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

A “Spend Down” is the transaction where a person seeking public assistance transfers money or insurance to a funeral home to avoid having the “asset” count as a resource. It is a commonly held perception that the Spend Down accounts for many preneed contract purchases. But should all Spend Downs trigger the state preneed law intended to protect the consumer? That question has been the source of disagreement and confusion for Missouri funeral directors since last July when the State Board first began to implement SB1.

The Missouri controversy swirls around the Spend Down that involves an existing insurance policy. It is a fairly common occurrence for a family to approach the funeral director with a small life policy ($10,000 or less) with a request that the policy be held until welfare applicant’s death (when it is to be applied to funeral expenses). Missouri’s public assistance policies are interpreted at the county level, and the result has been widely diverging requirements. Some Missouri counties require the funeral director to provide a contract to the family to evidence the assignment was not made as a gift. The contract requirement also serves to protect the funeral director by setting out the terms and conditions underlying the assignment. For example, the funeral director may not necessarily promise the insurance policy is being accepted as the sole consideration for the future costs. If the policy proves worthless, the family will still be obligated to pay for the funeral.

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has grappled with whether this transaction should be subject to the requirements of SB1. During it’s initial SB1 meetings, the State Board leaned towards excluding the Spend Down from SB1, but in subsequent meetings expressed an intent to include the transaction if a contract were involved.

When the family approaches the funeral director with an existing insurance policy or certificate deposit, and the funeral director receives no compensation in the form of a commission, the Spend Down represents an accommodation to the consumer. Under such circumstances, a regulator should consider whether the licensing requirements are sufficient to protect the consumer. Imposing the requirements of SB1, or any preneed statute with additional fees or costs, on an accommodation transaction burdens both the consumer and the funeral home.
 

• 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

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

Regulators and preneed sellers squared off recently over the subject of who owns the preneed trust fund: the funeral home or the consumer. Hearings to reform Missouri’s preneed law hit a wall when the issues of trusting requirements, income accrual and portability was taken up by a review committee comprised of regulators, industry representatives and consumers.  

In a debate that has been waged in countless other venues, several Missouri funeral directors asserted that the trust fund is theirs because they have guaranteed the prices and assumed the risk of the trust's performance.   The regulators argue that the trust fund represents the consumer’s funds, and the consumer should have the right to change their minds about funeral homes and type of service they want, and to do so they must be able to transfer the funds or receive a refund without penalty. 

This all begs the question: what do consumers want?  We cannot answer that question in Missouri because the law only contemplates the guaranteed contract. 

Mortuary Management asked the question whether the guaranteed contract is necessary to attract preneed customers.  As was the case at the Missouri meeting, the responses were divided. 

As Missouri re-writes its preneed law, consumers should be afforded a meaningful choice between the guaranteed contract or the non-guaranteed, 100% funded contract.  As I wrote in one of the first blog entries, the non-guaranteed contract faces certain hurdles.  

Under Missouri's current trusting requirements, preneed sellers have little incentive to offer a non-guaranteed contract.   If the funds are deemed to be entirely the consumers', who will assume the burden of establishing a program that provides the requisite documents, administration and oversight?   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

NPS, beleaguered by state regulatory proceedings in Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Texas and Iowa, has called it quits. 

NO MAS! 

ENOUGH! 

Much to the surprise of industry leaders, NPS has suggested it will do what's in the best interests of the consumers.  Could this mean a refund to everyone?

April Fools Day!  

If anything, NPS is a fighter, and will battle each of these states.  Does NPS have problems?  Sure.  The insurance in the trust scheme has had competitors mad for years, and for good reason.  Does NPS' problems make it vulnerable to the funeral homes it contracts with?  Better go read those associate agreements.   The Funeral Service Insider suggests funeral homes could be taking the hit if NPS fails.  That may not be the case.  Nor is FSI's source on point when suggesting that the purchaser money that NPS collects is also the funeral home's money.   Funeral directors need to start reading those NPS contracts to determine if they are an 'obligor'.   Frequently, NPS associates are agreeing to provide the described funeral when they are paid pursuant to the terms of the agreements (note: plural..... agreements, you need to read more than the preneed contract). 

The consumer is the one most exposed by a possible NPS failure.  And if that were to happen, it would also be catastrophic to the industry's integrity, and the arguments against federal regulation.

But, it is a little early to be giving NPS any final rites.  Industry leaders need to take a calm approach to the situation, and avoid contributing to the rumor mill.  Consumers need to contact their state regulators to obtain more information about the safety of their funds.  Funeral directors need to get out those associate agreements, and begin to read.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two recent newspaper articles help to underscore the distinct directions the funeral ritual seems headed. 

The Kansas City Star reported on how more families are opting for personalization over formal funeral rituals.  As the article indicates, personalization often requires the funeral director to spend more time with the family planning a memorial that is unique to the deceased.  This approach also challenges the preneed approach of selling a package arrangement that covers 'everything'. 

Personalization represents a departure from the Christian liturgy that allowed a standardized approach to funeral planning.  While some theologians criticize the funeral industry's departure from the traditional (religious) funeral ritual, others have come to realize how clergy often overlook the emotional needs of the surviving family members.  The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship devotes several pages from its website to the "funerals that minister to those left behind".  

As more clergy become more sensitive to the psychological needs of the surviving family members, funeral directors may have an opportunity to work more closely with churches seeking to provide a more spiritual ritual for their congregations.  The latter approach was underscored by an article about funeral directors seeking to serve the needs of immigrants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Iowa had not one, but two personal preference bills pending before its Legislature for the 2007/08 term: SF 473 and HF 2088.   The Senate version, SF 473, was backed by Iowa’s attorneys, and the House version, HF 2088, was backed by the Iowa Funeral Directors Association. 

What caught my attention about these bills was the IFDA statement published by the Des Moines Register on February 22nd. The death care industry would have been better served if the IFDA had given more thought to their position against SF 473. The IFDA statement started with the following:

I must clarify your Feb. 14 article, "Bill Gives Deceased Control of Remains." Iowa funeral directors have always believed funerals are about loved ones gathering to commemorate the deceased person's memory. Funeral ceremonies are not about the dead forcing their intentions on loved ones.

There’s no argument that funerals have been for the living. It is a ritual that is meant to help survivors to take the next step on life without the individual who just died. But how can the IFDA reconcile the highlighted statement with the preneed transaction that most funeral homes endorse.  Yet, I believe the IFDA correctly identified the issue that should be addressed before a preneed contract is ever signed:

If someone has specific requests for his or her funeral, those must be communicated to their loved ones. Funeral directors bring families together to decide how to remember the dead. SF 473, backed by the Iowa State Bar Association, allows a "final disposition directive," which forces everyone to listen to a document, and not to the emotional needs of survivors.

The [attorneys bar] association's proposal could conflict with other legal instruments. What if the decedent's will, pre-need funeral contract and final disposition all request burial, but in different cemeteries? What if the final disposition designates some distant cousin to be in charge?

The IFDA is asking the right questions, but failing to look in the mirror to understand how the death care industry is contributing to the problem. 

First of all, each individual should have the right to control the disposition of his or her body. Period. But in contrast to our ‘inalienable’ rights, we are powerless to defend the right to control our own disposition.   After we cash in our chips (pardon the pun), we are completely dependent on someone else respecting our ‘instructions’. Most individuals seem to have a strong personal preference for what should be done with their body. In a sense, there seems to be a certain selfish aspect to one’s last act or wish being one of “this is what I want”.   Unfortunately, many preneed programs seem to cater to this self-indulgence. 

What may be galling some funeral directors is that the written document, whether it is disposition directive or a preneed contract for cremation, may not be in the best interests of the surviving family members.

First preneed, and now enforceable disposition directives, are underscoring that the role of the funeral ritual needs to be for both the deceased and the living. But to accomplish such a goal, the individual must overcome the reluctance (or denial) that precludes the discussion of mortality with family or friends. 

Preneed introduced our older generation to the issue of their own mortality, but hasn’t provided them the resources to share fears and values with the next generation.  And now the death care industry is being forced to redefine the preneed transaction from being about “me”, to being about “us”. To incorporate family members into the process, key decisions about the funeral must be deferred. Individuals will continue to want to address the financial burdens of the funeral, but the industry needs to become receptive to allowing the family the freedom to reach a common decision about what ritual is best for everyone. 

Bill Tammeus, a Kansas City Star columnist on issues of spirituality, addressed these issues from a theologian’s perspective in a September 2, 2006, column titled “The Cremains of the Day”.  

So which Iowa bill should be favored? In this situation, the attorney’s version provides a lower hurdle for the individual wishing to establish an enforceable disposition directive, and therefore I would endorse it over the IFDA bill. SF 473 should better protect the interests of the elderly and the gay community. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Death Care trade publications such as the Funeral Service Insider and the FuneralWire advocate that funeral homes revisit the non-guaranteed preneed contract.  I agree that funeral homes should reconsider the non-guaranteed preneed contract, but for reasons different from those expressed by other authors.

The non-guaranteed preneed contract affords flexibility and portability to the individual who wants to do more than preplan, but is not prepared to make all of the decisions that go into planning the final disposition.  The guaranteed preneed contract often ties the hands of the consumer's survivors and the funeral home.   While many families take satisfaction knowing the prearranged funeral, some survivors feel they have been deprived the final opportunity of taking care of a loved one.    

Rather than espouse one form of preneed over another, funeral homes need to provide a viable non-guaranteed arrangement that can be selected in lieu of a guaranteed contract. There is a place for both types of contracts.  However, there are a number of hurdles to the non-guaranteed preneed transaction.  In this post, I will identify those issues briefly, and provide expanded discussions in subsequent posts.

• Most state preneed laws have been written with the guaranteed contract in mind.
• Marketing - proactive vs passive
• Efficient trust management
• Finding a sponsor

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks