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

The funeral industry may grumble about the FTC’s Funeral Rule, but two disclosures required by that law play important roles in the preneed transaction. The general price list is often used by funeral homes as a tool for comparing prices with the competition. And when a prearranged funeral is performed, the statement of goods and services can be used to demonstrate the savings a family received by virtue of the preneed contract’s price protections.

Consumer advocates also utilize the general price list as a tool to educate the public on funeral costs. Periodic price surveys are facilitated by the Funeral Rule requirements. In an effort to expand its information base, the Kansas City chapter of the Funeral Consumer Alliance recently made a request of the metropolitan area’s cemeteries. However, a significant number of the cemeteries did not respond.

While some cemeteries may have been challenged to respond due to staffing issues or a lack of resources, there were non-respondents who were not comfortable making a public disclosure of what they charge. These types of disclosures are at The Bereaved Consumers Bill of Rights Act. Cemeteries are not subject to the Funeral Rule disclosure requirements, and the bill sponsored by Illinois Representative Bobby Rush would change that.

Representative Rush’s bill is a product of the Burr Oak cemetery tragedy, which had little to do with disclosures about the costs of cemetery property, merchandise and services. Regardless, the Burr Oak circumstances have been used to justify legislation for an expansion of the Funeral Rule to the cemetery industry. The cemetery industry has strongly opposed the legislation, citing that the penalties far outweigh the benefits to the consumers. Funeral trade groups have generally endorsed the bill. The funeral industry’s reasoning can be simply stated as what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The cemetery industry’s objections to the expansion of the Funeral Rule have merit. Fines for technical violations are substantial, and could be devastating to smaller cemeteries. And, Federal enforcement of the Funeral Rule has been spotty at best.

But just as the KC branch of the Funeral Consumer Alliance has found out, gathering pricing information about cemeteries is difficult to do in the absence of the general price list requirement. The ICCFA posted model recommendations more than 13 years ago, but cemeteries have been slow to embrace them. Many cemeteries have also been slow to implement preneed sales programs. Economic survival dictates that cemeteries become more proactive regarding preneed. With that move will come the need for the disclosures required by the Funeral Rule.

The Kansas City chapter of the FCA will hold its annual Day of the Dead meeting to discuss the results of its cemetery price survey, and to press similar issues with this author. To download the KC FCA newsletter (and cemetery survey results) click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Blame it on the economy, or on ‘unfavorable secular trends’, but as cremation rates continue to rise, operators need to consider their General Price List and their non-declinable basic service fee. In many parts of the country, competition has driven the price of the direct cremation far below the charge that the funeral home requires for its basic professional services. It is the FTC’s position that the death care operator cannot discount its basic professional services fee, and this causes operators to question whether a cremation service can be priced below the basic professional services fee.

The FTC staff has issued informal opinions that except direct cremations from the “no discount rule”. But, operators enter into a gray area when they create cremation packages that offer more than a direct cremation, but cost less than the basic professional services fee.

In response to an inquiry about home funerals, the FTC staff opened the door to alternative basic professional services fees. The staff indicated that it would not object to a reduction in the basic services fees for home funerals if the reduction is commensurate with the limited use of the provider’s facilities and services. For those funeral homes that do not own a crematory, their role in the cremation is similar to that when assisting with a home funeral. Consequently, the FTC opinion would seem to allow these operators to offer an alternative basic fee for cremations.

Cremation societies often set the lowest cremation price in a community because they do not have the overhead of a funeral home. But when the family wants more than a direct cremation, the comparison of cremation packages becomes more difficult. Operations that compete for cremations should consider expanding their GPL to explain the various services that are included in the cremation packages.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although it may not be apparent from the press release or the final Decision And Order, the FTC proceeding against the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has restraint of trade implications for future efforts to regulate the preneed transaction. 

The focus of the FTC inquiry was on the State Board’s lawsuit against an individual who sold caskets. The State Board’s proceedings indicate that the individual did more than sell caskets. While it was never the State Board’s intent to preclude non-licensed entities from selling caskets, the strategy taken by the Board’s attorneys relied upon Chapter 333, the law that governs the licensing of embalmers, funeral directors and funeral establishments. Eventually, the matter came to the attention of the FTC, and its focus was on Chapter 333 and the regulations promulgated there under. In Missouri, preneed is regulated under Chapter 436, and the FTC documents made only passing reference to Chapter 436.

Concurrent with the FTC investigation, a cemetery client was struggling with how to comply with the section of Chapter 436 that restricts the entities or individuals that can contract to perform a preneed contract in Missouri (Section 436.015.1):

No person shall perform or agree to perform the obligations of, or be designated as, the provider under a preneed contract unless, at the time of such performance, agreement or designation:

(1) Such person is licensed by the state board as a funeral establishment pursuant to the provisions of section 333.061, RSMo, but such person need not be licensed as a funeral establishment if he is the owner of real estate situated in Missouri which has been formally dedicated for the burial of dead human bodies and the contract only provides for the delivery of one or more grave vaults at a future time and is in compliance with the provisions of chapter 214, RSMo; and

(2) Such person is registered with the state board and files with the state board a written consent authorizing the state board to order an examination and if necessary an audit by the staff of the division of professional registration who are not connected with the board of its books and records which contain information concerning preneed contracts sold for, in behalf of, or in which he is named as provider of the described funeral merchandise or services.

In essence, R.S.Mo. §436.015.1(1) states that no person shall agree to perform the obligations of a preneed contract provider unless such person is licensed by the State Board as a funeral establishment pursuant to the provisions of section 333.061, RSMo. An exception is allowed for cemeteries to provide vaults.

Prior to filing a comment with the FTC, clarification was sought from the State Board that the law was unenforceable. Knowledge that Chapter 436’s ambiguities were already being exploited by preneed sellers, the State Board eventually declined to make an exception for the law.  

In finalizing the proceeding against the State Board, the FTC issued a letter in lieu of revising the Decision and Order.   Though directed at the State Board, the message conveyed is that state law cannot restrict who may sell or deliver a casket, whether it is at-need or preneed. 

One approach to providing better control over the preneed transaction is to license the seller. Preneed abuses warrant tighter control over the transaction, but caution must be exercised with regard to: 1) the restrictions imposed on who can sell preneed (or obtain a preneed license), 2) the definition of the preneed contract, 3) recovery of cost restrictions and 4) contract and/or advertising restrictions. (I will get to the latter  restrictions in upcoming blog entries.)

Ohio walks a fine line with regard to restraint of trade issues through its restrictions on preneed sales. Ohio has claimed that preneed should be limited to licensed funeral directors, and proposed legislation attempts to salvage this approach by limiting the restriction to preneed contracts that include funeral services:

 Sec. 4717.31. (A) Only a funeral director licensed pursuant to this chapter may sell a preneed funeral contract that includes funeral services. Sections 4717.31 to 4717.38 of the Revised Code do not prohibit a person who is not a licensed funeral director from selling funeral goods pursuant to a preneed funeral contract; however, when a seller sells funeral goods pursuant to a preneed funeral contract, that seller shall comply with those sections unless the seller is specifically exempt from compliance under section 4717.38 of the Revised Code.

(The Ohio legislation provisions that relate to preneed and insurance agents warrant discussion in a separate blog entry.)

Restricting the preneed sale to licensed funeral directors has merit, and the support of some consumer advocates. However, this approach has problems other than the restraint of trade issues. 

Beyond the explanation of funeral, cremation and burial issues, preneed involves financial, legal and tax considerations. For states that do not require continuing education, the funeral director has little exposure to the ‘business’ aspects of the transaction.  

The restriction is also difficult to reconcile with the weekly report of funeral directors who have failed to properly handle consumer funds. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks