California Reinstating Asset Test for Medi-Cal Programs Effective January 1, 2026

Summary: California is reinstituting an asset test for Medi-Cal programs effective January 1, 2026 (All County Welfare Directors (ACWD) Letter No. 25-14 (June 30, 2025)).

Starting on January 1, 2024, California Medi-Cal did away with the asset test for Medi-Cal program eligibility purposes (including long-term care).

However, after only 2 years of no-asset tests, on January 1, 2026, California will revert to the $130,000 per individual plus $65,000 for each additional household member asset limitation for some Medi-Cal (California’s implementation of Medicaid) programs, rather than the pre-2022 $2,000 limit for single applicants and $3,000 limit for couples. Traditionally non-countable assets like the primary residence and one vehicle, for example, will remain non-countable for eligibility purposes.

With respect to the applicable ineligibility penalty period due to disqualifying asset transfers, there is still uncertainty as to what that is going to look like. DHCS has indicated it will issue guidance on this issue in a subsequent ACWD letter. For persons who applied pre-January 1, 2024, ineligibility period looked back to asset transfers in the 30 months prior to the application date. The current lookback period applies a penalty only to transfers before January 1, 2024.

Current Medi-Cal enrollees and those applying PRIOR to January 1, 2026 will need to comply with the reinstated asset limits as of the date of their next annual redetermination process.  After January 1, 2026, new Medi-Cal applicants must comply with the reinstated asset limits as part of the application process.

Reason for this change? Common theme is that a slow California economy, coupled with a larger-than-expected enrollment in Medi-Cal, has led to budget shortfalls.

 Other changes also include freezing enrollment for adults 19 years of age or older without “satisfactory immigration status” (ACWD Letter No. 25-13).

In re Bradshaw, CA Court of Appeals Case No. S282314, Fifth District, slip opinion filed July 3, 2025

Summary: California Supreme Court unanimously declined to endorse a “no harm, no foul” approach and ordered the attorney-fiduciary’s disbarment when he breached his fiduciary duties but no actual harm occurred.

Drexel Andrew Bradshaw served as the court-appointed trustee and conservator for Ora Gosey from 2013 through Gosey’s death in 2017. During this time, Bradshaw not only hired an unlicensed contractor, Juan Gonzalez, to work on Gosey’s home, but worked with Gonzalez to create a company, Bay Construction. Bradshaw hired Bay Construction to repair Gosey’s home, paying more than $129,000 for work without competitive bids.

In his court accountings and reports, Bradshaw did not disclose the relationship between himself, Bay Construction, and Gonzalez.

After Gosey’s death, a Trust beneficiary petitioned for Bradshaw’s removal and the court removed Bradshaw, concluding that he violated his fiduciary duties by self-dealing, failing to obtain competitive bids, and actively concealing and misrepresenting his interests in Bay Construction.

Ultimately, the California Supreme Court unanimously found that Bradshaw’s disbarment was the appropriate penalty, even though the work on the home itself was not defective, because the overriding concern in an attorney disciplinary matter “is always the protection of the public, the preservation of confidence in the legal profession, and the maintenance of the highest possible professional standard for attorneys.” (In re Bradshaw, pg. 36, citing Chasteen v. State Bar (1985) 40 Cal.3d 586).

The Court noted that culpability on a count of breach of fiduciary duties and for fraud due to dishonest conduct “does not turn on actual harm to the client, monetary or otherwise,” and does not have to “necessarily give rise to criminal liability or cause monetary loss.”

The main failure here was not the self-dealing itself, but the failure to disclose the Bradshaw-Bay Construction connection, which prevented the probate court’s “ability to ensure Trust funds were prudently managed.”