Which states will expand Medicaid asset limits in 2026 and how will they differ?
Executive summary
By 2026, Medicaid asset rules will largely remain unchanged in most states—keeping very low countable-resource thresholds for long‑term‑care eligibility—while a few states stand out with much higher or reinstated limits, most prominently California which reintroduced a $130,000 individual asset cap effective Jan. 1, 2026 [1] [2]. Reporting and planning services flag other notable exceptions (New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania) with asset ceilings far above the $2,000 norm, but available sources are not a comprehensive national ruling list [3] [4] [5].
1. The national landscape: a low default, a few big outliers
For long‑term‑care and non‑MAGI Medicaid programs in most states, countable individual asset limits continue to cluster around $2,000 in 2026—an enduring baseline that practitioners warn remains the rule outside special state policies [5] [3]. That baseline contrasts with a handful of states that either never followed the $2,000 convention or have changed course recently, creating sharp geographic inequality in how much a person can own and still qualify for Medicaid long‑term care [3] [6].
2. California: reimplementation of a large asset limit and new mechanics
California formally reinstated an asset test for many Medi‑Cal non‑MAGI programs on Jan. 1, 2026, setting the individual limit at $130,000 and increasing the limit by $65,000 for each additional household member [2] [7]. State materials and county notices explain that assets will be reviewed at redetermination and that the home can be exempt under specific rules—California is also unique in not setting a home equity limit for exemption [8] [1].
3. Other notable high‑limit states: New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania
Some states show significantly higher long‑term‑care asset thresholds than the $2,000 norm: New York’s published guidance lists an asset figure in the tens of thousands for 2025/2026 planning materials (cited as $32,396 by Medicaid planning sources), Illinois is cited at roughly $17,500, and Pennsylvania’s medically needy/program limits are shown in some programs at $2,400 [3] [4]. These figures reflect program‑specific rules (institutional Medicaid, HCBS waivers, medically needy pathways) rather than a single national standard, so eligibility can vary within a state depending on the waiver or Medicaid category [6] [9].
4. How these asset limits differ in practice
Differences are more than headline numbers: some states exempt a primary residence up to a home‑equity cap (commonly $752,000–$1,130,000 in 2026 guidance) while California treats the home exemption differently; some programs use community spouse resource allowances (CSRA) that raise the non‑applicant spouse’s protected resources (typical CSRA around $162,660), and medically needy/spend‑down pathways or waiver rules can alter countable assets or allow Miller/qualified income trusts where income—not assets—is the gating factor [10] [5] [3].
5. Why much reporting focuses on income, and what that obscures
Many 2026 write‑ups foreground income limit changes and federal benefit rate adjustments—because income thresholds moved in multiple states—yet several practitioners caution that income updates do not automatically change asset tests, and the real barrier for long‑term‑care applicants remains assets and look‑back rules [11] [6]. This reporting tilt can obscure practical impacts: a state may raise income caps while leaving strict asset ceilings intact, changing who qualifies for some services but leaving others exposed [11] [6].
6. Caveats, agendas, and what remains uncertain
The sources used here come largely from Medicaid planning firms and state notices and are explicit that statewide tables and program categories produce nuance; they also warn the data is not fully comprehensive and state agencies publish the final official rules [6] [9]. Advocacy organizations emphasize the budget‑driven politics behind California’s reinstatement and note outreach to beneficiaries, revealing competing agendas between cost containment and beneficiary protection [2]. Where a claim is not present in the provided reporting—such as a complete, authoritative list of every state that “expanded” asset limits in 2026—this analysis avoids asserting it and instead highlights the documented, notable instances above [3] [7].