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

Three years ago we asked that question with regard to the power struggle occurring between the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors and the Missouri Division of Professional Registration staff. That post was influenced by our experiences with preneed regulators from other states, who range from elected politicians to the revolving door bureaucrat. I would always prefer the experience and stability of a Dennis Britson or a Mack Smith, but they honed their skills over decades, and Missouri is under a bit of pressure to get reform rolling. With the Missouri Legislature having vested preneed supervision with the industry, we saw hope that Missouri could establish a unique structure where the experience of the industry would mesh with a staff with long term commitments. But silly me; the regulations drafted in response to a December vote on insurance assignments provide the answer to “Who is the Boss?” It is the Governor.

I must confess that my mind drifts at times when I attend the State Board meetings. Okay, I also check emails from time to time when the Executive Director gives her reports. But, the regulation proposals leave me wondering whether I was in the wrong room last December. But, Mr. Otto did whisper to me from time to time during the meeting I thought was the State Board’s. Maybe we were at a MFDEA meeting? Then again, I recall a unanimous vote that defined the insurance assignment as a preneed contract that was to be exempt from the $36 fee.

My warning from the “Who is the Boss” post in 2010 was this:

Death care operators are often frustrated when regulators take actions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the business (or worse yet, a misunderstanding of applicable laws). The risk to both the death care operator and consumer is when the elected preneed regulator allows politics to influence the reform process. Elected regulators may pose the greatest challenge to developing effective preneed supervision, and then maintaining that system.

It is obvious the Governor doesn’t read this blog. Since 2010, an elected politician has made insurance assignments our preneed reform priority. I get it. The excess insurance proceeds could help offset the benefits paid to nursing homes, and Chapter 208 requires a Chapter 436 preneed contract. The State doesn’t want to revisit Chapter 436. It would be easier to manipulate the language of SB1 to get the desired result. (It’s not like the industry doesn’t do it too.) It took the State Board 18 months to offer a compromise, and one that was a win-win for the state and the industry. But, you are overplaying this hand by demanding the $36 per contract fee.

For the past two years, the industry and Board members have asked what the Division really needs in terms of fees to conduct exams. The answers have been evasive at best, but I could defend that response because the examination procedures are work in progress. But, your regulation proposals indicate that “The costs for the Board to administer preneed contracts is the same per contract, regardless of the value of the preneed contract.” If that is the case, then what is the cost per contract to perform a preneed examination? I find the Division’s budget for the State Board confusing, but the numbers attached to the agenda are significant. Is the Division receiving more that it needs, and if so, where do those funds go?

Up to this point, the examination procedures have focused on recordkeeping and confirming that consumer funds were deposited to banks and insurance companies. At some later date those procedures will need to look at how those funds are administered and paid out to funeral homes. But, until then, why is the $36 fee required on a transaction where the funeral director does not receive funds until after a death has occurred?

Three years ago I defended the slow pace of the Division, and advised the industry that reform required a shared responsibility between the Division and the State Board.  Accordingly, please respect the Legislature and let the State Board perform its role for reform under SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

On December 12th, a Missouri coalition of NPS preneed providers will have a second opportunity to state their case for legislation to establish a NPS recovery plan. As we noted back in September, that coalition should anticipate a tepid reception from the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (and much of the Missouri funeral industry). Funeral operators may be sympathetic to the harsh economic realities of the guaranty fund’s ‘fixed recovery’, but few operators perceive how those future financial losses are ‘their problem’. Legislators cannot be as dismissive because the coalition is warning that it is a matter of time before funeral homes start to fail, and when that happens, consumers will ultimately suffer the financial loss. Not knowing whether two funeral homes or twenty funeral homes are at risk, the legislature gave the coalition a hearing to present a plan. The details remain vague, but it has been reported that the plan calls for a “mandated” preneed trust. If those rumors prove accurate, the plan has two major hurdles that could block its takeoff.

In concept, a state wide, cooperative preneed trust could provide financial relief to the NPS provider. A master trust could provide participating funeral homes the economies of scale to reduce administration expenses and increase investment performance. As a collective group, the NPS providers may be able to achieve a return that not only offsets the cost increases of the future preneed business, but also some of the costs of the NPS contracts yet to be performed.

But, any thought of using investment returns of future business to fund old business would have to be closely regulated. The trust cannot take investment returns from Funeral Home A contracts and allocate them to Funeral Home B contracts. Nor can the trust take investment returns from non-guaranteed contract a001 and allocate them to NPS contract b002. With the proper administration, the investment return of Funeral Home A’s new guaranteed contracts (or old Pre-SB1 guaranteed contracts) could be split with Funeral Home A’s NPS contracts. Such a split would occur only after the proper income/expense allocations have been made to originating accounts. Under Missouri law, the consumer of one of those new accounts could chose to designate a new provider, and transfer the entire account value (including the amounts allocated to the NPS contracts) to a new trust. Consequently, the level of administration required for such allocations would be complicated. If the NPS recovery plan should seek to short cut that administration with a fixed rate of return (and using excess investment returns to fund the NPS contracts), then the plan should be rejected.

The other hurdle to takeoff is the plan obtaining the requisite trust assets for economies of scale. The rumor is that the NPS recovery plan would require all Missouri preneed sellers to participate in the trust. (If mandatory participation can be required for the Obama health plan, then it can be required for the NPS recovery plan.) Kansas regulators floated a similar idea a few years ago and quickly withdrew the suggestion after hearing the initial response from operators.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Per capita, Missouri funeral directors were hit hardest by the collapse of National Prearranged Services.  And those funeral directors who suffered the greatest losses continue to demand help from the State of Missouri.  Although Missouri re-wrote its preneed law just 3 years ago, the Legislature begins hearings today on whether more legislation is needed.

With the economy as it is, the NPS providers may not find a receptive audience in Jefferson City.  Finding a receptive audience among other funeral directors can even be difficult. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The staff for the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors released the revised preneed renewal reports this week, and those revisions include a few new additional requirements.  Those requirements include a seller providing a ‘no tax due’ letter, proof of corporate status and any ‘doing business as’ filings.  However, the new requirement that will catch most funeral directors by surprise will be the new Section Q: preneed contracts funded by insurance assignments. 

Section Q seeks from the preneed seller information about each insurance assignment taken to fund a preneed contract.  Funeral directors will find the instructions somewhat confusing.  Those instructions advise that a report is to be prepared for each insurance company, but the spreadsheet format incorporated into the report suggests each column could be for a different insurance company.  The seller is also instructed to mark the spreadsheet with 'NA' if the section does not apply.  With the form instructions alluding to preneed contracts “sold” pursuant to Sections 436.400-436525 RSMo., most funeral homes will assume the assignment of an existing insurance policy is not covered by Chapter 436.  The instructions do not address policy beneficiary designations.

The staff scheduled an August 21^st  State Board meeting that includes “renewal update” on the agenda.  With the renewal forms having only been published on August 17^th, the staff hasn’t given the industry adequate time to provide input at the August 21^st meeting.  This should make for an interesting September State Board meeting, and for October chaos for Missouri’s preneed sellers (and those funeral homes dependent upon third party sellers).     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For some Missouri funeral homes, the ‘disagreement’ over the Section 436.405.1.(8) and insurance assignments has been brought to their doorstep.  In January, the State Board and their staff debated the issue of whether insurance assignments and beneficiary designations made in favor of a funeral home should constitute a preneed contract. The State Board rejected the staff’s interpretation of the fore mentioned section, and now the auditors seem to be pressing that disagreement to the Missouri’s funeral homes by way of the Chapter 436 financial examination.

This blog went on record in opposition to the staff’s regulation proposal as too broad, but there is also a need to go on record for the need for better consumer protection in these transactions.

When an assignment of insurance (or the designation of beneficiary) is made, it is done so in anticipation that the funeral home will apply the death benefits to the insured’s funeral arrangement. But have there been any promises about the prices or the right of the insured’s family to use another funeral home?  Such issues should be set out in an agreement between the funeral home and the insured so that the insured’s family is not left to guess. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this week, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors posted their agenda for the September 27-29th meetings, which includes 65 pages of regulation proposals or revisions. The Board has probably heard the same complaint that we have: what the industry needs is less regulation, not more. However, regulations can serve a useful purpose in clarifying ambiguities in applicable law (and Senate Bill No. 1, and this past year’s SB 340 have their share of ambiguities and conflicts).

While most of proposed regulations involve death care licensing issues, the proposals do include some preneed issues. One of those issues is the exemption of cemeteries from Chapter 436 and another is the relationship (or non-relationship) between the preneed seller and the trust investment advisor. Both issues have been addressed in earlier posts to this blog. The debate continues.

The Board’s agenda also includes a modest legislative agenda. Well, modest but slightly controversial. The Board’s decision to raise the trusting requirement from 85% to 100% remains the main proposal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The examination of a Missouri preneed seller begins with a request that certain documents be submitted to the State Board within 3 weeks. The purpose for the document production is to allow the examiner to perform a desk audit of the seller’s operable documents before an on-site visit is made. From those documents the examiner will determine the funding methods used, the compliance of the preneed contract form (and other documents) with Chapter 436, possible funding deficiencies, and possible administration issues.

An important distinction that Missouri funeral homes must make is that the request is aimed at its preneed business written as a seller. The document request does not include preneed written on a third party seller’s preneed contract such as Missouri Funeral Trust, American Prearranged Services, National Prearranged Services and Funeral Security Plans.

The Board's document requests are as follows:

• A current statement from your state or federally chartered financial institution/s authorized to exercise trust powers in Missouri of any preneed trust account/s that you have identifying the payments, earnings, and distributions for each active preneed contract.

If the seller has trust funded preneed, the State Board is requesting a statement from the trustee that sets out aggregate payments, earnings and distributions for each active (outstanding) preneed contract. This requirement will prove problematic for most preneed sellers, particularly for their trusts established under the prior law. While many preneed trusts report income for purposes of Internal Revenue Section 685, they do not maintain records of the aggregate income and expense per consumer account. It is also unlikely the income distributions have been tracked by account.

With this request, the State Board is also putting the seller on notice that the trustee must be authorized to exercise trust powers within Missouri. Foreign chartered institutions have special requirements to satisfy this requirement.

• A current statement from any/all applicable insurance companies with which you have insurance- funded preneed contracts for each active preneed contract.

This seems fairly self explanatory. But, the funeral home needs to distinguish insurance assigned for a spend down for that insurance written concurrently with a prearrangement. Some insurance companies have taken an aggressive position on what constitutes a spend down, and the examiners will have the right to review both types of transactions.

• A current statement from your financial institution/s of preneed joint account/s for each active preneed contract.

If the funeral home used joint accounts, the State Board wants a copy of the current bank statements for the certificates of deposits and depository accounts. If funeral home receives individual statements, this production could require some work. Some banks provide a composite statement (that shows all the CDs). The funeral home may need to cross reference the account numbers to specific contracts.

• A copy of a ledger or computerized report showing all outstanding preneed contracts.

The State Board is looking for a comprehensive list of all outstanding preneed contracts. The current annual report only reflects those contracts sold during the last reporting period. It would probably be sufficient if the outstanding contracts were reported by funding (one report for trusts, one for insurance and one for joint accounts).

• Copies of agreements(s) with providers, agents, funeral director agents and if any contracts are funded by trust a copy of the trust agreement with the trustee.

The State Board is looking for all relevant agreements to the preneed seller program. SB1 was passed in response to National Prearranged Services, and its practice of representing a funeral home without an agreement. While SB1 does not require an agreement between a funeral home and funeral director agent, not all funeral director agents are employees of a funeral home. If a funeral home allows an independent agent to sell preneed on its behalf, an agreement exists. If that agreement has not been put in writing, and the agent violates Chapter 436, a swearing contest will ensue.

If the seller uses trust funding, the State Board is looking for the trust agreement and all contracts or agreements related to the administration of the trust. Many of the preneed programs offered to Missouri funeral homes involved the outsourcing of administration, and the examiners will need to know where to direct questions that may stem from that administration.

• A copy of the trust agreement with the financial institutions for any preneed trust.

Yes, this is a redundant request, and no, the seller doesn’t have to provide the trust agreement twice.

• A blank preneed contract currently used by you as a seller.

The examination will eventually review old contracts (and their compliance with the prior law), but the Board is concerned primarily with the current contract form’s compliance with SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The new era of preneed exams and audits got off to a slow start in Missouri, but now there are indications the process is picking up speed.   The first notices of preneed financial examinations went out to sellers last January, and some are now going through on-site examinations.  A second wave of examination notices has gone out, and the State Board has begun preparations for the first examination reports.       

While the examination process will continue to evolve, the process will likely involve the following stages:

• The notice and request for documents
• A desk audit of the seller's documents
• An on-site examination
• An exit interview
• An examination report and the seller response
• (If violations are found) a request for a corrective plan proposal

In our next blog posts, we look at each of the stages in more depth.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors staff has some new faces, and in contrast to most rookies, these newcomers are playing pivotal roles in developing examination procedures for the state’s preneed funeral sellers. The Division of Professional Registration chose personnel with prior auditing experience, but as these ‘rookies’ are learning, there is little in the way of guidelines for the examination of trust funded preneed. Missouri’s preneed heritage only makes their task more difficult.

With one of the nation’s more generous trusting requirements, Missouri is dominated by preneed trusts. Until SB1’s passage in 2009, the State Board lacked rulemaking authority to address the numerous gaps and ambiguities in Chapter 436. Chapter 436 also governed the sale of vaults and burial services, which brought cemeteries into the mix. Allow an industry to operate 25 years without examinations or rules and you get a hodge podge of seller programs, each operating differently from the next guy.

Like Forest Gump’s box of chocolates, the preneed examiner may experience a surprise with each seller he/she visits. While these surprises may not necessarily constitute violations of Chapter 436, they can be challenging when seeking a certain continuity from seller to seller. It is that continuity that will help define the examination procedures to use with the preneed trusts established prior to SB1.

As a consequence, Missouri’s preneed examination procedures remain a work in progress. The initial exams will probably take longer, with the examiners comparing notes and revising the draft procedures with each examination. For the time being, those procedures will focus on whether preneed sellers and providers are complying with new preneed contract and licensing requirements, and with the handling of that the preneed payments are being made to the proper funding agent. One of the procedures to be tested by the examiners will be a consumer letter.

As a part of the final stages of the preneed seller exam, the State Board staff will generate a consumer letter with information from the annual report filed by the seller. The letter will go to each consumer who is making payments on a contract, or who has lapsed in making payments. A sampling (5%) of the seller’s paid in full contracts will also receive the letter. The letter will set out the consumer’s contract number, the sales price and payment balance (as reported by the seller), and the request that the consumer contact the examiner only if the consumer’s records conflict with that data.

As reported by the blog in February, Illinois also has a consumer statement requirement, but it differs from Missouri in that the preneed fiduciary must send out the statement, and provide information about expenses and the trust ‘inventory’.

Funeral directors are fearful that such consumer notices will cause confusion, and lead consumers to believe the funeral home is in trouble. While problems may be encountered, the consumer notice is one of the few procedures available for detecting the small percentage of funeral directors who pocket the consumer’s payments. But if handled correctly, the statement could be used to help to maintain consumer confidence in the funeral home.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Continuing the theme that effective preneed regulation requires the occasional update, the Missouri legislature is poised to pass the first ‘patch’ to SB1, the 2009 legislation that ‘re-wrote’ Chapter 436. Senate Bill No. 340 will make four noteworthy changes to Chapter 436.

Concerned that preneed sellers would use variable annuities to fund preneed contracts, Missouri’s insurance regulators sought to have SB1 limit the use of annuities to the single premium variety. This proved burdensome to funeral homes committed to insurance funded preneed. The single premium requirement denied the funeral home the use of variable pay annuities for consumers who either do not qualify for life insurance, or who cannot afford the premium of a life insurance policy. SB340 appropriately allows variable pay annuities to be used to fund preneed contracts so long as death benefits are never less than the premiums paid.

While SB1 preserved the use of joint account funded preneed, small operators encountered problems with banks and the Patriot Act. SB340 will allow POD accounts to be used in funding preneed contracts.

SB1 provided for retroactive application in certain respects. But, with regard to preneed trusts in existence prior to August 28, 2009, SB1 provided for historic law treatment with regard to income distributions to sellers and the use of income to pay trust expenses. Section 436.031 authorized the distribution of trust income to the seller provided the mark to market requirement was satisfied. The section also obligated the seller to pay trust expenses and taxes because of trust income withdrawals. SB340 will delete that provision, and it isn’t clear the intent for this change.

Section 436.031 of the prior law also allowed a preneed seller to designate an investment advisor, and in doing so, relieve the trustee of all asset management responsibilities. This provision was exploited by NPS, and was pivotal in conversion of millions of dollars of preneed trusts to worthless insurance. Seeking a completely independent trustee, SB1 imposed restrictions on who could serve as an investment advisor to the trust. While the NPS experience proved the need to keep the fiduciary responsible for asset management, SB1 went too far in driving a wedge between the asset manager and the seller. SB340 will create an exception to that restriction for the “external” investment advisor who satisfies Section 436.440.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The start of Missouri’s new era of preneed oversight began when document requests were mailed to sellers on January 3rd. Sellers were requested to provide the following documents by January 28th:

· A current statement from your state or federally chartered financial institution’s authorized to exercise trust powers in Missouri of any preneed trust accounts that you have identifying the payments, earnings, and disbursements for each active preneed contract.

· A current statement from any/all applicable insurance companies with which you have insurance-funded preneed contracts for each active preneed contract.

· A current statement from your financial institution/s of preneed joint accounts for each active preneed contract.

· A copy of a ledger or computerized report showing all outstanding preneed contracts.

· Copies of agreement(s) with providers, agents, funeral director agents and if any contracts are funded by trust a copy of the trust agreement with the trustee.

· A copy of the trust agreement with financial institution for any preneed trust.

· A blank preneed contract currently used by you as a seller. 

If a seller established separate trusts for “Pre88” contracts, “Post88” contracts and “SB1” contracts, all trust agreements should be provided in response to the request. If the trustee has contracted for services (whether it be with the seller or with a third party), copies of the service agreements should be included. Sellers should have revised their preneed contracts since the passage of SB1, and so samples of relevant preneed contract forms should be provided.

From the trustee, the financial examiners will expect a report of the trust assets and a transaction report. The asset listing will be used to determine the trust’s compliance with the prudent investor rule, and the transaction report will be used to determine compliance with deposit requirements, distribution documentation and expenses charged to the trust.

Sellers should also anticipate that the financial examiners may request additional documents or reports before scheduling the on-site exam.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ‘deadline’ for Missouri preneed sellers to ‘voluntarily’ report their pre-SB1 trust funded sales is a mere two weeks away. Again, this is a voluntary report. As such, missing the ‘deadline’ or failing to use the Board’s form carries no penalty to the preneed seller. So, why file?

The reason expressed by one State Board member was that the report would give preneed sellers the opportunity to demonstrate their trust was appropriately funded. Funeral directors active before the 2009 Missouri Legislature advised their legislators that the actions of NPS were not reflective of the industry as a whole. Legislators were informed that the vast majority of funeral homes put the consumers’ funds in the bank.

Missouri preneed sellers have three funding options: joint accounts, trusts and insurance. The issue of whether joint accounts are properly funded was addressed with the first provider renewal reporting filed this past October 31st. With insurance premiums posted to an insurance carrier, the Board decided trust funding would be their second priority.

The voluntary trust report is the opportunity for those sellers to put their money where their mouth is. Granted, the financial examinations proposed by the Division are far more intrusive than what had been discussed. But, the failure to back up the talk to the legislature will ring hollow in the face of the Board’s initial efforts to back up the industry’s representations.

Individually, funeral homes need to approach the voluntary reporting as another step in organizing their records in a manner to expedite the eventual financial exam. The goal is to get the exam over with a minimum of disruption and problems.

While many sellers are professing to be ‘as clean as a whistle’, most sellers will have issues. In the absence of regular oversight and guidance, funeral directors were left to interpret the law on their own. Mistakes were made, and the State Board would rather help correct those mistakes than pursue disciplinary actions that clog the administrative hearings docket. Accordingly, sellers could use the voluntary trust report to identify any issues they may have, and to outline their own corrective plan. Be a problem solver.

For those sellers who decide to make the Board examiners earn their keep, the expense of oversight will be pushed higher. The $36 per contract fee will prove inadequate, and the discussion will turn to increased fees. If the data should prove that a disproportionate amount of examination time was spent on small sellers who made no effort to comply, the larger preneed sellers will force the cost of the system to be more equitable. Under Illinois law, the preneed regulator has the authority to tag such a seller with a $20,000 audit fee. That represents 555 preneed contract fees that must be borne by the seller, not the trust or the preneed consumers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will take another step on December 7th towards the process of defining the examination process for preneed funeral contracts. True to mantra that has been repeated over the past several months: this is a work in progress that will evolve as more is learned.

The agenda for the December 7th meeting includes an attachment titled “Financial Examination Process – FAQ”. For the most part, the FAQ is rehash of what discussed at the Board’s October meeting. The FAQ sets out in general terms the steps that will be taken in an examination.

One issue that is not clear from the FAQ is whether the examination will review preneed contract forms for compliance with applicable law. If so, the seller’s contract forms should be included in the Paragraph 2a review request. Including the contract review as a part of the prep work for the on-site exam should cut down on the time spent on the seller’s premises.

Paragraph 2f should prove a crucial step in the process of resolving issues before they reach the Board. If the staff and examiners merely write up the issues and defer all decisions to the State Board, the Board will need to schedule more meetings.

Finally, the FAQ does not offer much with regard to the review of serviced contracts. While the staff’s proposal to review all outstanding preneed contracts drew the most comments, the serviced contract review could prove more instrumental to disclosing compliance errors or fraud.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri is one of the few states that does not impose a continuing education requirement for funeral directors. Where continuing education is required, the state funeral director association typically sponsors programs that satisfy the CE requirements, and provides revenues needed to supplement the association’s budget needs.

The passage of SB1 has provided the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association with an opportunity to reach out to members (and non-members) with classes about the new law’s requirements. However, the MFDEA faces challenges in reaching the Missouri industry: attendance is not mandatory, the economy is down, funeral directors are taking a wait and see approach, and the interpretation of the law’s requirements by the Board/staff is muddled.

Since the law’s passage in August 2009, Board members and staff have expressed frustration with the industry. Funeral directors did not attend legislative hearings or Board meetings in the numbers that were anticipated. Response to the new licensing requirements has been slow, and accompanied by complaints.

The past two years have been demanding and time consuming for the Board and its staff. Those two years have been marked by trial and err processes, some of which have succeeded and some of which have been jettisoned. For an industry that rarely attends a Board meeting, the result has been confusing.

The proposed examination procedures discussed at the State Board’s October 27th meeting include controversial provisions that will likely change before the Board’s meetings in December. Reviewing every outstanding preneed contract of every seller would be time consuming and excessive. Under certain circumstances, such a procedure may be warranted. If a seller cannot provide indicia of what his outstanding preneed liability is, then the Board has no recourse but to look for every contract.

However, there will be an on site examination of every seller. And, there will be a review of at least a sampling of the seller’s contracts. The exam will also involve a review of the performed contracts. At the conclusion of the review, the examiner will conduct an exit interview to advise the seller of the findings. These minimum procedures will provide the Board and the staff an opportunity to educate each seller regarding issues on non-compliance. But, the next steps of the examination process will provide sellers an opportunity to educate the Board and its staff.

The examination procedures represent the best efforts of the staff, with input from the Board and other states’ preneed regulators. Preneed is not only unique from state to state, but often from seller to seller. And, there are Missouri funeral homes that will argue the current Board membership is not a fair representation of preneed sellers.

So, after the exit interview is conducted, the examiner will return to the Board offices to prepare a report. That report will be sent to the seller to so that it may provide comments, rebuttal and proposed corrections. Then the examiner and staff will have to opportunity to revise the report that is filed with the State Board. Then the Board will decide what actions should be taken. If the Board/staff and the seller are in disagreement, a hearing will follow.

The rebuttal report and Board hearing will provide sellers the crucial opportunity to educate the staff and the Board about practices and procedures that were not adequately addressed in the Chapter 436 hearings, or subsequent Board meetings. Pressures to pass a law, and then implement that law, have resulted in the Board (and staff) pushing aside issues. One on one with the Board, sellers will have the opportunity to slow the process down and address SB1 and how it’s being interpreted and applied. For staff that has only dealt with problem programs, or Board members familiar with their approach to preneed, the rebuttal report and hearing will continue Missouri’s preneed educational process.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That’s the question a member of the Missouri State Board asked of his staff last Wednesday during a discussion of controversial examination procedures. Prior to the NPS fiasco, the answer to that question would have been “the Board is”. While SB1 (appropriately) continued to vest preneed supervision in the State Board, the new law also vests concurrent authorities in other state bodies.

From state to state, preneed supervision is assigned to either elected politicians, appointed agency directors or industry boards/commissions. As the Missouri Board was reminded this past week, the criticism made of vesting preneed supervision in an industry board often includes the characterization of having “put the fox in charge of the chicken coop”. But the advantage of having an industry board as the preneed supervisor is the experience those industry members bring to a complicated transaction.

If the Missouri funeral industry looks east to Illinois, it will find peers regulated by an office with a Tuesday election. The Comptroller candidates who would rather transfer preneed to another state agency than wade into a crisis that offers few answers. If Missouri funeral directors then look to the west, they will see that the fate of Kansas cemetery regulation is also dependent upon Tuesday’s elections. But after a year of meetings and warnings that changes are coming, the Kansas Secretary of State election could mean a new direction (or no direction at all).

Death care operators are often frustrated when regulators take actions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the business (or worse yet, a misunderstanding of applicable laws). The risk to both the death care operator and consumer is when the elected preneed regulator allows politics to influence the reform process. Elected regulators may pose the greatest challenge to developing effective preneed supervision, and then maintaining that system.

While Missouri funeral homes may be frustrated by the past year’s changes, the Missouri reform process has been slow and measured in part because the Division of Professional Registration is contemplating its role when someone asks “Who’s the Boss?” In the future, effective preneed supervision must be a shared responsibility.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has released its proposed preneed examination procedures. The release comes just 24 hours before the Board’s October 27th meeting, and so few funeral directors will be prepared to ask questions.

The proposal contemplates different procedures for ‘compliant sellers’ and ‘non-compliant sellers’. With most of the industry concerned about some issue of compliance, the proposal begs the question how the determination of non-compliance is made. The timing of the release and the October 31st renewal deadline suggest that the failure to timely file a properly prepared seller’s renewal may be the easiest way to fall into the non-compliant stack.

The October 27th meeting only allows an hour of discussion of the proposal, so the industry will have to anticipate the time for questions and discussion will occur at the Board’s December meetings.
 

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

On September 9th, Missouri’s State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors conducted its first public meeting since forwarding new (and extensive) reporting requirements to preneed funeral sellers and providers. In no mood to entertain complaints from the industry, the Board advised licensees to “do their best”. In response to criticism of the new trust reporting requirements, the Board advised that fiduciaries are only being required to certify individual account data regarding transactions for which they have oversight responsibilities. Fiduciaries are not being required to certify the preneed contract data for which the seller is responsible (purchaser and beneficiary names and addresses).

What the preneed fiduciary is being required to certify is aggregate trust data regarding deposits, income and expenses. With regard to each preneed contract, the trustee must also certify the 5% origination fee and 10% sales expense that have been paid to the seller, and the market value of each contract. The State Board advised the industry that these reporting requirements will likely change next year. For example, the current report does not contemplate the amount deposited to trust per contract, or whether the preneed contract is guaranteed or not (which is necessary to determine whether the 10% sales expense is appropriate).

The course of reporting requirement changes will be influenced by the industry’s efforts as a whole to comply with the October 31st renewal requirements, and the January 31st voluntary reporting request.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri preneed law (past and present) authorizes three forms of funding: trusts, insurance and joint accounts. Of the three, joint accounts have been used by many rural funeral homes that did not want the hassles of trusts and insurance. But with new reporting requirements, these funeral homes are on the clock to pull together information and seek certifications from bankers who, up to this point, haven’t been required to review a preneed contract.

With regard to their joint account funded contracts, the funeral home with a seller’s license has two renewal forms that must be filed by October 31st. The seller renewal form includes a report of contracts sold since August 28, 2009. That report has to be certified by the bank that maintains the joint account.

The provider renewal form requires a report of all active joint account contracts sold prior to August 28, 2009. In contrast to the seller renewal form, this report does not have to be certified by the banker. But, the State Board is requesting that funeral homes with joint accounts file a third report by January 31, 2011. While the January report is voluntary, it will require a bank certification for the number of contracts, the total face of the contracts and the amount paid by the consumer.

The refusal (or failure) to file the voluntary report will likely affect the nature and timing of the funeral home’s financial exam. The State Board has to perform a financial review of each “seller” once every five years. The State Board also has the authority to perform a financial review of providers. Regardless of whether the funeral home gave up the joint account contract when SB1 went into effect, the State Board will eventually review the contracts and accounts listed on the Provider renewal form that is due on October 31st.

In preparing the joint account reports, funeral homes need to read the instructions carefully. The forms are seeking information about the contracts sales price, what was deposited to the joint account and any distributions that have been made. Unlike trust-funded contracts, all consumer payments have to be deposited to a joint account (there is no 20% retainage for the joint account contract). Nor may the funeral home withdraw income from the joint account.

For the funeral home that takes the defiant stance about their preneed, be sure your contracts and CDs (or depository accounts) are in order. If you have doubts about the compliance of the contract forms or the amount in the bank, you may want to seek guidance from the Board’s inspectors.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s preneed seller renewal forms include reports regarding each contract that is funded either by a trust, a joint bank account or an insurance contract. What may not be apparent to both funeral homes and funding agents is the requirement under SB1 that the funding agent attest to the accuracy of the information set out in the seller’s report.

 While the report forms accurately track the provisions of SB1, some banks officers may balk when asked to provide their signature to the form.

Banks, whether they issue joint accounts or serve as a preneed trustee, are dependent upon the funeral home for accurate information regarding the preneed contracts reported to them. While the intent of the report is to obtain financial information regarding each contract, there will be a few bankers hesitant to sign for fear they are being asked to certify the completeness of the contracts reported, or the accuracy of data reported about the purchasers and beneficiaries.

 If a Missouri funeral home finds itself caught between a hesitant banker and the October 31st reporting deadline, it should make an inquiry to the State Board to determine if the certification can be revised to the following:

The undersigned, after being duly sworn, on his/her oath states: (1) I am over 21 years of age and am authorized on behalf of the financial institution set out above to attest to the information set out in this report; (2) the preneed contract information set out in columns 1 through 6 of this report has been provided by the seller identified above; and (3) the joint account information set out in columns 7 through 13 is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In August 2009, the members and staff of the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors put in a lot of overtime to keep the preneed industry operating. Senate Bill 1 established brand new licensing requirements for preneed sellers. Without a license, a seller’s preneed contracts could be voided. However, the State Board lacked authority to issue a seller license until SB1 went into effect. With regard to August 28, 2009, the State Board faced the task of licensing hundreds of funeral homes, and responded by providing the industry an abbreviated process for obtaining the initial preneed seller’s license.

With the renewal of a seller’s license, the Missouri funeral home faces a much longer and detailed form (and process). The seller renewal form advises that the applicant may file their annual report upon receipt of the form. Realistically, the seller is precluded from filing the renewal and report until after September 1st. The annual report must include all contracts sold through August 31, 2010 (and beginning with August 28, 2009).

Depending upon how quickly its contracts are processed, the seller will have less than 60 days to work with trustees, banks and insurers to pull together the data and documents required by the renewal form. The failure to timely file the renewal form and report will cost the seller $200 and the authority to sell preneed until the license is renewed. Consequently, Missouri sellers would be best advised to begin working with their funding entities as soon as possible.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

License renewal packets mailed to Missouri funeral homes in August are a little thicker than what has been sent out in prior years. The new renewal forms include five new preneed reporting forms: a Preneed Seller Annual Report, a Preneed Provider Renewal Form, a Report form for Trust Funded Pre-Need Contracts, a Report form for Joint Account Funded Pre-Need Contracts, and a Report form for Insurance Funded Pre-Need Contracts.

The latter three reports are voluntary, self-reporting forms that the State Board ‘requests’ be filed by January 31, 2010. In future posts, this blog will address those forms and the motivation for complying with the State Board’s request.

As between the two renewal report forms, the shorter provider license renewal form may be the source of anxiety to some Missouri funeral directors. The instructions for Section E state:

List all preneed contracts that were in existence with a preneed provider as of August 27, 2009 pursuant to 436.053 RSMo, if any.

Missouri has a long history of third party preneed sales organizations, and Chapter 436 has always made a legal distinction between the seller and the provider. Over the course of the last twenty-eight years, the synonyms APS, NPS, FSP and MFT can be found on the majority of preneed contracts sold in the state of Missouri. Missouri funeral homes opted for third party sales organizations for various reasons, including the avoidance of accounting and recordkeeping issues. Accordingly, funeral directors who interpret the Section E instructions to require the reporting of their third party contracts have reason to be alarmed.

However, the instructions refer to Section 436.053 (of the ‘old Chapter 436’), which authorized funeral homes to use joint accounts to fund preneed contracts. This old provision allowed funeral homes to sell the joint account contract as a provider without registering as preneed seller. The intent of the report seems to be the reporting of joint account contracts written prior to the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1, and not the reporting of all contracts sold on behalf of the funeral home by a third party seller. This is bound to be one of the issues raised with the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors when it meets during the second week of September.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While the reasons are open to debate, it is common knowledge within the funeral industry that a small percentage of consumers cancel their preneed contracts. Consequently, some funeral directors tend to view their preneed block of business with a degree of certainty. Performance of the contracts, and recognition of the revenues, seems to be just a matter of timing. A few state laws reflect the perception that performance of the preneed contract is a ‘lock’. For 37 years, Missouri law allowed preneed sellers to withdraw trust income. Nevada’s law has similar provisions. Preneed trust income became a source of funds that could subsidize funeral home operations.

While the preneed subsidy had long been a source of frustration for certain Missouri officials, they were powerless to stop the practice until the failure of National Prearranged Services. With the 2009 passage of Senate Bill No.1, Missouri officials feel they have a law that they can use to force a new business model upon the funeral industry.

In the case of the California Master Trust, the Department of Consumer Affairs has taken a similar position with regard to an administrative fee that has been paid to participating funeral homes for decades. Consistent with the historic industry view, the CFDA response relies in part upon the preneed guarantee and the risk assumed by the funeral home.

The position becomes tenuous when the administrative fee is judged on terms of whether a necessary service has been rendered to the trust, and whether the amount paid is reasonable for the services received. It is apparent from the documents that the DCA will also apply that analysis to what the CFDA has charged the trust. Depending upon how this controversy is resolved, other states’ regulators may ask whether the administrative fees charged to the master trust are appropriate.

As a recent Funeral Service Insider comment suggests, some industry associations have also become dependent upon the preneed subsidy. The classic guaranteed argument loses traction when facts such as those in Illinois emerge. By one account, non-guaranteed preneed contracts accounted for one third of the contracts administered by the IFDA.

But, in defense of the CMT, preneed trusts are labor-intensive enterprises where the funeral home, administrator and fiduciary have shared responsibilities. In its challenge of a different CMT issue (the maintenance of preneed records within California), the DCA acknowledges this reality while discussing the funeral home’s recordkeeping duties. Effective field examinations will require that certain preneed records be maintained at the funeral home. But, is it reasonable to impose greater administrative requirements on the funeral home without allowing any compensation to be paid to them?

The emerging regulatory challenge to the preneed subsidy is premised on the position that the funeral home’s right to preneed funds does not vest until the contract is performed. That position is consistent with Missouri’s efforts to improve portability. But, regulators must also find a consistent and reasonable position with regard to the services that they mandate from the funeral home. 

(The Funeral Service Insider excerpt was included by special permission from Kates-Boylston Publications and Funeral Service Insider.)

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors met June 15th and 16th to consider legislative proposals offered for technical corrections to SB1. In a prior post, this author took exception to one of the proposals made by a Board member to raise Missouri’s trusting requirement from 85% to 100%. However, a majority of the State Board did not, and voted to include 100% trusting among its proposals to the Missouri Legislature later this year.

While the submitted proposal stated this was ‘a consumer protection matter’, the Board discussion was addressed to the fact insurance funded preneed provides the funeral home a better return. Trust funded preneed was criticized for lacking the investment vehicle to recover the 15% of consumer payments retained by the funeral home when the contract is sold. So, how does the 100% enhance consumer protection?

Historically, trust funded preneed in Missouri has been a liability to industry. When allowed to keep 20% and withdraw all income, funeral homes have been left to service a contract on an amount that may not even cover the costs of merchandise after 15 years.

SB1 takes three key steps towards rectifying that situation. First, the ‘retainage’ the seller may keep has been reduced from 20% to 15%. Second, the trust is now required to accrue all income. Third, and most elusive, SB1 now allows sellers to pool their trusts for investment purposes.

Prior to SB1, sellers were prohibited from commingling their trusts. The accounting systems available in the 1980s were not sophisticated enough to track both consumer and seller funds when multiple sellers were involved.

In the defense of the Board’s position, a trust that averages a gross return of 4% will be hard pressed to pay the funeral home enough to cover its at need prices in 10 years. As more funeral homes are pressed to provide preneed, the growth in ‘guaranteed preneed’ eats into the long-term profitability of the business. An indirect answer to the justification to the 100% trusting requirement.

The weakness in this position lies in the alternative that funeral homes are forced to take: insurance funding and the costs to the consumer.

If the funeral home has to offer preneed, and it has costs associated with providing preneed, then insurance funded preneed becomes the vehicle of choice. One of the knocks on insurance is its costs to the consumer when coverage is purchased with installments.

For the older consumer who cannot afford a single premium policy, the financing of the policy over five or ten years will cause the cost of the funeral to increase substantially.

All forms of preneed are beginning to include separate charges or fees to the consumer. It becomes incumbent upon the consumer to approach the preneed transaction with more questions, including: How much is this going to cost me?
 

• 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

Missouri funeral homes will get their first glimpse of their State Board's proposal for self reporting for preneed sales.  Under the prior law, preneed sellers merely reported the number of contracts sold and their aggregate sales price. 

For Missouri regulators to properly assess whether 'old' Chapter 436 trusts and joint accounts are properly funded, the new reporting requirements will have to ask for data that funeral directors may find intrusive.  But the state with the trusting requirements closest to Missouri's has been self reporting for many years. 

Iowa makes its reporting forms available through its website.  Preneed sellers, preneed agents, insurance companies and banks each have their own reporting form. 

By addressing the forms now, Missouri's State Board will be affording funeral directors 3 months to prepare reports on all existing business.  Depending how well the funeral home has kept its records, this should be adequate to meet the October 31st deadline.

Funeral homes that used either trusts or joint accounts under the prior Missouri law may want to look at Iowa's form to anticipate what individual contract data could be required.  The Iowa forms also provide instructions and Q&A sections. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The next round of legislative proposals have been posted to the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors website. At the top of the list is whether the trusting requirement should be raised from 85% to 100%. The proponent believes this will enhance consumer protections. He is not alone.

The Illinois Legislature heard the same from Rep. Dan Brady last year. And, the Funeral Consumers Alliance has been advocating the same position for years. But, does this requirement truly enhance consumer protection?

Competition dictates the type of preneed program a funeral home maintains. Metropolitan funeral homes often have no choice but to maintain proactive programs that require training, marketing, management and dedicated staffing. To offset program costs, the funeral home must receive revenue from the preneed sale. Setting the trusting requirement at 100% forces the funeral home towards insurance products, and their commissions. A legislative agenda that forecloses the trusting option makes little sense when insurance played a major factor in both the NPS and IFDA failures.

For the consumer’s perspective, a major weakness in the old Missouri law was the preneed seller’s right to withdraw income from the preneed trust. Without the accrual of income, the preneed contract became less portable as it aged. While SB1 may have other trust issues to address, it did fix the income accrual issue.

Some have argued that SB1 did not go far enough in providing the consumer refund rights to the income earned by a trust. The seller of the guaranteed contract is afforded the right to retain the income on cancellation because he takes the risks associated with the price guaranties. But prior to SB1, there was little authority for the non-guaranteed contract. If the preneed purchaser places a premium on refund rights, then the non-guaranteed contract authorized by SB1 is the better option.

With regard to Illinois law, the glaring weakness regarded the self-trusting provision and the lack of fiduciary oversight. With trusting already set at 95%, many larger funeral homes were already dependent on insurance funding. Deprived of revenues to maintain a trust program, funeral homes relied upon the IFDA. The lack of oversight and transparency lead to abuses by past IFDA leadership.

SB1682 took the crucial steps of requiring corporate fiduciaries, and imposing the prudent investor rule. But a question remains about who should provide oversight to the preneed fiduciary.

So, how does 100% trusting further enhance consumer protections in either Missouri or Illinois?

The debate over insurance versus trust has been waging for twenty years. While each has its strengths and weaknesses, the death care industry has done little to offer the consumer meaningful options for funding and price guarantees. Establishing barriers to either form of funding (or to non-guaranteed contracts) will do little to enhance consumer protections.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors gave notice last week of hearings to be held in June regarding proposals made to correct or revise SB1.

If the Board follows the course taken in meetings held earlier this year, the proposals will likely be published to the Board’s website. These postings will provide Missouri licensees and preneed consumers the opportunity to provide the Board feedback on the proposals. Appropriate feedback and questions would likely be incorporated by the Board in its questioning of the proposals.

The following hyperlinks provide the proposals and explanations of the Preneed Resource Company. Start drafting!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Give the State Board credit for attempting to clarify how insurance assignments must be handled for compliance with Missouri laws. 

For several months, the State Board has sought clarifications from MO HealthNet regarding spend-downs. On May 12th, the Board emailed to the industry new MO HealthNet guidelines for insurance assignments. One day later, the legislature passed HB 2290.

HB2290 addressed a gaping hole left in Chapter 208 when SB1 was passed. Chapter 208 excluded funeral contracts that complied with Chapter 436 provisions that no longer exist. The drafters of HB2290 took a broad-brush approach to the problem. Having done so, funeral homes and cemeteries are left to ask MO HealthNet and the State Board new questions.

By the bill’s reference to Chapter 436, must a “Burial Plan” or “Preneed contract” comply with the requirements of SB1? This would be a defeat for cemeteries who have the option of selling preneed under Chapter 214. 

If an insurance policy was not purchased with the intent to fund a preneed contract, why then, bring the true spend down into Chapter 436 (and further burden the Board’s oversight functions)?

The MO HealthNet guidelines can be found on the State Board’s website.

Missouri funeral homes should note that the guidelines impose a duty on the funeral home to notify the Department of Social Services when excess funds remain from a participant’s preneed contract. If the preneed contract was irrevocable, that should flag to the funeral director that he should make an inquiry. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri's funeral industry has been given 30 days to submit proposals for revisions to the preneed law that went into effect last August 28th.  By email, the State Board has provided the guidelines for submitting changes that will then be discussed by the Board at public hearings to be held in June.  The Board has it's own July 15th deadline to adopt any of the proposals and submit them to the Division of Professional Registration. 

For those operators who are displeased with the new law, the clock is running.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The General Laws Committee of the Missouri Senate will hold a hearing this Wednesday (April 7th) on SB 1025. This bill provides hope to many small, rural funeral directors who would rather avoid the preneed transaction and the regulatory morass of SB1.

The bill would add a new Section 208.010.5 whereby individuals seeking to spend down assets to qualify for assistance could establish an irrevocable trust of up to $10,000. The trust could only be used for funeral and burial expenses. The section would also exclude the arrangement from Chapter 436.

When a similar provision was included in last year’s SB1, the funeral directors association expressed concern that the arrangement would be abused. However, the requirements of SB1 have proven burdensome and confusing to the industry, extremely so for the funeral home that only accepts “pre-arrangement funds” as an accommodation.

A Chapter 208 final expense trust would provide the consumer and his Missouri funeral operator a much-needed alternative to the joint account contract.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Implementing new regulatory requirements is a difficult and thankless job. Businesses hate change when it comes to government interference, and (most) regulators understand this. Accordingly, regulators typically prefer to implement incremental changes. In contrast to other industries, regulatory changes have been less frequent within the death care industry because legislators and regulators don’t understand the business. This came to an end for Missouri when NPS galvanized a legislature into re-writing the book on preneed, and then saddling the State Board with the task of implementing new mandates for licensure, oversight and enforcement.

There was no question what the State Board’s first priority under SB1 had to be: emergency rules to satisfy the new preneed licensure requirements. Until the law went into effect on August 28, 2009, the State Board lacked the authority to issue preneed licenses. But once the law went into effect, funeral homes were prohibited from selling preneed without a license. Licensing an entire industry at the stroke of midnight was beyond the Board’s limited resources.

As of February 4th, the State Board was five months into the mission, and faced a growing list of SB1 issues. Having addressed the immediate licensure issues (more or less), the Board took a step back to frame a preliminary approach to what may prove to be its top priority: financial examinations.

The State Board approved a plan that would involve an internal unit of 4 to 5 employees that would gather and monitor preneed transactions. The plan would include a period of training to develop the expertise needed to reduce the reliance on independent auditors, and thereby reduce the fees being charged to the industry.  The Board's decision is consistent with Scenario 2 of the Small Business Impact Statement filed with its emergency fees rule.

Determining that “the money is there” has been the priority in Nebraska and Iowa, and now, has also become the priority for Kansas’ cemetery regulator. The challenge for the Missouri and Kansas regulators will be the implementation of an effective, but efficient, system of providing financial oversight to a diverse and fragmented industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The future of Missouri’s examination of preneed books and records will begin to take shape on February 4th. The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has put this issue at the top of its agenda for Thursday’s meeting.

Regulatory review of Missouri’s preneed industry has been dormant for almost 15 years, and SB1 now imposes a regular examination of preneed sellers’ records. The scope, and the procedures, of the review process may take months to determine, but Missouri funeral directors should anticipate reporting requirements that impact all preneed contracts subject to Chapter 436.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association provided crucial support to the passage of Senate Bill No. 1, but the heart of the association’s membership, the mom and pop operators, may now be second-guessing that decision.

SB1 provides regulators the authority to audit or examine preneed trusts and joint accounts, including those established prior to August 28, 2009. Missouri funeral directors are now hearing that the State Board will enforce provisions of the law against their old preneed business in such a way so to put their funeral establishment licenses at risk.

The State Board’s authority to audit preneed sellers under the old law was vague. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the State Board conducted ‘random’ audits. In reality, the audits were not random, but weighted by the number of contracts sold. Using independent CPA firms, audits were made of the same small group of sellers. The practice was challenged in the mid-1990s, and audits were discontinued.

While the vast majority of Missouri sellers have never been audited, their preneed contracts have been reviewed periodically by State Board inspectors. Funeral directors are now troubled by the prospect of those contracts failing to pass muster when reviewed by an independent CPA firm.

The licensees’ worries are well founded. Few funeral homes engaged legal counsel for the purpose of preparing preneed contracts or trust agreements. Instead, funeral homes shared or borrowed documents, often without regard to such specifics as how the contract was to be funded. Consequently, funeral homes have used trust-funded contracts for joint accounts.

Some funeral directors are bound to take a defiant position with the State Board’s enforcement of SB1 against their preneed paperwork. While it is predictable that the State Board may assert the licensee’s failure to engage legal counsel is no defense, licensees represented by counsel also have reason to be indignant with the Board.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the next year, Missouri will examine the various flaws of SB1. One of those flaws concerns the independent investment advisor and the ‘fix’ meant to preclude conflicts of interest.

Preneed trusts have a poor track record in terms of investment performance. Trustees often fail to appreciate the key factors that impact investment strategies for preneed. Those factors can vary substantially from trust to trust, making the fund manager’s job more difficult.

Consequently, it is not uncommon to see large trusts delegate investment authority to an independent fund manager. Missouri’s old preneed law took the practice an ill-advised step too far by relieving the trustee of liability for the advisor’s decisions. NPS exploited that provision by appointing investment advisors who handed the keys to the vault to Lincoln Memorial. Believing themselves to be exculpated from investment liabilities, the NPS fiduciaries became bystanders to the largest preneed fraud in history.

Section 436.445 of SB1 appropriately requires the fiduciary to remain responsible for the investment advisor’s actions. However, the statute goes too far in attempting to preclude any relationship between the advisor and the seller. The provision was lifted from Missouri’s Uniform Trust Code without adequate consideration of the relationships of the seller, fiduciary and fund manager.

In contrast to SB1, the Uniform Trust Code does not prohibit relations between the trustor/seller and the investment advisor (or any service provider to the trust). Missouri’s preneed industry would be better served if such relations were allowed if fully disclosed and subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In May 2009, the American Funeral Director editorial advised that fixing preneed has to be a cooperative effort, and that the industry needs to agree upon a plan before attempting to legislate a fix. In that same month, the Missouri legislature passed a ‘fix’ to the NPS abuses that incorporated provisions from a mixed bag of industry recommendations. The Missouri funeral industry is now learning that their recommendations don’t amount to much of a plan.

With rumblings that Chapter 436 would have to be reopened this year to fix SB1’s flaws, the State Board took two important steps towards a plan: suspending any legislative efforts by state regulators for at least a year, and establishing a forum for industry attorneys to provide input regarding SB1. So now, in who’s court is the ball?

Mr. Defort suggests that state associations must take the lead in developing the “plan”. Perhaps, but that would depend upon the strength of the particular association’s membership. The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association played a crucial role in passing SB1, but the Missouri preneed industry is large and diverse. Consequently, the MFDEA cannot be expected to shoulder the plan-building task alone.

Some might suggest the ‘big’ sellers should step up, but the national companies have preneed programs that already comply with more stringent requirements than those imposed by SB1. The big sellers are waiting for the regulators to clarify SB1’s ambiguities and conflicts.

Rather, the ball would seem to be in the regulator’s court, and more specifically, the court of the Division of Professional Registration.

If the Division needs some starting points for a plan, here are four:

• Develop an annual reporting system that operators can use to demonstrate compliance with the 80% funding requirements of existing trusts (so as to minimize audit expenses and lower the $36 contract fee)
• Develop an alternative to the broken joint account contract
• Establish a voluntary compliance program to fix the technical violations that have accumulated over the past 27 years (when there were no guidelines or oversight)
• Establish a “no action letter” procedure that will allow more sophisticated sellers to determine the boundaries of compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

To view the Board’s emergency rules click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Over the past few years, preneed frauds have been measured in terms of hundreds of millions (with the suggestion that the NPS loss will top a billion).  And, funeral directors and consumers have been frustrated by the perception that regulators are helpless to stop preneed fraud.  Apparently, one local prosecutor from Texas took notice.

When the Texas preneed regulator and Attorney General failed to address an $8,000 fraud, the Galveston County prosecutor obtained a grand jury indictment against a Texas funeral director for the misappropriation of preneed funds.  Generally, the prosecution of preneed fraud falls to the death care regulator and/or the state attorney general.  Realizing that state coffers may be lean for years to come, legislatures such as Missouri's are granting local prosecutors concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute preneed law violations. 

The prospect of prosecution by a district attorney with no prior experience interpreting an ambiguous preneed statute was sufficient reason for funeral directors to oppose legislation that authorized concurrent jurisdiction.  However, circumstances such as those in Missouri and Illinois have opened the door for comprehensive reform legislation, and concurrent jurisdiction. 

When the attorney general may lack the resources to prosecute an $8,000 preneed fraud, the local prosecutor, looking to make a name for himself/herself, can initiate a prosecution of the wayward funeral director by using statutes such as Missouri's Chapter 436. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors faces two hurdles to implementing SB1: disagreements over the interpretation of key provisions and informing the industry how the Board will enforce the law. These hurdles have put the Board in to a Catch 22 situation.

SB1 was drafted under the cloud of the NPS crisis. Legislators were lobbied from all sides, with positions as diametrically opposed as outlawing preneed to leaving Chapter 436 in tact. With limited assistance from the industry, legislators used the resources at hand and forged compromises. As a consequence, the law has several ambiguities, and crucial provisions can legitimately be interpreted differently. There is ample room for disagreements.

The disagreements over SB1 requirements have caused the State Board to reconsider how to best educate the industry. When contacted with SB1 questions, the Board’s staff (and website) recommends that licensees seek the advice of an attorney. This may be the appropriate ‘legal’ answer, but it is one that will frustrate the licensee. First, the advice requires the licensee to incur an expense at a time when it can be least afforded. Second, there is no assurance an attorney can provide an answer the licensee can rely upon. Some attorneys will turn to the Board’s legal staff, and it is not clear those attorneys are in a position to field questions about SB1.

As licensees, funeral directors do have a responsibility to educate themselves about the law’s requirements. We have heard this at recent Board meetings. But, before the licensee can educate himself on the law’s requirements, the State Board must be able to clearly articulate the law’s requirements. That could require weeks on most issues, if not months on other issues.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One criticism of Missouri’s prior preneed law was that the Attorney General’s office was dependent upon the State Board to refer complaints for legal enforcement. If the State Board didn’t refer a Chapter 436 violation, the AG’s only enforcement alternative was to pursue an action under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act (Chapter 407). During the 2008 hearings on Chapter 436 and National Prearranged Services, it was generally recognized that the Attorney General’s office needed independent authorities to pursue Chapter 436 violations. But, the Attorney General also expressed the desire for authority to hold fiduciaries more accountable for their funeral home client’s actions.

The AG’s fiduciary recommendations drew concerns from both funeral homes and the Missouri Division of Finance. The Division of Finance questioned whether the requested powers would make the AG a de facto bank regulator on par with the Division and the bank’s federal regulators. Consequently, the final recommendations for Chapter 436 legislation conditioned the AG’s authority to take action against a fiduciary on having received the consent of the fiduciary’s primary regulator.

However, the Chapter 436 Working Group recommendation regarding this limitation on the Missouri Attorney General did not survive the Senate Bill No. 1 revision process.

Section 436.470.12 of SB1 grants the Attorney General the authority to bring action against a preneed fiduciary whenever an “inspection, investigation, examination or audit” reveals a violation of Chapter 436. A prior subsection provides for information sharing among the relevant Missouri agencies, and arguably, the AG’s authority over preneed fiduciaries could be triggered by the AG’s own investigation or examination.

And, there seems little doubt that the AG may be inclined to apply this new authority with regard to preneed trusts that existed prior to August 28th. Accordingly, Missouri’s preneed fiduciaries should evaluate their accounts with the knowledge that Big Brother may be looking.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri will look to a combination of licensing fees from preneed sellers, providers and agents to fund a portion of the projected costs of preneed oversight under SB1. But, most of SB1’s enforcement price will be funded by the $36 to be charged for each preneed contract sold. The ‘per contract’ fee is not new to the Missouri preneed industry, but the fee does represent a substantial increase from the $2 charged under the prior law.

According to State Board’s statistics, the Missouri preneed industry has sold an average of more than 22,000 preneed contracts each year during the past 6 years. Using that average, the new per contract fee will increase the State Board’s annual budget by more than $750,000. Appropriately, consumers and death care companies are asking how this budget will be used.

Another question is who should bare this expense. When the fee was at $2, many funeral homes absorbed that cost. But in today’s economy, the fee represents an expense that many funeral directors can no longer absorb. One of the proposed emergency rules reflects the division that exists between the Attorney General and some the State Board members with regard to how this new fee should be assessed.

With the purchase price of a preneed contract based on the funeral home’s current prices, a preneed seller must already absorb the costs of developing and maintaining a compliant program. Funeral homes and cemeteries must also bare a portion of SB1’s costs through new licensing fees. By passing the per contract fee on to consumers, the death care industry can begin to make regulators accountable to the public for the oversight they plan to provide for the preneed consumer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The first week under the new preneed law was a confusing one for the Missouri funeral industry. SB1 has many drafting conflicts and ambiguities, and that has give rise to different interpretations from the Attorney General’s Office, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, and the death care industry.

The State Board and the Attorney General’s Office have been criticized for the NPS debacle. While some of that criticism may be justified, NPS exploited the weaknesses of Chapter 436 (and the Board’s enforcement budget), and kept the regulators at bay for years. With SB1, the regulators have been given the keys to a new vehicle for preneed oversight and enforcement, but they are not in total agreement about the map to follow.

The State Board’s immediate agenda are the emergency rules that will keep the preneed industry functioning for the next 3 to 9 months. Consequently, debate over interpretations must be brief and concessions must be made. In some respects, the resulting emergency rules will be overly burdensome. But, these emergency rules will be the law until regulations are promulgated pursuant to the normal rulemaking process. Funeral homes that disregard the emergency rules, do so at substantial risks. It is crucial that funeral directors also understand that the emergency rules will impact the preneed contracts sold prior to August 28th.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As its first step in educating the preneed industry about SB1’s requirements, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors posted the Top 12 Changes to Missouri’s Pre-Need Law to its website. However, I had trouble getting past No. 2. The explanation about fiduciary reimbursements of sales expense on Pre-SB1 sales sent me back to SB1’s ‘Grandfather clause’:

436.412. Each preneed contract made before August 28, 2009, and all payments and disbursements under such contract shall continue to be governed by this chapter as the chapter existed at the time the contract was made.

As authorized by RSMo. Section 436.027, it has been fairly standard practice for Missouri preneed contracts to recite that Sellers may retain the first 20% of the purchaser’s payments. However, the State Board is advising all Purchaser payments, including PreSB1 business, must be deposited to trust before the 20% sales expense is retained.

While the State Board’s intent may have been to address the old statute’s failure to address when purchaser payments must be deposited to trust, the Board has overstepped its authority if its intent is to require sellers to deposit payments on PreSB1 contracts to trust without retaining sales expense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the past fifteen years or so, Missouri cemeteries could sell markers and memorials on a preneed basis without making delivery of the marker, or depositing purchaser payments into a trust. RSMo. Section 214.387 authorized cemeteries to use a segregated account to hold an amount equal to 110% of the marker’s wholesale cost. If the purchaser did not want the marker delivered, the cemetery could set up a bank account to hold the required amount. The procedure was easier and cheaper than establishing a trust account. But, the cemetery’s authority to use the segregated account came to an end on August 28th with the effective date of SB296.

If delivery is not made within a “reasonable time”, the cemetery must now deposit 80% of a purchaser’s payments on cemetery merchandise (including markers) to a trust account or an escrow account.

The elimination of the segregated account also had theunintended consequence of subjecting the preneed cemetery merchandise sales to the jurisdiction of the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.

To the extent cemeteries are subject to licensure by the Office of Endowed Care Cemeteries, the State Board has tentatively approved an emergency rule that exempts preneed merchandise sales that are made in conjunction with a burial space with endowed care. Ostensibly, cemeteries that are either non-endowed (or exempt from Chapter 214 licensure) would be subject to Chapter 436 if they sell merchandise on a preneed basis.
 

• 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

My kids hate August because it means its time to head back to school.  This year's student population in Missouri will be a little larger than last year's.  The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has released its meeting agenda, and the state's preneed industry will be given four crash courses beginning July 30th. 

Generally, freshman orientation is optional, but these classes may start defining a new business model for Missouri's preneed industry.

• 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

A little more than a month has lapsed since the Missouri legislature passed a reform preneed bill, but the death care industry remains stuck in neutral until Governor Nixon signs SB1 into law. 

With an effective date of August 28th looming two months away, regulators and funeral homes (and cemeteries) face licensing and document deadlines.  The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will have the task of licensing hundreds of preneed sellers and providers.  Preneed sellers will have the task of establishing new trusts and preneed contracts. 

This should make for a busy Show Me summer.

• 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 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