Updated August 27, 2026. Quick answer: Michigan does not call it a CSRA in its manual. It calls it the protected spousal amount, and “protected spousal amount is the amount of the couple’s assets protected for use by the community spouse. It is the greatest of the amounts in 1-3 below.” Those amounts are a minimum resource standard of “$32,532 effective January 1, 2026.”, one half of the assessed total capped at “$162,660 effective January 1, 2026.”, and a court order.
What Michigan actually sets out
| What the state provides | What it says |
|---|---|
| Michigan’s name for it | the protected spousal amount, BEM 402 (BPB 2026-016, effective 7-1-2026) |
| What it is | “protected spousal amount is the amount of the couple’s assets protected for use by the community spouse. It is the greatest of the amounts in 1-3 below.” |
| Floor, current year | “$32,532 effective January 1, 2026.” |
| The half rule | “One-half the initial asset assessment amount (see initial asset assessment in this item), but not more than:” |
| Ceiling, current year | “$162,660 effective January 1, 2026.” |
| When an assessment happens | “an initial asset assessment is needed to determine how much of a couple’s assets are protected for the community spouse. Do an initial asset assessment when one is requested by either spouse, even when an MA application is not made” |
| What the state must tell you | “Federal law requires that the client and community spouse be told how much the community spouse resource allowance is and how it was calculated.” |
| If the spouse at home refuses | “Refusal of the community spouse to provide necessary information or verification about his assets results in ineligibility for the client.” |
| If the spouse at home cannot be found | “If the community spouse’s whereabouts are unknown (a couple separated prior to the client entering an LTC/hospital setting and the client does not know where the spouse is living or how to contact the spouse), the client’s countable assets are compared to the appropriate asset limit in BEM 400 to determine eligibility.” |
| The spouse at home is not counted as a member | “The community spouse is not an asset group member.” |
How it works in practice
- Michigan prints the whole history, and that is genuinely useful. BEM 402 lists the minimum resource standard for every year from 2018 forward and the maximum alongside it, so a family reconstructing an assessment done three years ago can read the figure that applied then instead of the figure that applies now. The 2026 pair is “$32,532 effective January 1, 2026.” and “$162,660 effective January 1, 2026.”
- BEM 402 states the consequence of refusal flatly: “Refusal of the community spouse to provide necessary information or verification about his assets results in ineligibility for the client.” Read that sentence against the federal statute it sits under. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5(c)(3) an institutionalized spouse is not made ineligible by the community spouse’s resources where “(A) the institutionalized spouse has assigned to the State any rights to support from the community spouse;” or where “(C) the State determines that denial of eligibility would work an undue hardship.” BEM 402 does not restate that exception — the word “assign” does not appear anywhere in it — so a Michigan applicant whose spouse will not cooperate should raise the assignment of support rights with the agency by name, rather than read this one sentence as the end of the matter.
- A spouse who cannot be found is treated differently from one who will not help. “If the community spouse’s whereabouts are unknown (a couple separated prior to the client entering an LTC/hospital setting and the client does not know where the spouse is living or how to contact the spouse), the client’s countable assets are compared to the appropriate asset limit in BEM 400 to determine eligibility.” The definition is narrow — it requires that the couple separated before the admission and that the client genuinely does not know where the spouse lives or how to reach them.
- You can force an assessment without applying for anything. “an initial asset assessment is needed to determine how much of a couple’s assets are protected for the community spouse. Do an initial asset assessment when one is requested by either spouse, even when an MA application is not made”. That is the provision to cite when a family wants to know where it stands before a crisis, and Michigan states it in the first paragraph of the item.
- The notification duty is framed as federal, not discretionary. “Federal law requires that the client and community spouse be told how much the community spouse resource allowance is and how it was calculated.” A figure arriving with no arithmetic attached is not what the manual describes.
- The transfer window is real and it is called something else. Michigan runs a presumed asset eligible period, and “The presumed asset eligible period allows time for the client to transfer assets to the community spouse.” Assets that stay put are not protected by having been named in a calculation.
What the allowance is for, and why protecting the spouse at home is a federal requirement rather than a state kindness, is explained on the community spouse resource allowance page. The date the couple’s resources are counted is its own subject, on the snapshot date page, and the monthly income allowance that runs alongside it is on the MMMNA page. This page is the record for Michigan.
What this page does not settle
- The spouse at home is outside the asset group entirely: “The community spouse is not an asset group member.” That is why the arithmetic protects a figure rather than testing that spouse’s own eligibility.
- This page reads two sources: Michigan Bridges Eligibility Manual, BEM 402, Special MA Asset Rules, BPB 2026-016, effective 7-1-2026, and the federal spousal-impoverishment statute it operates under, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5. BEM 402 is the state’s own publication on this rule, but no state puts its whole treatment of a couple’s resources in a single document, and a detail that decides your case may sit in one this page did not read.
- The resource rule is one hurdle. The income rules for the spouse at home are separate and are decided on their own numbers, the level-of-care test is separate again, and the transfer-of-assets look-back is separate from all of them. Clearing this rule does not clear any of the others.
- Every quotation here was read against the source on August 27, 2026. The federal minimum and maximum figures are reset each January, and a state can revise its own rule without the page around it changing. Open the source before you rely on a number.
Eligibility is decided by the state agency on the whole file, not by one rule on one page. Nothing here is legal advice, and no one should move, retitle or spend a couple’s savings on the strength of a web page.
Sources
- Michigan Bridges Eligibility Manual, BEM 402, Special MA Asset Rules, BPB 2026-016, effective 7-1-2026
- 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5, Treatment of income and resources for certain institutionalized spouses
The sources above were retrieved and read against the state and federal text on August 27, 2026. Every quotation on this page was checked against those bytes.
Related: Michigan’s Long-Term Care Partnership Program status; a separate, policy-based way some families protect assets alongside this spend-down allowance.