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

On January 14th, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon will be sworn in for his second term, and we are wondering whether the Governor’s plans for 2015 are influencing the direction of Missouri’s preneed reform. With commentary such as that published by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Governor may have his eyes on a 2015 campaign for national office. At a minimum, Governor Nixon could be targeting an old rival’s U.S. Senate seat. Either way, the Governor faces a nagging situation with NPS, and may feel compelled to accelerate preneed reform and deflect the criticism that has persisted for almost five years.

When National Prearranged Services collapsed in 2008, NPS funeral providers were especially critical of how then Attorney General Nixon settled the 1991 NPS lawsuit. The Attorney General’s office responded that they did the best possible with the weak enforcement powers provided by Chapter 436. Missouri’s Republican administration countered with a review committee formed for the purpose of finding industry consensus for preneed reform. But, the industry struggled to agree on key issues, and the State’s regulators took the lead in drafting Senate Bill. No. 1. In 2009, a newly elected Governor Nixon inherited the NPS fallout and a prior administration’s effort at preneed reform. Now four years later, the NPS fallout has somewhat abated (but not resolved), and there isn’t much to show in terms of preneed reform.

In contrast to the mortgage crisis or the state budget crisis, the NPS situation will not benefit from the recoveries of the nation’s economy or the financial markets. The Cassitys’ emptied the cupboards, and funeral homes are dependent upon the fixed recoveries negotiated with the state insurance guaranty fund. Most NPS providers are finding ways to cope, but one industry group persistently reminds the Governor and legislators of their discontent. The Governor would like to counter their criticism with evidence that preneed has been made safer under his watch, but it can take years to implement effective reporting and examination procedures.

As we noted in July 2011, a sudden increase in the number of financial examinations suggested that the Division was being pressured to accelerate the process. Shortly thereafter, the Division staff also began to press the State Board to define the insurance assignment as a preneed contract. The State Board and the Division staff disagreed on the insurance assignment issue, and frustration began to develop as the issue was pressed in subsequent meetings. That frustration culminated with a December 12th unanimous vote by the Board members to define insurance beneficiary designations as a preneed contract, but a preneed contract that would be exempt from the $36 preneed fee. Division staff warned that the distinction may not be legal. Within hours of the vote, the Governor’s office announced a Board appointment to replace Todd Mahn, the Chairman who had called for the vote.

The Governor’s website for Missouri’s Boards and Commissions states

"I am always looking for qualified, energetic applicants to serve on Missouri's 200-plus boards and commissions. Please spread the word. I would greatly appreciate it if you would encourage your colleagues and friends to review the vacancies and complete an application."

While this author has disagreed with some of the positions taken by Mr. Mahn, I do not question his commitment to the industry, or to the State Board. Nor did the former Chairman lack for enthusiasm and energy while serving the Board. But, rather than replace a Board member with known health issues that was serving on an expired term, the Governor replaced the younger Chairman.

It may not have been the Governor’s intent, but the appointment could be taken as message to State Board members to ‘get with the program’. But the Governor, and the Division, risk losing the confidence of both the Board and the industry. Someone has lost sight of the first issue discussed at the 2008 legislative meetings: who should have jurisdiction over preneed. Several state agencies attended that meeting, and none expressed any interest in assuming jurisdiction over the preneed transaction. As explained in a 2009 post, financial and insurance regulators often struggle to provide effective preneed oversight because they tend to focus on the ‘backend’ of the transaction (that part of the transaction they are most familiar). The front end of the transaction can take many different forms, which can push the transaction outside the normal scope of the agency’s jurisdiction. (For example, the Nebraska Insurance Department has jurisdiction over preneed sales, which includes trust funding.) When State Board members ‘stepped up’ in 2009 to retain jurisdiction (and demonstrate that the industry could provide meaningful self regulation), a collective sigh could be heard from the Missouri Division of Finance and the Missouri Department of Insurance. The Missouri legislature signed off on State Board jurisdiction, and in doing so made a trade off: reform would rely upon the collective experiences and training of six State Board members instead of an appointed department official. Governance by a board will never be the most efficient or expedient path to action.

In SB1, the State Board was given the task of protecting consumers against another NPS by developing procedures for preneed reporting and auditing. However, the Board is dependent upon the Division of Professional Registration for staffing, legal counsel, funding and reporting administration. Together, the Board and Division crafted a mission statement for the financial examinations that was to be the cornerstone of Missouri preneed reform. From this observer’s perspective, the State Board members never understood how the insurance assignment fit in to that mission statement. Explanations given to the State Board were unpersuasive, leaving an industry to wonder whether the issue was fee driven.

It may have taken the State Board a year to reach an agreement on the insurance assignment issue, but we believe the Chairman made the right call. This issue had a greater importance to the Division than it did the State Board, and there is speculation that the $36 fee, Chapter 208 and the state budget played a factor. Regardless, a resolution was needed so that the Board and the staff could turn to more substantive reform issues, including whether SB1 provides sufficient audit powers and protections. If the Division can look no further than the funeral home’s records, would SB1 have even stopped NPS?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The need for better preneed oversight is obvious, but regulators often lack resources and expertise. The state of Connecticut made headlines recently for the decision to make budget cuts by de-regulating the death care industry*. Connecticut funeral directors challenged the decision, and the state issued a ‘clarification’ and withdrew the plan. (That’s correct, the funeral industry challenged a plan that would have reduced their regulatory oversight.)

Connecticut still faces the issue of funding for death care oversight, an issue that every state faces. In researching last week’s post about the Maryland Office of Cemetery Oversight, we reviewed the meeting minutes posted to the Office website. Budget issues have been an on going concern, and the Office and the Advisory Council had discussed the per contract fee approach in one meeting, and then the problems with this approach in another meeting. The per contract fee amounts to a tax on the preneed transaction.

Missouri has one of the nation’s highest preneed taxes ($36, thanks to National Prearranged Services). But, as the Maryland regulators have experienced, it is not clear whether the preneed tax will be sufficient. Oversight has to be provided to even the smallest seller, and ten sales a year won’t pay the time required to make an on-site exam.

Missouri’s preneed oversight is provided by an industry board that is made up primarily of licensed funeral directors. You’ve heard the criticism of this arrangement before (the fox has been put in charge of the chicken coop), but service on the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors is a time consuming obligation. These board members are looking for ways to improve the image of the industry, and credit is due to them when they come up with ideas that have merit. One such idea is the posting of disciplinary matters on the Board website so that consumers can perform their own due diligence on an operator before purchasing a preneed contract.

This is not a new concept. The Mississippi Secretary of State posts disciplinary orders on its website. For the most part, the postings are fully adjudicated matters that involve an agreed upon procedure for future conduct. But, the postings also provide some of the facts that gave rise to the disciplinary proceeding. Such postings help to inform not only consumers, but also funeral homes and cemeteries. 

*Reprinted with permission from the August 11, 2011 issue of the Memorial Business Journal. To subscribe please call 609-815-8145.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is a bit of déjà vu for Kansas cemeteries. Legislation to increase preneed trusting and to require monthly reporting was introduced in the Kansas House. But HB 2240 will look familiar to those cemetery corporations that participated in 2009 and 2010 cemetery legislative meetings conducted by the Kansas Secretary of State.

As previously reported on this blog, the Kansas Secretary of State is seeking monthly reporting so that troubled cemeteries can be identified sooner. But, even the largest cemetery corporations claim that such reporting requirements would be burdensome.

The Kansas cemetery regulator is motivated by the experience of recent cemetery failures, and the need to impose requirements intended to keep the cemetery out of receivership, or as a ward of the state. As the law currently stands, regulators have few options until the cemetery fails (i.e., is unable to honor its preneed obligations).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Triggered by the NPS collapse, preneed reform rolled out of the Missouri legislature like a tsunami. When the funeral industry was slow to organize and respond to the situation, legislators worked with state officials to imposed sweeping changes. While SB1 does reflect input provided to the State Board by the industry, the law has flaws and omissions that need to be addressed. It will take time to determine how best to revise SB1, but for the current legislative session, I have a short Christmas wish list:

• A continuing education requirement – as a profession, funeral directors have an obligation to stay abreast of new issues and changes. Aside from preneed reform, the industry is in transition in many aspects. Few professionals like forced educational requirements, but the time has come for the Missouri funeral industry.
• Section 208.010.4 – no one can fault the local MO Healthnet worker who interprets this section to require an assistance applicant to purchase a Chapter 436 preneed contract. This law needs to be revised to clarify that other acceptable forms of final expense funds may be excluded for asset testing.

Merry Christmas!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Conventions and seminars provide trade associations and trade journals important sources of revenue. Accordingly, the death care industry has plenty of ‘retreat opportunities’ to choose from. However, there will be a death care convention held in Montgomery Alabama this weekend that will be off limits to funeral directors, cemeterians and their legions of industry vendors.

Death care regulators have their own association, and its convention agenda includes several roundtable discussions. These roundtables provide a forum for administrators, agency directors, investigators, examiners, auditors, attorneys, compliance officers, and staff personnel. Regulators won’t freely admit it, but many do not understand the business practices of this industry and the convention may be one of the few opportunities they have to share information and ideas. But, ID will be required for admission because industry representatives are not allowed. (A sad reflection on the fact that regulators don’t feel they can quite trust some industry operators.) 

The exclusion of the industry from regulatory meetings should be a cause for anxiety to operators. With the preneed scandals that have occurred during the past few years, these same regulators are being forced to assume a greater role in preneed oversight.  In the next year or so, our Midwestern regulators will actually be reviewing those annual reports and then visiting to ask questions. If the regulator has some misconceptions about business practices, that tends to influence their interpretation of applicable law, which affects the direction of their inquiries. If misconceptions must be addressed operator by operator, the correction process will be slow and painful.  

Keeping the regulator ‘in the dark’ has been the historic strategy. Preneed oversight is on the rise, and it’s time to begin engaging your regulators and earning their trust.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several states have passed laws in the past few years mandating greater preneed oversight. But with state budgets in decline after the 2008 market crash, regulators are hard pressed to find a way to pay for consumer protection.

Colorado’s new law simply states that the contract seller shall bear the cost of its examination.

In failed legislation earlier this year, Kansas sought to finance preneed cemetery oversight through a per contract fee. Sources indicate that Kansas will attempt to implement a $20 per contract fee later this year through new regulations.

Missouri took a hybrid approach last year through seller/agent/provider license fees and a $36 per contract fee. Ten months into the mission to provide preneed oversight, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors do not have enough data to know how well this approach will work. The first reporting period is still four months away, and no one knows how many preneed contracts have been sold since August 28th. As a consequence, license fees will likely be increased, which hits the smaller operator the hardest.

In a 180 degree change from last year, the State Board is mulling whether to increase the per contract fee, knowing that most sellers pass that fee on the consumer. In response to pressures from consumer advocates, the State Board had originally taken the position that sellers should be required to absorb the $36 fee. The reality is that the costs of preneed oversight are passed on to the consumer in one form or another by the preneed seller, and the per-contract fee provides transparency to the consumer.

Agencies, such as the State Board, that are charged with licensing preneed sellers and agents, need to charge some form of fee to cover the administrative costs of licensure. However, there is justification that the transaction (i.e. the consumer) should primarily bear the cost of examinations and oversight. On the other hand, it is not equitable that consumers bear the costs of disciplinary proceedings for the operator that fails to materially comply with the law.

With the per-contract fee, consumers and operators are provided a clear benchmark of the costs of their state’s preneed protection program. Such a fee will place a burden on regulators who must budget for fixed program costs (such as dedicated staff).
 

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

For more than 20 years, Nebraska preneed sellers have filed an annual report that accounts for the aggregate contributions and distributions from their trust funds. The annual report form also computes the amount of income that must be accrued to the account if the seller elects to withdraw excess income from the trust. In its quest to determine whether preneed trusts are adequately funded, the Department of Insurance has made a request for individual contract data that supports the annual report.

Nebraska’s request for individual contract data reflects a trend developing with other Midwest death care regulators.

Individual contract data reporting was a priority in failed legislation by Kansas regulators.

Missouri’s State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has acknowledged the need to determine whether existing preneed trusts are adequately funded, and that objective requires some detail about what comprises the trusts established under the prior law.

Missouri cemeteries are about to embark on preneed sales under a new law, and regulators have already expressed a need to know about those sales.

While many death care operators may challenge the individual account data request as burdensome or intrusive, operators harmed by NPS or the IFDA insurance debacle, have reason to be providing such information.

The degree an NPS provider suffers ‘damage” by honoring a preneed contract depends on several factors: the age of the contract, the casket, the funeral home’s current atneed prices, to name a few. To challenge that more than the guaranty association payout is needed, the industry must be willing to provide hard facts based on actual contract data. If the active NPS contracts are included in a state’s annual reporting, a basis has been established for a database for tracking the NPS consequence to the industry.

The same is true for Illinois funeral directors seeking to recover for the IFDA asset meltdown. Recovery has to be based on contract data.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Springfield Journal-Register recently reported that Illinois' Cemetery Oversight Task Force made a recommendation to restrict preneed trusts to investing in government-backed securities.   While its difficult to actually find that recommendation in the Task Force's report, it is not a bad idea for the consumers who purchased a non-guaranteed preneed contract.  However, that type of restriction would hinder funeral homes that offer guaranteed contracts.

The safety provided by government-backed securities comes at a premium: a lower investment return.  Funeral homes and cemeteries are encountering cost increases that recently have outpaced the returns seen from insurance and trusts.  With regard to preneed trusts, investment return has often lagged behind cost increases because tax issues have been allowed to dictate investment policies.  

In the case of the IFDA, the trust resorted to insurance.  It is also very common to find preneed trusts invested exclusively in tax exempt bonds.  

If funeral homes and cemeteries are to offer guaranteed preneed contracts, applicable law should require trusts to adhere to the prudent investor rule.  While these trusts will always favor an asset allocation heavy with fixed income securities, a diversification is needed to provide protection and reasonable returns.  

 

  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With two of the nation’s top ten college basketball teams, Kansans are exhibiting clear symptoms of March Madness. With Topeka located between Lawrence and Manhattan, bipartisanship may be tested as tensions mount this week with the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA seedings announcement on Sunday. When Kansas legislators resume their meetings the week of March 15th, they may hear from a third constituency that has a different ‘madness’ in mind: the Secretary of State’s cemetery legislation.

When the Secretary of State’s staff began holding hearings last June, HB 2712 and HB 2713 may not have been what they had in mind. With the intent to encourage industry input, the Secretary of State formed a committee of cemetery operators and state representatives that was to meet for an afternoon every two weeks. With an aggressive agenda in hand, the first meeting included a handful of ‘spectators’. After that initial meeting, attendance dropped and fewer cemetery operators participated in the process.

Undaunted, the Secretary of State staff held its meetings over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, and outlined the problems with enforcing Kansas’ cemetery laws: funding for audits, wholesale trusting requirements, ambivalent and uninformed fiduciaries, and underfunded cemetery trusts. At the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Secretary of State requested assistance from Kansas’ cemetery industry. When nothing concrete was offered by the industry, the Secretary of State offered options between a state-mandated trust or revisions to fix the current law. That portion of the cemetery industry that attended the meeting choose a fix of the current law.

Among the changes proposed by the legislation, the following may prove the most controversial to some cemetery operators:

• The filing of monthly reports to the Secretary of State
• A new fee based on the reported transactions
• A switch of preneed merchandise trusting from wholesale costs to 50% of retail
• A new fiduciary definition that will limit the institutions that may serve as trustee
• An expansion of the fiduciary’s duties

While these bills do not reflect what the Kansas Secretary of State had hoped to accomplish when the process began last summer, the legislation reflects the realities of the current environment: growing political pressure to provide consumers greater protections and a fragmented and diverse cemetery industry.   Despite how some operators may respond, the Secretary of State could have gone much further (and may in future years).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in Missouri and Kansas will be pursuing legislation this spring for more authority in providing oversight to cemeteries. With its Burr Oak problems, Illinois can’t be too far behind.

Whether it is the economy or the unscrupulous owner, regulators are finding they lack both the expertise and authority to properly protect the cemetery consumer.

The media loves a story like the one that broke on Friday about the Maryland cemetery owner that was arrested in Texas. In 2008, Mr. Deffenbaugh was charged with felony theft, and allowed to avoid prison time with an arrangement that was to provide restitution of $1,000,000. When it came time to pay the piper in 2009, the owner staged his own death by “falling off his boat” in the Chesapeake Bay.

In contrast, brief news reports were offered about a Barrett, Missouri cemetery that faces bankruptcy after its owner died, leaving no one to continue its operation.

When regulators seek reform legislation, they have both situations in mind, but it is the “Deffenbaugh card” that wins legislative votes. Cemetery owners rail when the card is played, but it is the troubled cemetery operator that consumes the regulators’ time and resources. With regard to the ‘other’ situation, there are few solutions for failing cemeteries, other than passing the responsibility for upkeep to cities or counties (and their taxpayers).

Finding effective answers to both situations will require greater interaction between the regulator and the cemetery industry. If they are to become more effective at providing oversight, cemetery regulators must gain crucial experience that can only be derived from reputable operators. And until the regulator has a firmer grip on the industry’s better business practices, legislation will often represent a give and take exchange that may span years until a workable solution is reached.

 

• 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 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

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors meets August 25th to vote on emergency rules that are intended to keep the preneed industry functioning when SB1 goes into effect on August 28th. While numerous issues have been identified to the State Board as deserving of emergency status, four stand out above the rest: licenses, the new trusting of all payments, preneed contract requirements and the cemetery exemptions.

To sell preneed after Thursday, funeral homes must have a license. It doesn’t matter whether the funeral home is offering joint account contracts, trust-funded contracts or insurance-funded contracts, a seller license is required. The same is true if the funeral home intends to honor a preneed contract sold after Thursday. A preneed provider license is required. A preneed agent registration will also be needed for each individual that sells a preneed contract.

But, the State Board does not have the authority to issue a license until Friday. So, the State Board will vote on a special form called the Notice of Intent to Apply for Licensure/Registration that will be used for both licenses and the preneed agent registration.

Once the form is approved, the State Board will place it on their website for downloading. Applicants should consider executing the form in duplicate.

Completed copies of the form could be emailed (in a PDF format) or faxed to the State Board (save the transmission as evidence of the filing). An original copy will have to be mailed to the State Board. The other original copy should then be posted where the funeral home would normally display its establishment license.

It will be near to impossible for preneed sellers to establish new trusts in time for business written after Thursday. Accordingly, the State Board will consider whether to allow newly ‘licensed’ sellers to establish an account with a bank for use as a clearing account for purchaser payments on contracts sold after August 27th.

The new law also will require changes in the preneed contracts sold after Thursday. Most of the Missouri preneed industry utilizes printed contract forms that can take weeks to prepare. Consequently, the State Board is considering a rule to permit continued use of those old contract forms.

Finally, Missouri’s cemeteries are waiting to hear the State Board’s interpretation of the cemetery exemptions from licensing and Chapter 436 compliance. Cemeteries will have their own licensing and trusting requirements under Missouri’s Chapter 214.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Come August 28th, every Missouri funeral home that plans to sell or honor a preneed contract must file a Notice of Intent To Apply. The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has devised this form to ease the rush that will occur when hundreds of licenses must be obtained. However, many Missouri funeral homes are under the mistaken belief they already possess licenses as preneed sellers and providers.

There is a document hanging on many funeral homes’ wall that indicates the entity is authorized as a “Preneed Seller” or “Preneed Provider”. The document also references an “Original Certificate/License No.” However, those documents are verification of the entity’s compliance with ‘old’ Chapter 436’s registration requirements. The “new” Chapter 436 imposes a license requirement. Come August 28th, those registration certificates are only worth the paper they are printed on.

In contrast to the Mexican bandit in The Treasure of The Sierra Madre, Missouri funeral homes do need a filed Notice of Intent to sell/honor preneed after August 28th. The State Board has published its draft of an emergency rule addressing the Notice of Intent.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s Chapter 436 reform law goes into effect on August 28th, and the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will have the responsibility of implementing the new changes. However, the State Board is caught in a Catch 22 situation.

Many of the changes will have to be implemented through regulations, but the Board doesn’t have Chapter 436 rulemaking authority until August 28th. For example, preneed sellers and providers will have to be licensed on August 28th . Since this is a new requirement, every preneed seller in the state will have to file an application and fee to be licensed. There are hundreds of funeral homes that will seek a seller’s license, and not a one can sell a preneed contract until the license is in hand. But, the Board can’t begin passing regulations about the licenses until August 28th. To avoid a shutdown of the preneed industry, the State Board will have to improvise through the use of emergency regulations and temporary licenses.

Accordingly, the State Board will be meeting every week during the month of August to establish its priorities for Chapter 436 regulations. The Board’s agenda for those meetings are set out on its website.

The State Board is seeking input from funeral directors in the form of written questions or comments regarding the agenda issues. By seeking comments in advance of publishing proposed rules, the State Board is hoping to expedite the regulation approval process.

Historically, some Chapter 333 rules have taken up a year or more to pass. The rulemaking process requires a Board meeting to discuss the issue and direct the legal staff to draft a proposal. Then a few months later at the next meeting, the Board will consider the proposal, and if acceptable, submit the proposal to the Secretary of State’s office for the publication process. With the publication, there is a comment period. Then, the comments are discussed at the next scheduled Board meeting. Depending upon the comments, the proposal may be revised, and if so, there will be another publication and comment period. All in all, the rulemaking process can be lengthy.

In the meantime, the Missouri preneed industry is waiting on the Board for directions on such issues as contract disclosures and trust administration requirements.

Missouri is in for a long, painstaking period of change.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Governor Nixon signed Senate Bill No. 1 on July 16th, giving Missouri preneed sellers six weeks to prepare for Chapter 436’s new requirements. For trust-funded contracts, one of those requirements will be the deposit of all preneed payments to trust. Section 436.430.2 provides in part:

A seller must deposit all payments received on a preneed contract into the designated preneed trust within sixty days of receipt of the funds by the seller, the preneed sales agent or designee.

Under the current law, sellers could retain the first 20% of the purchaser’s payments before making a deposit to the trust. While the new law will permit the seller to recover an origination fee of 5% and another 10%, the seller must make a request from the trustee to receive such amounts. The purpose of this requirement is to establish an audit trail of all consumer payments. As reported recently by an Ohio newspaper, Missouri is not alone in its efforts to make operators more accountable.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York Department of Motor Vehicles warns its citizens to plan ahead when it comes to obtaining or renewing their driver’s license. The busiest days of the month are the first and last days of the month. The first day of the month is busy from those who want to beat the rush or who just realized their license expired during the prior month. Then there are the procrastinators who put off the renewal until the very last day.

The New York DMV also warns its licensed drivers to reconsider any plan of completing the renewal process over their lunch hour. The message to drivers (and hopeful 16 year-olds) is to plan ahead because the process will take as long as required to ensure the license is properly issued. It is easier for a licensing authority to say ‘no’ than it is to take the license away once it has been issued.

Missouri funeral homes will face a licensing bottleneck of their own when Senate Bill No. 1 becomes effective August 28th. For the first time, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will be licensing hundreds of preneed sellers and providers.

Although Missouri funeral homes may be registered as preneed sellers or providers, the ground rules have changed drastically under Senate Bill No.1. Accordingly, an early decision the State Board will have to make under the new law will regard how to screen seller and provider license applications.

To avoid disruptions to operators’ preneed programs, the State Board may need to consider issuing provisional licenses that assure compliance with the fundamental requirements of Senate Bill No. 1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For twenty-five years, Missouri funeral directors have had it easy with regard to accounting for consumers’ preneed payments. Chapter 436 required the preneed seller to maintain 80% of the preneed contract sales price in trust. The Missouri law also allowed the preneed seller to withdraw income so long as the 80% threshold was maintained. Consequently, the seller’s trust accounting was fairly simple. However, Senate Bill No.1 has rewritten Chapter 436, and in doing so, will impose a substantial change of accounting upon the Missouri preneed industry.

To establish an audit trail, SB1 requires every payment made on a trust-funded contract to be deposited with the fiduciary institution. The law will also require the preneed trust to accrue income, which the consumer may transfer to an alternative funeral provider. Consumers can also request account information. All of this will require the preneed fiduciary to make monthly allocations to the trust’s individual preneed accounts.

To an extent, the new accounting requirements will also be incorporated into annual regulatory reports required of preneed sellers.

A new era of accountability begins in Missouri.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At the risk of plagiarizing the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association, Missouri preneed funeral sellers, providers, fiduciaries and insurers face a new ballgame that will begin August 29th without a complete set of rules and guidelines. Funeral directors have a general idea where the game will be played, but they’re not quite sure what rules the umpires will use or how closely the game will be called.

In contrast, Missouri’s cemetery industry has been left to guess where their game will be played. Through last minute changes, the cemetery bill was pared back to those essential provisions required to authorize trust-funded preneed sales and a fixed-distribution provision for endowed care trusts. The resulting provisions do not begin to tell the underlying issues.

Funeral directors get the first crack at learning their new ‘rules’ on May 28th when the MFDEA sponsors a session with the Chapter 436 umpires. Based on the success of that session, one of the 436 umpires (the State Board) will probably explore regional meetings with funeral homes.

In the meantime, Missouri’s cemeteries will need to regroup in an effort to work out a consensus on preneed and endowed care legislation.

For a copy of the changes to Chapter 436 click here, and for Chapter 214 changes click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The battle to reform Illinois’ preneed funeral law was renewed by the Comptroller’s office with the release of his Amendment to Senate Bill 1862. Reform in Illinois will take months, and the final product may differ substantially from the Comptroller’s proposal. However, SB 1862 flags Mr. Hynes’ priorities, and one of those priorities could force a shotgun marriage between the IFDA and some of the small funeral homes critical of the Association.

The Illinois preneed law authorizes a preneed seller to act as its own trustee when the seller’s preneed funds are less than $500,000. This provision is a reflection of the difficulty and expense encountered by small operators attempting to find affordable trust services. However, the IFDA exploited this provision with regard to its master trust, and consequently, the Comptroller wants to eliminate the self-trusted arrangement.

The advantage of an association master trust is that it provides the requisite economies of scale to provide affordable trust administration to the smallest funeral home operator. But, many Illinois operators shunned the IFDA master trust because of a lack of transparency. The amount of preneed funds held in self-trusted arrangements could be substantial. If the Comptroller seeks to apply the elimination of the self-trusted exception retroactively to existing trusts, the cost of corporate fiduciary services and the scarcity of such fiduciaries may lead these operators back to the IFDA, perhaps with the numbers to force changes at the Association.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York preneed law may be the best consumer oriented preneed law in the country (see Page 47 of the AARP Survey). It requires 100% trusting, the accrual of income and limits the permissible investments. The New York State Funeral Directors Association has good reason to be proud of their preneed program. Yes, their preneed trust is safe and steady. But, it is a one-of-a-kind model that owes a certain amount of its success to New York’s restrictions on insurance funding.

The bar set by the NYSFDA for other state associations is impossible to obtain in today’s legal environment. The last sentence from a recent article about the IFDA’s woes is most telling:

“The only lobbying we’ve had against our laws is from the insurance industry, which would like to bring their products into New York.”

Other than New York, what states prohibit insurance funded preneed contracts? States that consider the New York standards without insurance funding restrictions need to examine the consequences to the consumer and to the funeral home operator. If trusting requirements are set too high, operators will resort to insurance funding for their preneed contracts. Funeral directors will have insurance licensing requirements to fulfill, and consumers will have fewer preneed options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like the Swine Flu, a preneed virus has been spreading across the Midwest.   Looking for a cure, state legislators and regulators have been forming research teams.  It all started last summer, with Missouri’s Chapter 436 (funeral) working group and Chapter 214 (cemetery) working group.  Now, Illinois is establishing a preneed task force, and Kansas is forming a cemetery committee.  But, in contrast to the Missouri Chapter 436 working group, the forthcoming preneed research teams are limiting the industry’s involvement in the proceedings.  It’s not that the patient has a terminal condition that is contagious, but rather a reflection that organizing industry participation can be akin to herding cats.

Take the May edition of the American Funeral Director as an example. There are no less than six articles addressing preneed. As Mr. Creedy points out, everyone in the industry has an opinion and some can’t help but apply a general prescription for the preneed transaction. But, preneed is governed by more than 50 different state laws, making the transaction impervious to such generalizations. Boiling the issues down for the sake of an editor’s guidelines only contributes to the confusion of our industry members. While these types of articles often quote experts with opposing (and often, valid) opinions, death care operators tend to remember only the opinions that support their preneed program (or, supports their opposition to another form of preneed).

The preneed problem involves complex issues that require an in-depth analysis by our respective state legislators and regulators. For the sake of our consumers, we need to provide legislators and regulators objective and unbiased information about all aspects of preneed.

This patient is very ill, but not terminal. There are no easy cures or solutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s preneed reform legislation will be amended on the House floor in the next day or so, and some of the Representatives have heard that old phrase about legislating morality. There is some truth to that phrase, and to some of the other objections raised against the reform legislation.

Preneed oversight will impose a substantial financial burden on a strapped state government and regulators lack the requisite experience to define the future course of preneed. However, these objections seem to wither when read in conjunction with the ‘excuses’ of the IFDA member funeral homes.

In a nutshell, Illinois funeral directors did not perform due diligence with regard to the management of their master trust. Instead, funeral directors placed their trust in their elected leadership, who then placed their trust in an investment advisor.

For those of us who work in this industry there is one given fact: funeral directors are caregivers by nature, and would rather spend their time with a family than the preneed trust’s accountant, attorney and investment manager. Well respected industry leaders are calling the current preneed situation “nuts”, and recommend that funeral directors focus on what they do best: serve the family. This advice resonates with most funeral directors, but they also know that families have come to expect the preneed option. But if preneed is to be offered, funeral directors must begin doing their homework.

Two years ago, Sue Simon wrote about Missouri’s triple-dipping trusts. One might have thought NPS’ demise brought this issue to an end, but that is not the case. A program utilizing a variable annuity product is being marketed to Missouri funeral directors. The promises made with regard to this product seem familiar to those made to the IFDA.

Depending on the final version of Missouri’s preneed reform legislation, funeral directors and fiduciaries may be forced to explain the condition of their preneed trusts. It would be best to put the Illinois Secretary of State’s questions to the investment advisor before the investment is made, rather than after.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Officially, its called House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1.   Some of the ‘unofficial’ titles given this bill are not fit for publication.

It doesn’t matter who you talk to about Missouri’s current preneed reform bill, everyone has a complaint.  Even the consumer advocates.  Under normal circumstances, this general mood of discontent would ensure the defeat of a legislative proposal.  But these are not normal times, and it is appropriate that the Columbia Daily Tribune would remind the state of that fact by speaking with former Senator Jerry Howard.

In the early 1990’s, Senator Howard took on the problems of Chapter 436 and Chapter 214. While Senator Howard had success in addressing Missouri’s perpetual care law, Chapter 436 reform proved a greater hurdle.  More than a dozen years ago, representatives from the funeral and cemetery industries met with regulators to draft revisions to Chapter 436.  Although National Prearranged Service representatives attended those meetings, and provided tacit approval of the draft amendments, NPS had its own lobbying agenda.

Senator Howard took those amendment proposals to legislature, but could not obtain the necessary support of his fellow legislators.  Key legislators had been prepped for the proposals’ weaknesses.

HCS SS SCS SB1 has some flaws that need to be worked out, but time is running out for the current legislative session.  If the choice comes down to this bill or no bill, this bill should be passed with an understanding that its flaws need to be addressed by regulations and technical corrections in the next legislative session.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois and Missouri have more in common than they may realize. Consumers and funeral directors are blaming state regulators for their current preneed problems. Looking to avoid that hot seat, regulators have been stating their excuses/defenses. If legislators are to correct the flaws in their state’s preneed oversight, they need to put partisan politics aside and objectively assess those excuses.

In response to criticism about the IFDA master trust, the Illinois Comptroller’s office states: we don’t regulate trusts. With regard to preneed audits, the Comptroller follows the money from the consumer to the funeral home and into the IFDA trust. Once there, the Comptroller did not provide an extensive review of the trust’s activities. (Summary, it’s not my job to provide oversight once the funds make it to trust.)

The chink in the Comptroller’s IFDA armor is that the consumer funds never made it into a corporate trustee’s hands. The Comptroller’s excuse (we thought they had a corporate fiduciary) has funeral directors boiling. Rightfully so. While news reports and funeral homes have garbled the legal issues, the Comptroller’s function was to license preneed sellers, and for the IFDA, that meant the responsibility to ensure the organization had an appropriate fiduciary.

Missouri’s Division of Professional Registration and State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors have received the same type of criticism with regard to the NPS collapse. Those regulators have appropriately countered with explanations about how Chapter 436 tied their hands. Legislators and state agencies sponsored meetings last summer to obtain recommendations for improving Missouri’s preneed oversight. Those recommendations included the decision to continue the State Board’s jurisdiction over the preneed and to provide that entity greater licensing and oversight authorities.

Preneed regulation should begin with the licensing/registration of who may sell preneed. (I beg to differ with Ill. State Rep. Dan Brady, and those who assert preneed should only be sold by licensed funeral directors.) But that issue aside, who should provide oversight once the consumer’s funds are deposited to trust? I tend to agree with the Comptroller’s office that a state’s financial regulator is better suited for this job. However, there are ‘gaps’ to that recommendation. (State banking regulators do not have express jurisdiction over fiduciary institutions that derive their powers from a charter granted by the Office of Thrift Supervision or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.)

While preneed licensing and payment administration oversight should be placed with a state’s agency charged with establishing minimum competency standards, oversight of the preneed trust should be with the state’s banking regulator. Federal preemption issues could be eliminated by statutory provisions that require the seller’s trustee to consent to limited jurisdiction as a condition to accepting the account. Preneed is too complex, too big, for a single state agency.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s a fact that the NPS collapse threatens the viability of many Missouri funeral homes. It’s also a fact the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors had jurisdiction over NPS and did not shut the company down in time to prevent the current crisis. In a response, a group of the injured funeral homes are calling for the transfer of preneed oversight to a new “commission” comprised of nine funeral directors and a consumer advocate. If this proposal constitutes the sum total of changes to be made to Chapter 436, it represents nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Missouri’s State Board was never provided the tools it needed to effectively regulate the preneed transaction. Chapter 436 was intended to keep the preneed door open by establishing minimal contract and trusting requirements, without providing an effective mechanism for oversight. The State Board was never granted rulemaking authority to even address the transaction as it evolved over the years. Understanding the limitations of a state budget, the State Board’s funding for oversight was also restricted by a $2 per preneed contract fee. Restrictions were also placed on the Attorney General’s office regarding attorneys assigned to the State Board.

To suggest Missouri’s problems are simply a “governance issue” is an insult to the funeral directors who have given up their time to serve on the State Board. From time to time, there have been valid criticisms about whether the State Board members have been influenced by self-interests. But, the overriding goal of the State Board member has been the advancement of the industry’s professional standards. Current State Board members may not understand the economic nuances of all variations of the preneed transaction, but how will an expansion of preneed oversight from 5 funeral directors to 9 funeral directors ensure that objective?

The Chapter 436 review process opened last summer with the question of whether preneed oversight should be moved to an independent state authority. There are advantages and disadvantages to putting preneed oversight under an industry board. The major advantage is that the industry board should be more familiar with a complex transaction. While independent preneed regulators can be very competent (Iowa for example), more often than not, the independent preneed regulator finds the transaction as confusing as any other person. The spokeswoman for the Illinois Comptroller’s Office has acknowledged as much.

Missouri’s legislature should leave preneed oversight with the State Board and focus its attentions on providing that entity the authorities needed for effective oversight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Consumers and funeral directors are asking their state regulators how they let the National Prearranged Services collapse to happen. With the exception of Missouri and Iowa, the NPS preneed contract was generally an insurance-funded transaction, and state insurance regulators are taking most of the heat. It is a very different story in Missouri, as witnessed by two competing reform bills: Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 853. For Missouri, NPS used a trust-funded preneed contact (that was subsequently invested with Lincoln Memorial policies). As a consequence, Missouri legislators have made higher trusting requirements and heightened fiduciary responsibilities their top priorities for both bills.

Missouri’s Chapter 436 was written before Rev. Rul. 87-127, when trusts were king. The law also reflects the historic perception of the guaranteed preneed contract (one that is shared by the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities Exchange Commission): the transaction is a sale of goods and services by the death care company.

Chapter 436 allows the preneed seller to retain the purchaser’s first payments until 20% of the sales price has been collected. A 20% sales expense retention provides smaller funeral homes the funds required to maintain a program to compete with larger operations, including the national companies. All subsequent payments must then be deposited to trust. The law was intended ensure there were sufficient trust funds for the funeral home’s “costs” at the time of performance (in contrast to the amount the consumer would have to pay for the funeral at a future date). Consequently, Chapter 436 allows the seller to also withdraw realized income to the extent the trust’s market value equaled the deposits made to trust.

What distinguishes Chapter 436 from most other permissive preneed state laws (such as Iowa) is the public policy decision to require income accrual. By requiring the trust to accrue income, these states have placed a ‘cap’ on the seller’s recovery of preneed program costs. Their message is that the seller must make do with the front-end retention of payments. These states still view the preneed transaction as a sale of goods and services (allowing the recovery of the sales expense costs), but they will not allow the preneed seller to recover other operating expenses from trust funds intended for future performances. In this respect, SB 1 and HB 853 are similar. While both would require the accrual of trust income, only the Senate bill recognizes the preneed contract as a sale of goods and services.

In an attempt to enhance consumer protection and preserve the funeral home’s ability to offer a trust-funded preneed program, SB 1 would raise Missouri’s trusting percentage from 80% to a hybrid 85%. This trusting change will have the greatest impact on small funeral homes with dedicated salesmen and the larger, proactive independent funeral home/cemetery operations.

As the retention percentage is reduced, economies of scale will make it more difficult for small operators to maintain a separate program. While the larger proactive preneed program may have the volume of sales to offset the loss of 5%, they must contend with SB 1’s ‘pro rata’ recovery of sales expense.

The retention of the sales expense from the first payments simplifies the procedures for compensating a program’s salesmen. Missouri’s SB 1 recognizes this issue in that it authorizes the first 5% of the sales price to be retained. While SB 1 allows the seller to collect an additional 10% of the contract sales price, it must do so pro ratably from each subsequent payment. This pro rata approach imposes a greater administrative burden on the seller, contributing to the costs of the preneed program.

In contrast to SB 1, HB 853 requires 100% of a purchaser’s payments to be trusted. The bill’s advocates claim the preneed funds belong to the purchaser, not the funeral home, and consumer protection will be enhanced. Essentially, the bill’s supporters are re-defining the trust-funded preneed contract as a transaction of accommodation to the preneed purchaser. Funeral homes will be required to provide program administration and tax advantages that the consumer cannot otherwise obtain from a bank.

Deprived of a source of funds to offset preneed program expenses, proactive sellers will be forced to utilize insurance funded programs. While insurance offers cost advantages to the younger consumer, many typical preneed purchasers may not qualify for insurance, or may not be able to afford the required premiums. In the end, HB 853 will reduce the preneed options available to consumers and the industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Duggan has a point, and that’s what concerns regulators in Illinois, Missouri and Texas. Who will be blamed when the consumer does not get the benefit of their preneed contract?

While the overwhelming majority of NPS’ preneed contracts will be honored by the funeral home named in the contract as the “provider”, it is not because of regulators’ threats. Most funeral directors cannot afford to abandon their preneed families. The same can be said for the IFDA members and their preneed contracts. But there will be some funeral directors who eventually decide that they cannot afford to honor those contracts. To protect the consumer, the regulator will be called on to enforce a contract that should exist between the funeral home provider and the third party preneed seller.

Many funeral homes rely upon third party sales organizations to provide preneed documents, administration, sales forces and economies of scale. While funeral directors typically relate the term “third party preneed seller” to entities such as National Prearranged Services, the term also includes those entities formed by state associations to service member funeral homes that do not want, or cannot afford, to maintain their own preneed operation. While this relationship involves the delegation of crucial responsibilities, regulators have discovered that the seller and provider have done little to document their respective rights and obligations in a formal agreement.

When the Texas Insurance Department took control of NPS and its sister insurance companies in early 2008, the initial press releases advised funeral directors that they were obligated to honor those contracts regardless of the circumstances. Texas authorities subsequently narrowed such statements to their Texas funeral directors because Missouri’s Chapter 436 does not have such a requirement.

NPS was notorious for selling preneed contracts in the absence of an agreement with provider funeral homes. Some funeral directors discovered these sales after the fact. To the extent NPS had authority to represent a provider funeral home, the agreement was often cursory in nature. Consequently, Missouri funeral homes have some justification for challenging the obligation to honor NPS contracts. In response, Missouri’s reform bill includes the following provision:

436.415. 1. Except as otherwise provided in sections 436.400 to 436.520, the provider designated in a preneed contract shall be obligated to provide final disposition, funeral or burial services and facilities, and funeral merchandise as described in the preneed contract.

2. The seller designated in a preneed contract shall be obligated to administer all payments made by, or on behalf of, a purchaser of a preneed contract and ensure the preneed contract is managed and fulfilled, and payments remitted, in compliance with sections 436.400 to 436.520 and as provided by the contract. 

 But what if the seller does not fulfill its obligations to the funeral home provider and the consumer? Is it fair to impose strict liability upon the funeral home provider?

Regulators, such as the Illinois Comptroller’s Office, seem be indicating that preneed regulation is a bigger, more complicated, task than what they are prepared for. In that vein, Missouri is warning funeral homes that they must assume the risks associated with third party sellers. Texas seems to think that consumers would be best served by the prohibition of trust-funded third party preneed contracts (154.1013). I disagree.

Insurance funded preneed is not an option for many elderly consumers. If faced with trust funding or POD/joint accounts, smaller funeral homes will be squeezed out of the trust arrangement by the expense of establishing and maintaining their own trust. Funeral homes will also have to comply with the seller licensing requirements.

Despite the allegations made against the IFDA, the state association trust may represent the only competitive preneed product available to the smaller funeral operator.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Legislature has reform of Chapter 436, the preneed funeral law, on the fast track. With the speed that Senate Bill 1 has been amended and perfected, it may be more appropriate to label this reform as being in the express lane. However, Missouri legislators must not lose track of the cemetery industry’s efforts to effect its own reforms for Chapter 214.

As with most states, Missouri regulates cemeteries under a separate law and a separate regulator. For the most part, Missouri’s cemeteries have been spared from the NPS abuses. Regardless, the state’s cemetery industry has been pursuing needed changes to Chapter 214. Appropriately, Senate Substitute for the SCS SB1, attempts to carve out cemetery exemptions from preneed funeral regulation, but misses the mark.

Chapter 333 vests regulation of funeral directors and funeral establishments in the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. SB1 will expand the State Board’s authorities to regulate the preneed transaction, and the revisions to Chapter 333 include new definitions of “funeral merchandise” and “preneed contract”. Those definitions overlap with the property, merchandise and services sold by cemeteries. To exclude cemeteries from the State Board’s jurisdiction, SB1 includes a new Section 333.310:

333.310. The provisions of sections 333.300 to 333.340 shall not apply to a cemetery operator who sells contracts or arrangements for services for which payments received by, or on behalf of, the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo, provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 333.300 to 333.340 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

With Chapter 333 now defining funeral merchandise to include grave spaces, markers and vaults, cemeteries that sell these items on a preneed basis will be subject to the State Board’s licensing jurisdiction. Section 333.310 exempts cemeteries from the State Board’s jurisdiction to the extent that the cemetery sells only preneed burial services such as opening and closings (and then one has to question the exemption’s reference to endowed care fund or segregated account). If the cemetery sells property or merchandise, the State Board would have jurisdiction for requiring preneed licensing.

In contrast, the cemetery exemption from Chapter 436 does not reference services (and consequently, has a broader affect):

436.410. The provisions of sections 436.400 to 436.520 shall not apply to any contract or other arrangement sold by a cemetery operator for which payments received by or on behalf of the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo, provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 436.400 to 436.520 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

However, the Chapter 436 exemption is also problematic for cemeteries. This provision would exempt contracts sold by cemeteries where the purchaser payments are deposited to an endowed care fund or to a segregated account required under Chapter 214. This provision is rather confusing because endowed care trusts cannot be used for preneed payments, but rather for the care and maintenance of the cemetery. The reference to “segregated accounts” contemplates Section 214.387, a provision that authorizes cemetery operators a procedure for deferring the delivery of markers pursuant to a purchaser’s instructions. The segregated account does not provide adequate consumer protections, and should not be the basis for an exemption from Chapter 436.

If would be preferable to address Chapter 436 and Chapter 214 at the same time so that the exemptions can be dovetailed, but if Chapter 436 continues on its current pace, the cemetery exemption must contemplate future trusting/escrow arrangements under Chapter 214, or provide the Director of the Division of Professional Registration the authority to exempt cemeteries based on their individual preneed programs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Senate Committee assigned the task of preneed funeral reform posted a substitute bill to the Legislature’s website on February 6th: SCS SB1. For those who participated in the Chapter 436 Working Group meetings last summer, this bill may seem vaguely familiar. During those meetings, the Division of Professional Registration circulated a 41-page draft proposal for discussion with industry representatives. However, discussions regarding the proposal bogged down when industry members could not agree over several issues. Eventually, the Working Group issued a “Recommendations” statement.

Turning back to the Division staff, the Senate committee has dusted off that earlier draft proposal and added provisions based on the Chapter 436 Working Group Recommendations. This approach is sure to revive the disagreements that derailed last summer’s meetings.

With the NPS failure as a backdrop, the Missouri legislature will have little patience for the internal bickering that has marred prior reform efforts. While SCS SB1 has some legitimate flaws, the status quo is no longer an option.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Even when the need for reform is apparent to all, the legislative process can take years. With the Michigan Senate having approved a House substitute, that state’s cemeteries are a step closer to reform that could have avoided Clayton Smart’s pillaging of $70 million dollars of endowed care funds.

The Michigan Legislature’s website provides the history of SB 0674, from its introduction in August 2007, to the Senate’s December 19th vote to adopt the House substitute. Including the Attorney General’s investigation, the Michigan reform process has taken over two years. As with all reform efforts, some were not happy with the delays encountered in the Legislature’s efforts. Getting it right is not as easy as it would seem.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Why did you agree to that?

That's the question I have been getting to the Chapter 436 Working Group recommendations regarding i) the deposit of all purchaser payments to trust, and ii) some form of periodic statement to the consumer.   One answer would be that we see too many news reports like this one.  

The primary objective for these two recommendations is the establishment of an audit trail.  Require all payments to go through the fiduciary's hands, and require the fiduciary to give the consumer some form of notice.  If the regulator does not have the resources to monitor the transaction, give the consumer the opportunity to do so.  The recommendation does not deny the seller the right to recover sales expenses.

Yes, the procedure is burdensome, will add cost to the transaction, and will require change.   What are the alternatives?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 While the completion of the document may have felt like a birthing process to the staff of Missouri's Division of Professional Registration, the Chapter 436 Working Group Recommendations more accurately reflects an industry position paper that has yet to be completed.   Faced with a deadline imposed by the Missouri legislature, the Division 'finalized' the Recommendations in an 11th hour meeting of the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.  The State Board meeting underscored that many industry members have yet to grasp how the preneed transaction is structured and administered by competitors.  This is best demonstrated by the State Board vote to revise the Recommendations to include the following:

 

·         The board recommended a 100% trusting requirement with no administrative or trustee expenses by a vote of 4-2.

 

 During various meetings, the issues of preneed sales expenses and trustee administration expenses having been erroneously interchanged by Committee members.  This confusion is due in part from Chapter 436 allowing all income to be distributed currently.  If the trust does not accrue income, the law requires the seller to assume responsibility for trust expenses.  Trustees normally look to trust income for administrative expenses.  If the trust has no income, the trustee is dependent upon the seller for reimbursement.  This aspect  compromises the fiduciary's duty to the trust. By its action, the State Board would perpetuate a major flaw in Chapter 436 (if trust funding is to survive at all). 

The State Board's objective is to protect the consumer, and to do so it must think comprehensively about the three forms of funding: insurance, joint accounts and trusts.   Is the consumer better served if trust funding is effectively precluded?   Of course not. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In response to a proposal that preneed trustees be required to provide periodic account statements to contract purchasers, a funeral director asked what liability he would have to consumers who question the trust’s performance during a year such as 2008.   Legally speaking: none. But ultimately, death care companies should be accountable to their families for the decisions they make with regard to preneed funds, including where those funds are placed and how well they are invested. With regard to certain contracts, NPS providers may not be responsible for the promised funeral, but consumers will punish the funeral home that turns its back on those contracts. The funeral home put the consumer at risk by agreeing to do business with NPS. Similarly, if a funeral home fails to devote the time and resources required for proper management of its preneed trust, consumers should ask if they are assuming too great a risk that the facility will be in business when the funeral is needed. 

Realistically, periodic trust statements to individual purchasers provide a ‘tickler’ that alone will not flag a troubled preneed program. A systematic trust reporting system is needed. Such a trust reporting system must also afford the public sufficient information to assess the financial strength of the preneed program. Yes, there will be a cost to both consumer and the funeral home, but a trust reporting system will reward the funeral home that devotes the energy and resources required to properly administer their families’ preneed funds.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is encouraging when funeral directors and consumer advocates engage in meaningful debate about the future of Missouri's preneed industry.  And, there seems to be some consensus that the non-guaranteed contract should have a greater presence in the state. 

In the third of six scheduled meetings, industry and consumers were faced with those prickly issues of the trusting percentage, income accrual and portability.   While there were no resolutions, progress is being made.

There will be consumers who want to lock in a prearranged service, whether it is for price or because the individual has made a decision.   But what about the consumer who wants to start the prearrangement process and is not quite sure. 

The Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association broached the issue with a proposal that may have flaws, but provides a starting point for discussion.   In the discussion that ensued at the July 24th Review Committee meeting, it was suggested that the non-guaranteed account could be used as a hybrid form of preneed: where the prearrangement would not be finalized until 'everyone' was ready.  

Amen, Rev. Stroud.

• 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

So why is it so tough to provide preneed portability?   Because the transaction has been defined by state law as a contract between a consumer and a death care company, and federal regulators tend to agree.   When the issue has arisen in the context of federal preemption, the interests of the state regulator have prevailed on the grounds the transaction is ‘local’ in nature, and the state has an overriding interest in policing the transaction. This perception permeates federal oversight of the preneed transaction, including that provided by the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities Exchange Commission. So long as preneed is defined as a guaranteed contract for goods and services, complete portability will be difficult to achieve.

Consumer advocates view the preneed transaction as a savings account to be safeguarded until the death, and some state laws accommodate that perception. Kansas requires 100% trusting, an accrual of income and assures portability by granting the purchaser the right to designate a different funeral home to perform the contract.

However, if the Kansas contract was written by a funeral home with its own preneed trust, there has to be a trust agreement between the original funeral home and the fiduciary. Despite what the law states, the new funeral home is not bound to that trust agreement. In the absence of a trust agreement, the fiduciary does not want the responsibility of ensuring the new funeral home performs the preneed contract according to its terms. If the new funeral home seeks to have the funds transferred to its own bank, what responsibilities does the trustee have to ensure the receiving institution will accept the funds in a fiduciary capacity? (Is anyone familiar with Bremen Bank?) 

So long as the new funeral home is within the state of Kansas, the state’s preneed law could be revised to afford the fiduciary some protections. However, state law will not remedy the situation where the consumer has moved to another state. 

When faced with this situation, insurance companies protect themselves by adopting policies that restrict policy assignments. It is not that uncommon to encounter insurance companies that prohibit policy ownership by funeral homes. Insurance companies will be more lenient with funeral homes with whom they have an agency relationship.

For states like Missouri, portability faces the challenges of the seller/provider distinction and lower trusting requirements. Missouri allows preneed sold by third party entities, and requires the seller to have a contract with the funeral home or cemetery prior to marketing to consumers. In keeping with this requirement, regulators recently looked at language to improve portability. However, that result was confusing, and did not consider the fiduciary issues. The Pennsylvania State Board of Funeral Directors had similar experiences with a recent effort to address portability. 

If a Missouri contract has been trusted using the minimum requirements, the contract becomes less attractive to other funeral homes as time passes from its sales date. There may come a time when the contract becomes a liability.  Under that circumstance, the consumer will have difficulty finding a funeral home willing to accept the contract. 

The irony of the NPS failure is that the company’s program offered the consumer interstate portability that only the national death care companies could match.   But the NPS customers have not only lost the portability of their contracts, some face the prospect of their named provider going out of business. 

Steps can be taken to improve portability, but it will not be as simple as mandating a result. Increasing funding requirements and assuring insurance assignment rights will help. To overcome resistance by funeral directors, protections against ‘twisting’ could be offered. 

However, if the consumer wants complete portability, he or she will need to consider the non-guaranteed preneed contract. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Before the guaranteed preneed contract, funeral directors accepted pre-payment on funeral arrangements as an accommodation to their families. Funds were typically placed in a joint account or POD account at the local bank. As this practice became more common, “preneed’ laws were passed to establish requirements regarding the deposit and withdraw of funds. These laws were fairly simple, and some can still be found in many states’ preneed laws as a separate section within the more complex provisions intended for the guaranteed contract.

The guaranteed funeral contract was created about 50 years ago, and preneed took on a predatory characteristic. Promoted primarily by third party preneed programs, the guaranteed funeral contract became a tool for the funeral home that sought to compete with the more established funeral home across town. To overcome the ‘heritage’ established over years of service to a community, a funeral home offered the guaranteed contract to families to reduce expense and emotional distress. 

The third party preneed programs introduced concepts that early preneed laws did not contemplate: master trusts, diversified investments, commissions and grantor tax treatment. Over time, preneed was defined by the guaranteed contract, and the transaction proved very divisive for the funeral industry. A majority of funeral directors felt preneed was harmful to the profession and sought to deter the transaction. Realizing that this form of preneed was dependent upon salesmen, the trusting requirement became a pivotal issue. (Investment restrictions became another.)

With regard to trusting, preneed sellers took the position that the transaction represented a sale of goods and services and the trusting requirement should be set to cover the costs of providing the contracted goods and services. Many funeral directors countered that preneed was an accommodation and that joint account/POD funding requirements should apply to master trusts as well. Funeral directors adverse to preneed understood that if all consumer payments had to be trusted, preneed sellers would be deprived the revenue needed to compensate salesmen. Legislative battles were waged from state to state during the 1970s and 1980s (at a time when insurance funding did not play a major factor). The result was a mixed bag of state laws that vary greatly as to preneed trusting requirements. 

Generally, the 100% trusting issue surfaces in states such as Missouri, Nevada and Texas when consumer advocates pushed reform by seeking increased trusting requirements. However, the issue took on a different light recently when legislation was introduced in Tennessee to reduce its trusting requirement from 100% to 90%. While the bill eventually failed, the Tennessee Funeral Directors Association has good reason for pursuing the change even in light of the NPS failure.

NPS’ climb to become the nation’s largest third party preneed seller was fueled to a great extent by Missouri preneed sales. Missouri’s law allowed NPS to keep the first 20% of the consumer’s payments, and to withdraw income earned by the trust. Consequently, the NPS failure will lead to a call for Missouri to raise its trusting to 100%. Consumer advocates are recommending that Missouri legislators use New York’s preneed law as a guideline. New York not only requires 100% trusting, it also prohibits insurance funded preneed. While these restrictions have worked to the benefit of New York’s consumers and funeral directors, it is too late to implement such restrictions in Missouri (and the other states affected by NPS).

The New York Funeral Directors Association has an excellent record with consumers, and provides innovative programs to both consumers and funeral directors.   The Association’s preneed master trust provides crucial funding for those programs and services. While the state’s size would be sufficient to guarantee a large master trust, the Association also benefits from a legal environment that precludes competition from insurance companies and most outside third party sellers. (It should also be noted that the NYFDA master trust, like so many other state association master trusts, is also a third party preneed seller.) 

Through services provided to its master trust, the NYFDA generates revenues that underwrite educational materials, contracts, marketing, legal expenses and individual account administration. As the primary obligor of its preneed contracts, the association is also in a position of authority to its funeral homes.   The freedom from meaningful competition has allowed the NYFDA to make the consumer and compliance its top priorities. Funeral homes that do not agree with the Association’s policies have few preneed alternatives. In a sense, restraint of trade has worked well for the New York consumer. 

While preneed will always have its detractors, a majority of funeral directors now understand that preneed is more than an accommodation. However, the expense of establishing a preneed program is too great for many funeral homes. Consequently, the state master trust provides the necessary economies of scale to make preneed affordable for the smallest establishments. But, establishing a New York style preneed program requires commitment, time and resources. Without a substantive trust to fund program features, state master trusts must look to current sales for revenues to underwrite education, contracts, compliance, administration, and taxes. But as the Tennessee Funeral Directors Association found out a few weeks ago, it is very difficult to overcome the point of view that preneed is an accommodation and that 100% trusting constitutes a ‘good’ preneed law.

Beyond the 100% trusting requirement, the NYFDA is the only association that does not also have to contend with insurance company competitors. Even though insurance provides the consumer an important alternative to trust funded contracts, this competition impacts an association’s ability to effect policies that may be unpopular with some funeral directors.   If the cost of participation in the master trust must be borne in part by the member funeral homes, some mechanism must be afforded the funeral home to recover those costs when the contract is canceled or transferred to a non-member funeral home. This may be a consideration in the pending Ohio legislation. 

It is unfair to compare the New York master trust to those in states such as Missouri and Iowa. Missouri’s state association had to compete with 3 preneed sellers and several insurance companies. As a consequence, the MFDEA cannot dictate issues to its members as the NYFDA can. Any attempt to implement New York styled restrictions in states such as Missouri will likely be challenged by insurance companies and proactive preneed funeral homes to the FTC as unreasonable restraints of trade. 

Clearly the 1980’s argument advanced by preneed sellers about trusting has been proven wrong by the NPS failure. It is not enough to simply trust that amount needed to cover the ‘cost’ of the prearranged funeral.   Rather, legislators must find a way to protect consumers’ interests while providing the death care industry the means to pay the costs of a preneed program that provides education, performance, compliance and safety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 11^th, Senator Delbert Scott met with a number of death care industry members and regulators to begin mapping out the direction for preneed reform in Missouri.  From that meeting, it was decided that the state’s death care regulators would form review committees that would facilitate a dialog on the issues, and help formulate recommendations for the Missouri Legislature’s Joint Committee on Preneed Funeral Contracts. The Joint Committee is expected to begin hearings in September.  

The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has formed its Chapter 436 Review Committee, with the first meeting scheduled for July 8th. The Office of Endowed Care will defer formation of its review committee until later in July. The Chapter 214 Review Committee will not meet until August, after the Chapter 436 review committee meetings are concluded. 

To provide some structure for the Chapter 436 meetings, the State Board is circulating a survey on 67 issues. The review committee meetings will have to maintain tight schedules in order to adequately address those issues. The review committee meetings will provide public attendees an opportunity to provide comments. 

It will be crucial that consumers, funeral directors, cemeterians, fiduciaries and vendors contribute to the discussions that will take place at these meetings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As news of the NPS meltdown began to leak last month, several proposals to reform Missouri's preneed law were hastily drafted.  Not knowing the extent of NPS' problems, some reform advocates felt the need to strike while the iron was hot. 

Even as the legislative session ended on May 16th, it was not clear whether any reform would be enacted.  However, when the dust settled in Jefferson City, the only preneed reform enacted will prove the most prudent.

By virtue of an amendment made to Senate Bill 788 on the Senate Floor, the "Joint Committee on Preneed Funeral Contracts" was given birth.  The committee will be formed with seven members from each of the House and the Senate. 

The Joint Committee's tasks are to:

(1) Make a comprehensive study and analysis of the consumer and economic impact on the preneed funeral contract industry in the state of Missouri;

(2) Determine from its study and analysis the need for changes in statutory law; and

(3) Make any other recommendation to the general assembly relating to its findings.

By the time the Committee members are appointed, and hearings are scheduled in September, a great deal more will be known about NPS' business practices.  However, the hearings are bound to put Missouri's entire preneed industry under the microscope.  The death care industry has the summer to prepare.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an article that examined the history of NPS, and raised some of the questions that need to be explored in depth in the months to come.   The system failed in several states, for both consumers and funeral homes.   While most funeral homes will try to make good on the NPS promises to consumers, regulators must share in the responsibilities for what went wrong and what has to be done.

NPS was an innovative company that grew frustrated with the fragmented nature of state preneed laws, and exploited the gaps and ambiguities of state regulation.   Some will say that NPS exploited the greed of funeral directors, and this should be sufficient reason for holding funeral homes responsible for performance of the NPS contracts. While this will ring true for some funeral directors, this is too simplistic an explanation of the situation.   The reality is that many funeral homes will fail if regulators do not recover sufficient assets from the Cassitys. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri preneed industry faces a long and stormy summer. 

The Missouri legislature seems to be listening to regulators' requests for much needed authorities for examinations, audits and rulemaking.  A draft bill providing emergency powers to the Division of Professional Registration has emerged as legislation that may be signed into law before the current session ends next week.  In contrast to most bills enacted into law, this one is rumored to have an immediate effective date.

If the bill is signed into law, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will begin to study methods for implementing the preneed inspection powers to determine whether the state's preneed problems extend beyond the NPS failure.  Though meant to demonstrate the industry's overall compliance with Chapter 436, recent testimony at legislative hearings may have undermined regulators' confidence in the industry's past efforts to comply with current law.

One approach the State Board will consider is a comprehensive desk top examination of each seller's fundamental compliance with Chapter 436.   Approximately 12 years ago, the State Board contemplated a broad based review process that  would have sought basic information about the three methods of funding: trust, insurance and joint accounts.   However, the initiative could not be pursued because the State Board lacked the authority to require compliance by licensees. 

I could not attend recent  a hearing where industry members testified before legislators to provide assurances that most funeral directors do comply with Chapter 436.  If the description provided to me about the testimony of one well intended funeral director was accurate,  funeral homes need to take a refresher on the requirements of Chapter 436.  I have heard similar misstatements by funeral directors at recent State Board meetings.

I anticipate that The Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association is already working on Chapter 436 compliance courses to provide its members.  Association members would be well advised to take such a course before assuming their funeral home is in compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With two reform bills (HB 2469 and HB 2594) already introduced into the legislature, and two substitute proposals in the works, Missouri legislators and regulators are committed to fixing a law that allowed NPS to exploit consumers and funeral homes. However, consumers and the death care industry are both having difficulty analyzing the specifics of the various proposals. The haste with which legislation is being pressed suggests that regulators know more about the gravity of the NPS situation than what has been disclosed to the public.

Chapter 436 has some obvious problems:

• The combination of a low trusting percentage (the last 80% of payments) and the right to withdraw income currently

• Restrictions on the state board to order inspections or audits

• Minimal reporting requirements

• Ambiguity regarding deposit requirements

• Ambiguity regarding insurance funded preneed

• A lack of rulemaking authority

• An underlying assumption that all preneed contracts will be price guaranteed, and most would be trust funded

• Inadequate provisions for consumer protections when sellers or providers go out of business or are sold

• A general lack of independent oversight

What may not be apparent to legislators, and to consumers, are the many competing economic interests that exist under the “death care” umbrella. There is little doubt that legislators are getting a crash course on those interests. The various proposals already reflect certain interests of regulators, funeral homes and preneed sellers. But if legislators are only now learning the issues, how will they know which proposals are in the best interests of the consumer?

If it were not for the NPS meltdown, Chapter 436 would not be a topic of discussion in Jefferson City. Last year, Representative Meadows proposed a reform bill that was blocked before it could even be discussed. The year before, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors put preneed reform on its agenda, but the chairman, Ken McGhee, received very little support, or interest.  The sudden interest to fix Chapter 436 is being driven by the NPS failure.

Preneed is a complex issue, and Chapter 436 has more faults than most states’ preneed laws. But, the NPS situation cannot be fixed if we do not know the extent of the damage. It is too late to close this barn door. Rather, the legislature must bring structure to a situation that has many competing interests. The NPS meltdown is unprecedented, and a public forum is needed so that all can understand what went wrong, and where should we go from here. 

With regard to drafting preneed reform, the Missouri death care industry has historically relied upon representatives from the State Board, the funeral directors association, the cemetery association, preneed sellers and the consolidators to forge a consensus bill to submit to the legislature. This group has been referred to as the Allied Council. It has been 13 years since the Allied Council forwarded a Chapter 436 proposal to legislators. Ironically, that Allied Council effort was subverted by NPS. 

Chapter 436 will be revised. However it should be done with the input of an Allied Council that includes consumers, insurance companies and the attorney general’s office. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The preneed bill that angered the Funeral Consumers Alliance in February continues to advance within the Tennessee legislature. SB 2705/HB 2763 has been placed on the calendar for the Commerce Committee for April 1^st. If passed, the legislation may well make Tennessee the first state to lower its preneed trusting requirement. Despite the need for better consumer protections, I anticipate other states may eventually follow suit. 

Preneed is evolving from a transaction of accommodation to becoming an essential element of each funeral home’s business. Funeral directors in 100% trusting states such as Tennessee are feeling the need to control their own preneed programs, and have come to appreciate the costs of establishing, and maintaining, a trust funded preneed program. 100% trusting laws have historically dictated that insurance be used as the principal method for funding, with trust funding as a backup for purchasers who were too old or could not qualify. With insurance companies coming and going within the preneed market, funeral homes want the alternative to offer consumers a trust-based product.

Why will legislators be willing to decrease 100% trusting laws: the guaranteed preneed contract has been, and continues to be, viewed as a sale of goods and services. Legislators are likely being told that if consumers want a product that provides a full refund right, and portability, then they can choose a non-guaranteed preneed contract. Tennessee’s law provides that option. But is the non-guaranteed preneed contract really a viable alternative?

The vast majority of laws and regulations aimed at regulating the preneed transaction are in response to the guaranteed preneed contract. This is true regardless of whether the issue is securities regulation, income taxes or trusting requirements. Preneed has been defined as a purchase transaction, not a dedicated savings account transaction. As a consequence, criticism that attempts to re-characterize the preneed transaction as a savings plan can often be deflected by the death care industry. 

The Tennessee Prepaid Funeral Benefits Act has several excellent features, and could serve as a reference for other states. But, as with most preneed laws, it has some provisions which leaves one to scratch his or her head (like Section 62-5-408(d)). Yet, SB2705/HB2763 provides a reasonable remedy to the hole left in the 2007 effort to repair the Smart damage: funding the protection fund from the funds retained by sellers on guaranteed preneed contract sales.  

Fiduciaries also need to consider that the Act authorizes civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of the Act committed by the preneed trustee. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's always an ugly scene when a party to a fiduciary relationship gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar.  Unfortunately, this has been happening with alarming frequency in the death care community, and Indiana has had enough.  In a relationship that requires mutual cooperation, the death care industry has taken the position that "someone should have stopped us by saying no", and the Indiana legislators have agreed.   With the legislation signed into law last week, Indiana has initiated a major shift in the responsibilities of the death care fiduciary.  Like the tree falling in the forest, was there anyone from the banking/fiduciary community around to here it?

The Indiana legislature moved quickly in response to the trust frauds committed at Grandview Memorial Gardens and at the cemeteries owned by Robert and Debra Nelms, and Governor Daniels followed suit by signing HB 1026.  The new law will go into effect July 1, authorizing the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service to promulgate regulations that will determine the distribution documentation that must be reviewed and approved by death care fiduciaries.  Failure to comply with these new requirements will expose the fiduciary to criminal charges and liability to cemetery customers. 

 To understand the gravity of the issue, fiduciaries need not go any further than their clients for input.  The general counsel for the Indiana Cemetery Association put it this way:

The people who own the trusts could do almost what they wanted. We've given the trust companies the incentive not to pull the wool over their eyes.

Cemetery association members were aghast to learn of the case because they did not understand the extent that the current law left cemetery trusts vulnerable. People really weren't aware. 

It would be safe to say that most death care fiduciaries are still unaware how vulnerable these trusts are.

What should death care fiduciaries do?  The knee-jerk reaction would be to terminate such accounts and run as far away as possible.  However, the fraudulent character of the charges leveled in recent class-action suits bring into question whether the statute of limitations has even begun to run.  The class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Grandview Memorial Gardens lot owners will likely turn on whether preneed contracts were performed pursuant to their terms, and that will require the distasteful act of opening gravespaces.  The trust frauds committed by the Nelms have already snared one fiduciary and a major brokerage firm when a $20 million class-action lawsuit was filed in late January on behalf of cemetery lot owners. 

Fiduciaries with a federal charter may be tempted to play the federal preemption card that has been used to keep state regulators at bay with regard to the sub prime mortgage crisis, but history is not on the national fiduciary's side with regard to death care regulation.  State death care regulators in Florida and Texas have taken OTS preemption opinions, rolled them up and slapped thrift chartered fiduciaries into submission.  Frankly, the legal arguments advanced by the state regulators were on point.

Indiana chartered fiduciaries need to become engaged in the procedures that will be unfolding before the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service later this Summer.  The death care industry will be there in force providing their comments about the forms and procedures to be covered by the regulations authorized by the new law.  Fiduciaries will have no one but themselves to blame if they miss this dance. 

Federally chartered fiduciaries will need to determine how significant a block of business Indiana represents to their death care business.  These fiduciaries will also need to monitor other states to see whether the Indiana law represents a trend that other state legislatures will follow. 

Death care companies and consumers will need to anticipate an increase in the cost of fiduciary services.   The old adage "you get what you pay for" has a double-edged application to the death care fiduciary environment.  The security sought by consumers and cemeteries/funeral homes will come at a cost.  To minimize the cost of the new obligation to provide distribution oversight, death care companies and fiduciaries will need to explore standardized examination procedures or the reliance on established audit procedures.   Death care companies will also have to be more receptive to trust instrument provisions intended to provide fiduciaries the power to say no, and protections when they do.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It must be spring: preneed reform bills are sprouting like crocus. 

 

The direction taken by the Maryland and Tennessee legislatures in proposing protection funds drew recent criticism from the Funeral Consumers Alliance. While consumer advocates have some valid points regarding these legislative efforts, the obstacles facing states are far more complex than what most outsiders understand. For purposes of this blog entry, lets focus on Maryland and put Tennessee off to another day.

 

First, a distinction needs to be made between a state’s industry board and a state trade association. Some times the two cooperate to get legislation introduced and passed, and then sometimes the two are on very different pages. Most state industry boards are understaffed and under funded. A casual survey of the website for the Maryland State Board of Morticians & Funeral Directors reflects the Board has one inspector, excuse me, had one inspector, for all of the state’s funeral homes.   While the Board’s principal purpose is the “protection of the public's health and welfare through proper credentialing, examination, licensure, and discipline of morticians, funeral directors, surviving spouses, apprentices and funeral establishments in Maryland”, its newsletter suggests preneed has become its pressing problem.

 

Preneed accounts for most of the Board’s complaints, and the number of funeral homes that are late in filing their reports to the Board are substantial. Yet any thoughts the Board may have regarding enforcement actions must be tempered with the realities of its budget. As a self-supported entity, the Board’s resources are those fees it charges the state’s funeral homes and morticians, and there lies the first rub with the state’s trade association. What businessman doesn’t complain about the fees charged for licenses? Those complaints are invariably directed to the trade association, which in turn applies pressure on the board. 

 

But the fact something is broken with regard to preneed is not lost on either the Board or Maryland’s funeral director association. The association position for scrapping the CPA certification in favor of a protection fund probably signals the industry’s acknowledgment that this oversight approach is ineffective and a waste of resources. I have experienced the same frustration working with CPAs and auditors who held themselves as having experience with the death care industry. If each funeral home has to find a CPA to certify compliance with a state law like Maryland’s, HB 1090 may well represent a better application of the funeral home’s funds. However, the real problem with Maryland preneed is its preneed law and the lack of effective oversight. 

 

The dynamics of preneed reform are complicated, but there certain generalities that apply from state to state. No matter how bad your state law is, no one wants to open the law for the donnybrook that is sure to follow if all bars are removed. It doesn’t matter if the trusting is 100% or 80%. If you work in a 100% state, there will be a strident element that argues a lower percentage will open the floodgate to the unsavory characters of preneed (and the criticism of FCA). If you work in state such as Missouri, there is the position that opening the preneed law will invite restrictions that cut into the revenue streams that funeral homes have become dependent upon. However, these arguments are beginning to pale in the face of growing frauds and abuse. Most funeral directors understand that oversight is needed, but the challenge is how to achieve it efficiently on the limited resources available. Shifting the responsibility, as Indiana’s legislature is considering, to the fiduciary will not work. 

 

With regard to Maryland’s preneed law, I would offer the following recommendations:

 

1. Require an independent, corporate trustee that can invest pursuant to the Prudent Investor Rule. Scrap the concept of letting a funeral home serve as a trustee (or escrow agent).   (And what is a trust that is insured by the FDIC?)
2. Require a combination of flat fees and per preneed contract fees that are divided between a protection fund and the Board’s costs to monitor annual reports and to take enforcement actions. The per contract fees should be assessed equally from the funeral home and the consumer (perhaps $10 each). 
3. Each preneed seller should be required to file an annual report that sets out new contract information, deposits to trust, distributions from trust, the trust’s market value and the trust liability. 
4. Each preneed seller should be subject to a tri-annual inspection that may last between 1 to 3 days. The inspection reviews the funeral home’s records, accounting controls, a sampling of transactions (deposits, distributions) and the annual reports filed with the Board. The inspection should be conducted by a CPA firm pursuant to agreed upon procedures developed by the Board, with the cost of the inspection being assessed against the funeral home. The better the funeral home’s records and procedures, the more likely the inspection can be completed in a day (and the lower the fee). With a fixed number of inspections per year, the Board should be able to negotiate a fee that is substantially less than the CPA certification required by the current law.
5. Inspections that reflect violations or deficiencies can be the basis for full audits (which are assessed against the funeral home).
6. Final inspection reports should be a matter of public record so that consumers can investigate funeral homes before making a preneed contract purchase.
7. Preneed sellers should have to obtain trustee certifications of new contract deposits, and then provide documentation to the new contract holders of the deposit of their funds to trust.
8. Preneed trustees should provide annual summary statements (transactions and asset listings) directly to the Board. 
9. Trust transfers should be documented to the Board.

Protection funds have merit, and should not be discounted as a ploy. However, preneed oversight is becoming a national issue. Documentation and disclosure will be fundamental to providing an adequate audit trail for regulators. Maryland funeral directors may have legitimate complaints for dropping their current oversight, but they should not opt for a protection fund in lieu of oversight. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The families of those buried at Grandview Memorial Gardens are angry.  First they are advised that the trusts meant to fund future burials and the care for those graves are not properly funded. Next, they learn that some of the cemetery’s gardens have a problem with grave spaces flooding with water. When Indiana regulators and prosecutors reported there was nothing they could do to correct the situation, plaintiff attorneys filed a class action suit naming several entities as defendants, including three banks and the consolidator that sold the cemetery in 2001. The Indiana legislature has also reacted to the situation with a bill intended to eliminate the ability of the death care industry to use a custodial arrangement for these funds, and to place a greater burden on fiduciaries to police fund distributions. 

Are Grandview’s problems the fault of the three banks named as defendants in the lawsuit?  Of course not.  Should the preneed fiduciary be required to police distributions to the extent required to determine if the vault delivered is a 'sealer' or not?  Of course not.  The Grandview situation may be more indicative of the problems facing the death care industry than the irregularities facing the Illinois Funeral Directors master trust.  There are several factors that have contributed to the Grandview situation. Consequently, there are no simple answers, and shifting the blame/responsibility to the financial institutions that serve the death care industry is short sighted and counterproductive. 

Indiana’s death care laws are a hodge-podge of sections spread among different chapters, with different effective dates. If funeral directors and cemeterians cannot accurately cite the legal requirements for their trust funds, should legislators pass the responsibilities over to the financial institutions? 

It doesn’t take much speculation to guess why Indiana’s regulators have not taken any actions. More than likely, the Grandview accounts complied with the Indiana laws (albeit they were likely set up as custodial accounts). This won’t stop the class action attorneys from pursuing the deeper pockets of the banks and Carriage. 

If the death care industry should decide to take steps to improve the image of preneed and perpetual care, death care fiduciaries have to be afforded the resources and procedures required to provide meaningful oversight to account distributions. Fiduciaries are completely dependent upon the death care company for the documentation required for substantiating distributions. Many fiduciaries rely upon certifications from the death care company that a contract has been performed pursuant to its terms. But such procedures cannot ensure that a family receives a ‘sealer’ vault, if that is what the preneed contract called for.  HB 1026 will not solve Indiana’s preneed woes. The problem is deeper than the water that filled Grandview’s vaults. 

The approach taken by Grandview’s class action attorneys reminds me of the search for the infamous Keyser Söze.  As if they were reading from the script for The Usual Suspects, the attorneys advise they think they have it figured out but that legal process will have to grind out justice slowly.  For the sake of the Grandview families, we hope there will be a different ending than what happened in the movie. In real life, there is no Keyser Söze to whom all blame can be attributed.  Instead there are only some bit players who followed the twisting trail of Indiana law, and the only characters likely to profit from this drama are the attorneys. 

To help the Grandview families, the first course of action needs to be the repair of the cemetery’s drainage system. If the cemetery’s perpetual care fund was depleted through improper distributions, determine who did so. There has been little press coverage about the prior owner’s response to the perpetual care issues. Did Madison Funeral Services understand the requirements of cemetery maintenance when it purchased Grandview from Carriage in 2001?   Did the more stringent perpetual care law govern Grandview’s fund?   How much of a perpetual care fund did Madison receive from Carriage? 

With regard to whether the Grandview families were defrauded with inferior vaults, what did the preneed contracts provide? If one reads between the lines, the Jefferson County Prosecutors are indicating there is no basis for a fraud prosecution. The statute of limitations excuse sound like, ah, an excuse.  Doesn’t the statute of limitations start from the point of the discovery of the fraud? If consumers were promised a ‘sealer’ vault, and an investigation does not prove the fraud for 8 years, has the statute of limitations just been triggered? The danger for the Grandview families is that the contracts don’t call for a ‘sealer’ vault. Someone may have planted the ‘sealer’ seed in their minds, and we should hope it wasn’t someone looking to profit from the families’ emotional distress.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Wisconsin bill that would establish a right of sepulcher looks bound for passage (AB 305).   There are several things to like about this bill.  It would establish an individual's right to control the disposition of his or her body, and to designate an agent authorized to carry out that directive.  The bill also provides the hierarchy of kin who may control the disposition in the absence of a directive from the deceased.  In the event of a dispute between kin, the bill requires all concerned to be prepared to assume the financial responsibility for the disposition (avoiding the potential for a disgruntled family member from acting as a 'spoiler'). 

The bill also defines those individuals who may not serve as an designated agent for disposition.  Funeral directors and cemeterians are precluded, as are hospice workers and clergy.   I am puzzled by the exclusion of clergy and hospice workers from those who may be designated (unless related by blood.  I have prepared estate planning documents that included a minister as the individual's fall back choice for implementing his disposition directives.  I could also see where individuals have established relationships with hospice workers and would trust them to carry out plans for disposition.  

Perhaps the Wisconsin legislature was concerned about individuals who might have an undue influence on the terminally ill, but I do not understand the need to restrict an individual's rights with regard to either clergy or hospice workers.  I would welcome comments regarding these limitations. 

But in any event, the bill will benefit Wisconsin citizens by providing the right to control one's own disposition.    If the bill is signed into law, funeral homes and crematories should evaluate their forms with regard to this bill and the Crematory Authority Act passed in 2005.  Preneed contracts that contemplate cremation may want to include an authorization form that addresses both laws.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks