer for Long-Term Care,” click here.

Ending Medicaid’s Institutional Bias

The Senate bill contains a number of provisions aimed at ending Medicaid’s “institutional bias,” which forces elderly and disabled individuals in many states to move to nursing homes because Medicaid won’t pay for care that could be provided at home and in the community, often at much less cost.

For starters, the Senate bill includes the Community First Choice Option, which would give states more federal Medicaid money if they set up community services and supports for Medicaid recipients who otherwise would require nursing home care. (The House bill includes a statement of support for the Community First Choice Option.)

The Senate bill also would give increased Medicaid funding to states that can divert more Medicaid recipients from nursing homes and other institutions to home and community based care. And the bill extends for another five years an important demonstration project in 31 states called Money Follows the Person. This program encourages states to transition Medicaid recipients from institutions to the community, where they will continue to receive Medicaid coverage through new community services.

The Senate proposal would give the spouses of Medicaid recipients who are receiving services at home or in their community the same financial protections that the spouses of nursing home residents currently enjoy. However, under the current measure spouses would not become eligible for these protections until 2014 and the protections would disappear in five years unless renewed by Congress.

Finally, a “Sense of the Senate” provision of the bill states that, “(1) during the 111th session of Congress, Congress should address long-term services and supports in a comprehensive way that guarantees elderly and disabled individuals the care they need; and (2) long term services and supports should be made available in the community in addition to in institutions.”

Nursing Home Protections

Both the House and Senate bills would help protect nursing home residents and other long-term care recipients from abuses, and give families of nursing home residents more information about the facilities their loved ones are living in or considering moving to.

Both bills would set up a nationwide program for national and state background checks of long-term care employees who have direct contact with patients. Both bills would also require nursing homes to publicly disclose all individuals and entities that own, govern, operate, finance, provide services to, or control them. In addition, information about nursing home staffing levels — including hours of care per resident day, turnover and retention rates, and facility expenditures for wages and benefits — would be added to Medicare’s Nursing Home Compare Web site.

To read the House-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act, click here.

To download a copy of the Senate’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in PDF format, click here. (If you do not have the free PDF reader installed on your computer, download it here.)