Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

The question isn’t whether preneed needs to change, but how to change it.

The November 2nd edition of the Funeral Insider highlights a new industry survey by Citrin Cooperman, a highly regarded accounting firm. The newsletter includes a section on preneed, and experts’ take on the survey. Their consensus is that preneed is broken. (Tell us something we didn’t already know!) But for the sake of giving sound bite advice, the experts compromise valid advice by resorting to generalities and false alarms.

The Citrin Cooperman survey is available for $295, a bit too rich for curiosity purposes. The accuracy of any survey is dependent upon sampling an appropriate representation of the population (in this case, the death care industry). What is lost by the FI critique of the guaranteed contract, is that applicable state law is the single greatest determinant of the structure of the preneed transaction.

Most of the country’s laws were written in response to the guaranteed contract, and do not contemplate any other form of preneed. If applicable law does not specifically authorize non-guaranteed preneed, most funeral directors will be reluctant to offer it. The availability of an alternative to the guaranteed contract is state specific, and therefore a survey limited to four states is of limited use to the remaining 92% of the nation.

With regard to the four survey states, it is worth noting that 8% of the respondents stopped offering the guaranteed contract during the past year. But does that mean 67% of the respondents are following the “wrong” strategy because they continue to offer a guarantee? Beyond state law, consumer expectations and/or competition dictate that a funeral home offer preneed, and then what form of preneed to offer. Most funeral homes are forced to respond to an evolving market, and the preneed resources available. It’s a business decision with many unique factors.

As the FI experts recommend, funeral homes need to pay more attention to their preneed program. But preneed isn’t an addictive drug, it is an option that consumers have come to expect. The problem with preneed is how the guarantee has been used to define the consumer’s expectations. But as funeral homes begin to limit their use of the guarantee and realign consumer’s expectations, preneed will become more complicated (and require more of the funeral director’s attention).

Consumers will still want to address the future costs of the funeral. If they are allowed to fund, but not purchase, how is the transaction to be regulated? Contrary to what one FI expert suggests, regulation of preneed has been based on a transaction involving the purchase of goods and services. Accordingly, many preneed sellers deem the payments as theirs upon receipt, even though those payments may be sitting in a trust, a bank account, or an insurance policy. This view of the transaction is supported by a series of position letters issued by the Securities Exchange Commission’ similar to the one issued to an Iowa preneed seller. The SEC wanted no part of regulating preneed.

As the industry moves to non-guaranteed preneed, or even partially guaranteed preneed, there will be a debate over who owns the trust funds, bank account or insurance policy: the consumer or the preneed seller. The answers will be more complicated, requiring more from our laws, regulators and the documents.

Too complicated for sound bite advice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The anxiety over Missouri’s new preneed law will temporarily peak this Friday with the passing of the due dates for annual reports and license applications. To give the industry a breather, and to assess SB1’s flaws, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors reached an informal agreement on October 20th to table any corrective SB1 legislation for one year. While their emergency rules continue on the path to approval, the State Board will begin exploring ways to identify SB1’s problems, and to prioritize issues for permanent regulations.

To view the Board’s emergency rules click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Death care regulators seem to believe that the majority of funeral home and cemetery operators are honest and well intended.  But, the regulators must contend with the occasional operator who views trust funds as their own.  Before taking offense with the regulator's skepticism, operators need to reflect on the arrogance of operators such as those reflected in a recent Kansas news article. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like most states’ preneed laws, Missouri’s Chapter 436 has always contemplated a depository accounts for the small funeral operator who provides preneed as an accommodation. Many funeral homes do not sell enough preneed to warrant the expense and hassle of either a trust or an insurance license. Chapter 436 allows the funeral director to place 100% of the consumer’s funds into a joint depository account at a bank.

Despite certain glaring problems with the joint account contract, the Missouri legislature preserved the structure when it passed SB1, and re-wrote Chapter 436.

The small operator often accepts the consumer’s funds for purposes of a ‘spend down’ that will allow the consumer to exclude the funds from his/her resources for public assistance. Technically, the joint account requirements are not sufficient for excluding the funds, and funeral director is required to set up the account as “for the benefit of”. In doing so, the funeral director has not complied with Chapter 436 (old or new).

Because the transaction is an accommodation, the funeral director has little incentive to incur expense. Consequently, Missouri funeral directors ‘tend’ to borrow from each other with regard to documentation. While Chapter 436 has always required a contract form specific to joint account funding, antidotal evidence suggests many funeral directors borrowed a trust funded contract form for their joint account contracts.

SB1 requires the State Board to examine or audit all preneed sellers, including funeral homes that have joint accounts but decline to become licensed as sellers. This puts Missouri’s regulators in the difficult situation of citing small operators for Chapter 436 violations despite having all of the consumer’s funds in a depository account at the bank. For the integrity of preneed reform, the State Board cannot look the other way with regard to the joint account requirements.

Rather than force the small operator into either of the remaining SB1 options, Missouri should explore a new option for small operator.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The old axiom was that it would take three consecutive legislative sessions to get a preneed bill passed. If Missouri and Illinois are indicators of the current preneed reform movement, the charm may be based not on attempts but actual bills passed by the legislature.

The Illinois Comptroller’s proposal for preneed reform, SB1682, is progressing quickly towards approval of the Governor’s amendatory veto. While the bill fails to address most of the recommendations made by the Governor’s task force, SB1682 will tighten the trusting requirements of preneed funds until comprehensive legislation is passed. Consequently, Illinois’ preneed sellers face the dual task of complying with SB1682 and negotiating the future of the preneed transaction. With the various pending lawsuits, the question is whether the Illinois death care industry has the capacity to work with regulators towards a consensus bill.

Missouri preneed funeral regulators have been slow to communicate the new requirements of that state’s new preneed law, Senate Bill No. 1. That bill was written without much cooperation from either the funeral industry or the cemetery industry, and the result is an ambiguous law that imposes requirements without sufficient consideration of practical compliance by the funeral industry. The law has been the source of tremendous confusion, and many funeral directors would rather ‘opt out’ completely. Against a backdrop of the NPS failure, regulators and funeral homes would be best served to reconcile their differences in an attempt to address SB1’s flaws.

Missouri’s cemetery industry also faces a similar legislative task. With a strategy based on the old axiom, one constituency of the Missouri cemetery industry pursued legislation that included provisions intended to provide preneed sellers an option out of SB1. That legislation included provisions objectionable to cemeteries with preneed programs, and most of the bill was scuttled at the 11th hour. The resulting bill opened the door for Missouri cemeteries to establish Chapter 214 preneed programs, but does not provide any regulatory oversight for consumer protections. The bill also leaves the Missouri cemetery industry with the prospect of being regulated under SB1.

Historically, it was the internal industry disputes that made preneed legislation so difficult to pass. Legislators would send the squabbling parties home until they could resolve their disputes. What has changed in the dynamics of preneed legislation is the role of the regulator. Frauds measured by the millions are forcing regulators to share in the accountability of preneed failures. The regulator’s agenda is now trumping the industry’s internal disputes in Illinois and Missouri.

But, the regulator’s trump card does not necessarily guaranty a law that best serves the consumers’ interests.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Taxpayers, through their local governments, have always borne some of the cost of death care. Taxes go toward the maintenance of abandoned cemeteries and the final disposition of the indigent. But as the New York Times reports, the economy is causing more families to abandon the care of their dead to local governments. While many funeral homes will do what they can to assist the indigent, regulators and legislators are being forced to address this growing problem.

When Missouri’s legislature re-wrote that state’s preneed law this year, one of the earlier bill proposals included a revision to the public assistance law that would have allowed a person to set aside funds in a trust to be used for funeral and burial expenses. The trust would serve as an alternative to a preneed funeral contract. The public assistance law would also have been amended to contemplate the preneed reforms to be made to Chapter 436. However, the Chapter 436 reform passed by the Missouri legislature, and signed by the Missouri Governor, did not include any of the public assistance law amendments.

If interpreted strictly, Missouri’s public assistance law (Chapter 208), does not even exclude an irrevocable preneed funeral contract from the resources of an applicant for public assistance. It is unlikely Missouri residents will be denied the use of “spend downs” to qualify for pubic assistance, but legislators and regulators need to understand that SB1 was not a “one and done” fix for the NPS problems.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The funeral director’s decision about how to fund his preneed is influenced by the state’s trusting requirement, investment returns, administrative convenience and the volume of preneed business. Essentially, there are three methods of funding preneed: the depository account, the master trust and the insurance policy.

The funeral director’s use of the depository account predates all state preneed laws. The industry has been accommodating families for decades by accepting payment for a future funeral, and then placing those funds in an account at the local bank. The early preneed laws reflected this practice with language that sought to impose how the depository account was to be structured. Those early laws gave rise to the “joint account contract”.

By the 1970s, proactive preneed sales organizations were testing the limits of the depository account. Low returns and administrative hassles caused the proactive seller to abandon depository accounts in favor of insurance or master trusts. For states with high trusting requirements, the proactive seller turned to insurance funding because it provided the commissions required to pay salesmen and finance the preneed program. In states with a lower trusting percentage, the master trust provided the seller the economies of scale to achieve higher returns and lower administrative costs. But, the master trust’s popularity was stunted by Revenue Ruling 87-127.

With preneed insurance carriers now cutting policy benefits, some funeral directors will need to reexamine the master trust, and the use of finance charges.

Generally, the purchase price of a guaranteed preneed contract is set by the funeral home’s general price list (the prices it charges for a funeral that would be performed today). In today’s economy, fewer consumers can afford to pay for a preneed contract with a single payment. But when a family is permitted to pay for the preneed contract over a period of five to ten years, the cost of the funeral at the contract’s performance will often exceed the trust proceeds by thousands of dollars. Regulators assume that the trust’s income will offset or exceed the rise in the costs of the funeral, but that is seldom the case with contracts paid by installments. These contracts often representa loss to the funeral home.

Some funeral homes already include finance charges in their installment payments to offset the loss of trust earnings. However, funeral homes have not been consistent in their disclosure of the finance charges. In fact, NPS was notorious for incorporating a 12% administration charge into an installment schedule that also included a mortality charge. None of which was disclosed to the consumer.

As reflected by a Kansas Attorney General’s opinion, regulators often perceive that finance charges are an exploitation of the consumer. Instead, regulators should ensure that finance charges (or administrative charges) are adequately disclosed to the consumer, and reasonable to both the consumer and the seller.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The emergency rule that implements Missouri’s $36 per contract fee becomes ‘official’ on October 4th.  Missouri funeral directors question whether the fee is too high, and whether it will contribute to the decline in preneed sales. The analysis required for the emergency rule reports that the fee is expected to generate $612,000 of revenues that will be used by the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors for the enforcement of Senate Bill. No. 1. While funeral directors will challenge the State Board’s need for $612,000, the industry must consider how a few problem sellers contribute to the cost of preneed.

The State Board’s October 20th agenda includes a disciplinary hearing on a preneed seller involving allegations of multiple violations. The administrative order included with the agenda reflects extensive time and effort expended by the Board’s staff, investigators and attorneys. The alleged misconduct covers several years and several preneed purchasers, and the proceeding represents a substantial cost to the State Board.

Missouri has never had an effective preneed exam or audit program.  Consequently, regulators are left to question whether the October 20th hearing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sellers with a compliant preneed program question why a few bad apples should spoil the barrel for the entire industry. With the $36 fee providing the Board most of its funding for audits and enforcement proceedings, compliant sellers have a reasonable argument that the fee represents an inequitable surcharge to their families. But, Missouri’s sellers face an up hill climb in any fight for a lower fee.

The climb up that hill begins with two proposals: better annual reporting and a shift of audit expenses.

With better annual reporting, Missouri’s regulators could spot trouble accounts without an audit, and when less drastic enforcement actions are an option.

When the State Board’s preneed examination discloses material non-compliance, the costs of an audit and enforcement proceedings should then be borne by the seller.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks