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

More than one funeral director has expressed the opinion that the State Board should never have been given rule making authority. We'll never know, but if the State Board had rulemaking authority 22 years ago, it could have implemented rules to help enforce NPS' 1990 settlement agreement, and thereby avoided that company's collapse. But equally important, rule making authority provides the State Board the means to clarify the ambiguities and gaps that exist in Senate Bill. No 1. This is as much to assist the preneed seller who has a business practice that does not fall neatly within the law as it does the State Board attempting to address how that practice should be regulated.

But, Missouri's first attempt to pass a 'conventional' preneed regulation has been a trying exercise for the State Board, its staff and the industry, with mutual frustrations getting the better of everyone. All concerned may have been spoiled by the level of cooperation exhibited when emergency regulations were needed to keep Missouri's preneed industry operating. Had it not been for those emergency regulations, Missouri's preneed industry would have come to a screeching halt for months.

Following the passage of the emergency rules, the State Board staff recommended that the industry's other SB1 complaints be tabled to provide the financial examination process the time required for Division personnel to 'get their arms around the issues". That made perfect sense to this author, that is until the insurance assignment became the focal point for the Board's first regulation.

The political realities are that the State of Missouri needs revenues, and the excess insurance proceeds paid to funeral homes should be paid to the State pursuant to RSMo 208.010.7(4) before refunded to the families of assistance recipients. If funeral homes use the spend down provisions to their benefit when meeting with families, then they should also have a duty to comply with Chapter 208. But, the problem has been that families were allowed to exclude insurance policies for asset testing without a preneed contract, and the drafters of SB1 were focused on NPS and the sale of preneed contracts.

SB1 has flaws, and the Division once acknowledged that corrective legislation would eventually be needed. Our question is whether the Board's first regulation is indication that the State now has a double standard when it comes to preneed regulations and the need for corrective legislation: a restrictive interpretation of SB1 for the industry and a liberal interpretation for itself?

Like SB1, the Board's first regulation proposal was forced by the State, and has its own flaws. The proposal is too broad in attempting to define all insurance assignments and beneficiary designations as the consideration that triggers SB1. The proposal also extends the preneed contract fee without an explanation of the examination procedures needed for the transaction. Then to buttress the position that the regulation binds all outstanding insurance assignments, the State relies upon a confidential legal memorandum as having put the industry on notice. If the industry does not find the State's rationale credible, many funeral homes may refuse to comply. We find it frustrating that the State could accomplish most of what it wants without sacrificing credibility. That credibility will be important to getting funeral homes to embrace the future changes required for compliance with SB1. It remains to be seen whether the State will be flexible with the industry in achieving their mutual goals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors 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