Which states currently have no asset limits for Medicare Savings Programs and how has that changed over time?
Executive summary
A dozen states and the District of Columbia currently report that they do not apply asset (resource) limits when determining eligibility for Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs); that roster appears in a December 2024 Medicare Interactive compilation and is echoed by state-level materials such as Oregon’s Medicaid guidance [1] [2]. The federal baseline sets minimum asset rules but explicitly allows states to adopt more generous policies, and over the last decade an incremental trend of states removing or easing MSP asset tests has produced the current patchwork [3] [4] [5].
1. Which states currently report no MSP asset limits — the snapshot
A December 2024 Medicare Interactive table lists Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont as jurisdictions that “do not apply asset limits” to MSP eligibility, and that compilation is the clearest single-source roster available in the reporting set [1]. That list is consistent with state-level documentation in at least one case — Oregon’s official site states plainly that there are no asset limits for MSPs in Oregon [2] — and national advocacy and policy organizations cite many of the same jurisdictions as having removed or not applying resource tests [5] [6].
2. How federal rules set the floor and states set their own ceilings
Federal MSP rules establish minimum income and resource standards for the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB), Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) and Qualifying Individual (QI) programs, but states are allowed to be more generous — by raising income thresholds, changing what counts as an excluded resource, or eliminating resource limits entirely — which is why state policies diverge [3] [4]. Advocacy groups and fact sheets make the legal logic explicit: states can expand eligibility beyond federal minima, and several have used that authority to drop or widen asset tests [5] [6].
3. The arc over time — gradual loosening and a scattered geography
Policy reporting and advocacy briefs show a clear trajectory: over the 2010s and early 2020s a steady trickle of states loosened MSP limits — for example, Louisiana eliminated its MSP asset test in 2019 and Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut and New York are among states singled out by advocates for removing asset screens or increasing income or resource thresholds [7] [5]. AARP’s 2022 summary reported that roughly ten states plus DC had adopted no asset limit as of that time, illustrating that the expansion is multi-year and incremental rather than sudden [8]. Older policy briefs document earlier variation and show that state discretion over income and asset rules has been exercised for decades [9].
4. Why the change matters — enrollment, equity, and state budgets
Advocates argue eliminating asset limits boosts enrollment, reduces administrative burden, and can improve equity because many older adults have modest savings that otherwise disqualify them; research and state reports suggest both increased take-up and administrative savings when asset tests are removed [7] [6]. Policymakers cite tradeoffs: broader eligibility can raise program costs but may also reduce uncompensated care and improve preventive access, a rationale state legislatures and governors have used in several campaigns to expand MSP eligibility [5] [7].
5. Limits of available reporting and where to verify
Public sources compiled here provide clear lists and examples but are not a real-time authoritative registry; the Medicare Interactive compilation (Dec 2024) and state pages like Oregon’s give the best available snapshots in this reporting set, while advocacy groups (Medicare Rights Center, Medicare Rights/Medicare Advocacy) and AARP document recent policy changes and trends [1] [2] [5] [8]. Because states continue to change rules, verification with a state Medicaid agency or the state’s MSP guidance is necessary for the most current, case-specific determination — the sources used do not guarantee up‑to‑the‑minute status beyond their publication dates [1] [2] [8].