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

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