Lawmakers urge Medicaid benefits for same-sex couples

A year and a half after Massachusetts sanctioned the first gay marriages in the United States, two dozen state lawmakers are pushing a measure that would force the Romney administration to give same-sex couples the same government healthcare benefits as other married couples.

Supporters of the bill say it will protect gay couples who might otherwise be forced to sell their homes and other assets when one of them taps into MassHealth, the state's Medicaid program, to pay for care in a nursing home. Governor Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, has not yet taken a position on the proposal. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said he is generally supportive of the idea.

Representative Elizabeth A. Malia, the primary sponsor of the bill, called it ''a humane, fair policy change." She said it deals with the kind of nuts-and-bolts issue that makes legal marriage important for gay people.

''This is exactly what we're talking about for most people: the ability to live your life as a functioning citizen of the state, to take care of yourself and your significant other," the Jamaica Plain Democrat said.

A leading opponent of gay marriage, Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said he isn't familiar with the details of Malia's bill but hopes voters will make it irrelevant by supporting a 2008 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.

''We stand in opposition to homosexual marriage, and as our successful petition drive indicates, a large number of citizens agree with us," Mineau said. ''We hope in the end that traditional marriage will once and for all be established in Massachusetts."

Because the federal government does not recognize gay marriages and Medicaid is funded by both state and federal money, MassHealth administrators do not consider gay couples to be married when determining eligibility and distributing benefits. But supporters of the bill say Massachusetts can avoid the federal rules by using only state dollars to pay for benefits for gay couples.

The federal government is likely to allow the strategy; for two years it has let Vermont to do the same thing for gay couples who have entered into civil unions in that state.

In some cases being married is a disadvantage under Medicaid, because married couples are more likely to have a combined income and assets that exceed the income limit for the program. But being married can be an advantage when one spouse needs Medicaid to pay for nursing home care. Single people must spend down, or sell, their own assets so that their total value is less than $2,000 before the government benefits kick in.

But under federal law the spouse of a person receiving care can retain a good portion of the couple's assets, including a house.

''There are certain marital protections that Medicaid provides," said Lisa Krinsky of the Greater Boston LGBT Aging Project. ''If a same-sex couple is together forever, and the house is in one person's name, and one person has to go to a nursing home, the remaining partner is a legal stranger, with no protections."

Malia said it is unclear how many of the roughly 6,000 gay married couples have run into the problem, but it seems likely that as they age at least some of them will. Still, she contends that the cost to the state would be minimal.

Representative Ruth B. Balser, a cosponsor of the bill, said cost shouldn't be the issue.

''Regardless of the issue of federal reimbursement, we want to make sure that Massachusetts couples are protected and that their marriage rights are respected," the Newton Democrat said.

Scott Greenberger can be reached at greenberger@globe.com.