How do 2026 Medicaid asset limits for elderly and disabled beneficiaries differ across states?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In 2026, most states continue to use a very low federal baseline for countable assets—typically $2,000 for individuals and roughly $3,000 for couples—but a meaningful minority of states have set much higher thresholds or temporarily different rules, producing wide cross‑state variation in who can qualify for long‑term care Medicaid [1] [2]. Key outliers include California’s reintroduced, far‑higher Medi‑Cal limits and large differences in states such as New York, Illinois and Connecticut, and these differences are wrapped in a thicket of state‑level exemptions, spousal protections and program‑specific rules that change eligibility in practice [3] [4] [5].
1. The default floor: $2,000 for individuals in most states
Federal practice and most state rules leave an individual asset threshold at or near $2,000 for traditional Aged, Blind and Disabled (ABD) and long‑term‑care pathways, so for a typical single elderly applicant the countable‑asset cap remains around $2,000 in 2026 in most jurisdictions [1] [6]. Many readily available guides and state charts still report that the common baseline has not been upended by 2026 updates, and that the $2,000 individual/$3,000 couple norm persists as the starting point for comparisons [2] [5].
2. Notable outliers: California, New York, Illinois and Connecticut
A handful of states depart sharply from the $2,000 norm. California reinstated an asset test effective Jan. 1, 2026, with much higher limits for some long‑term care programs—figures cited include $130,000 for an individual and $195,000 for a couple for certain Medi‑Cal pathways—making it dramatically more generous than the federal baseline [3] [4] [5]. New York’s long‑term care asset thresholds were far above the $2,000 floor in 2025 (for example, roughly $32,396 individual/$43,781 couple) and state materials anticipated further 2026 adjustments [5] [7]. Illinois has also set substantially higher limits than the federal floor in recent years (Illinois listed at $17,500 for individuals in 2025) while Connecticut was cited at a much lower published limit (about $1,600) in aggregated state lists, illustrating the spread from low to very high across states [5] [4].
3. Spousal protections and special rules change the practical limit
Even where an individual applicant faces a low $2,000 ceiling, spousal‑protection rules allow a non‑applicant spouse to retain substantially more under the Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA), with commonly cited CSRA amounts in the 2026 guidance around $162,660 in many states—so married couples navigate a very different calculus than singles [1] [6]. States also apply program‑specific exceptions (home equity, vehicles, burial funds), and many long‑term care applicants use “medically needy” or spend‑down pathways that alter how assets are counted in practice [8] [9].
4. A patchwork that is actively changing and politically loaded
Surveys and policy trackers find that dozens of states have tweaked income or savings rules in recent years—KFF reported that eighteen states raised income or savings thresholds above federal minimums for people on Medicare in 2025, and states continued to adjust asset tests into 2026 as budget and policy priorities shifted [10]. California’s high‑profile reinstatement of Medi‑Cal asset limits and New York’s announced changes highlight that state politics, fiscal pressures and federal law interact, meaning the map of asset limits is not static but shaped by local agendas and one‑off legislative decisions [3] [5].
5. What the data does and doesn’t tell readers
Public guides and state charts give clear examples of variation but do not present a single authoritative nationwide table for every 2026 program type; many sources caution that long‑term care eligibility depends on program category (nursing home vs. HCBS vs. ABD), household composition, exemptions and look‑back rules, so any summary must be checked against the specific state agency guidance before planning [9] [8] [5]. The sources used here document large cross‑state disparities and specific high‑end outliers but do not constitute a comprehensive, up‑to‑the‑minute federal compilation for every program in every state; for case‑level decisions, state Medicaid agencies or elder‑law attorneys are the required next step [3] [7].