Our Sunday story about the Stowe family illustrates that, while we want justice to be blind, agencies that exist to help families navigate aging shouldn’t wear blinders.

On March 17, Senior Staff Writer Mardi Link outlined the experience of Thomas and Robert Stowe, brothers who went to a probate court hearing last week not knowing whether they were going to lose their Long Lake Township home.

Thomas moved in to care for his aging parents, Joanne and Edward, in the home his dad and another brother, built. Edward died of a stroke in 2018, and Joanne was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease before her passing in 2020.

During his time as a caregiver, especially for his mom, Thomas reached out for help to the agencies that exist for that purpose, and Joanne qualified for Medicaid. Some agencies provided useful information and support, with billing that showed what Medicaid wouldn’t cover.

But others provided care that didn’t work for the Stowes, or, in the case of Agency on Aging, charged for services, whether the Stowes used them or not. It was a fact that the family didn’t realize until 2022 when a claim was made against their mom’s estate by Medicaid and probate court attorneys who sought a sale of the family’s $250,000 home to settle an $11,416.98 debt.

The federal government requires state Medicaid offices to recoup payment from the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries and, in Michigan, that’s handled by the state Department of Health and Human Services. But Medicaid policy both allows claimants to attach a lien to the house instead of selling it; and when disabled children are living in the house, like Thomas who receives Social Security benefits, can waive claims until the child dies or moves out.

Without money to hire an attorney, the brothers posted on social media, contacted MDHHS, filed complaints with the state Inspector General’s office and reached out to State Rep. Betsy Coffia, D-Traverse City.

We’re lucky they did. Coffia’s office has helped them and, through Link’s reporting, their story brings questions to bear that, no doubt, impact other Michigan families who, while grieving a death, are served up unexpected debt.

How does the federal and state government rationalize selling a $250,000 house to collect $11,416? Knowing what attorneys charge, how much has the government spent on the case already? Could this debt have been avoided in the first place with better advice and more timely and transparent billing practices in these self-same agencies? And are those who are turning the screws in Medicaid, MDHHS and local agencies serving the public, or serving the agency?

Family caregivers need advocates on the ground to unsnarl the red tape before they get tangled in it.

But the Stowes’ situation shows that some of the agencies people turn to — in vulnerable, stressful and sad times — aren’t responding with the compassion and common sense we expect from them.

— Traverse City Record-Eagle