[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6198484,"mediaKeyId","3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1","parentId",3846752,"title","Witnesses urge clearer CCRC definition, licensing and statewide consumer information","audioSeconds",2752,"startMs",1102000,"endMs",3854000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1&start=1102&end=3854","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1/thumbnail_1102000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6198484/Massachusetts/Witnesses-urge-clearer-CCRC-definition-licensing-and-statewide-consumer-information","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198484-96cc9a1ccc0a2bfb5903676fb62c6297/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450696&Signature=hsg9QKjK5I1IWboDkDAgMLhTE83xzIkZoWE5gnnBt~tMEX6vItIB-glU5sLRJ-JsE3TIdCMn0h~Am9i9QaRk6E68nwS7xDW-dTaEfjERHj9Hxbyxpsft7jGyUGpg3j46V4jjjzgXDOKMgGKwqSOf3X~17GjMUSEWblRKgGmDmPuBG2QXuO0-t8kxOYq8K6sOFo80~XoUqSdxtjx7SDlUCGpFx4MB3ssjF9gB4s1JdV8NDhvwSvJrYr-3vxUTrFuzdDt39rj3phIArQD61kz8XeA0Vg4M6ofPkzac4XKIC-CeWws1dsBCTxsLTBu~p46inQ5aIRfhWQSOS62CSgkd3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities","date","2025-06-16T00:00:00Z","article","Several witnesses told the Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities that Massachusetts should adopt a clearer statutory definition of a CCRC, consider licensing or certification, and create centralized consumer information to help prospective residents compare communities.

Sabine Hedberg, a resident of a Massachusetts CCRC, recommended that “the term continuing care retirement community should be defined specifically in Massachusetts General Law, chapter 9,376, to include communities that offer the full continuum of care” and that only certified communities be allowed to market themselves as CCRCs. Hedberg suggested the Department of Public Health’s Division of Healthcare Facility Licensure and Certification could house a unit with direct oversight if the commission created a certification regime.

Ray LeBlanc, a campus executive director, emphasized prospect education and public data about communities’ care quality: “When I talk about prospect education... the types of contracts that are out there, the refund process, any financial disclosure statements... and then also sharing public data such as the commons we have a 5 star and deficiency free skilled nursing.” Tom, a meeting participant, asked that wait‑list lengths be made available through an official source; Senator Pat Jalen suggested any public reporting should disaggregate data by apartment type because vacancy and rerental speed can vary by unit.

Operators and nonprofit leaders said certification or licensing would need to account for the wide variability among CCRCs. Chris Centros, CEO of New England Deaconess Association, said not‑for‑profit CCRCs “are uniquely tied to the residents, the resident need interests and the communities in which they serve,” and urged the commission to “support not for profit CCRCs in every way possible.” Margaret Mantoni, CEO of Loomis Communities, described providing transparent financial reporting to resident committees and said the organization retained residents’ funds in a past bankruptcy rescue.

Suggestions for the commission included: (1) statutory definition of CCRC elements (independent living plus on‑campus assisted living, memory care, rehabilitation and skilled nursing); (2) a certification or licensing regime to protect the “CCRC” label; (3) standardized disclosure forms posted on the Executive Office of Aging and Independence website; and (4) public reporting of wait‑list information and key quality metrics.

Ending: Witnesses asked the commission to craft policy options that balance consumer protections, clarity about which communities qualify as CCRCs, and practical oversight mechanisms that account for the sector's variation in ownership and mission.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Continuing Care Retirement Communities - 6-16-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Speakers recommended the commission define CCRCs in state law, consider certification or licensing, and create a central repository for standardized consumer disclosures and wait‑list information on the Executive Office of Aging and Independence website.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6198487,"Residents press for board seats, minutes and stronger transparency at CCRCs",3228,509000,3737000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1&start=509&end=3737","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1/thumbnail_509000.jpg","/articles/6198487/Massachusetts/Residents-press-for-board-seats-minutes-and-stronger-transparency-at-CCRCs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198487-9fba85db31e1e46e5b93c24f41e56453/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450696&Signature=iIsrKf9AApz~0jMcEvqhN20iy5sCm-vYuCWu-O0MwuUVkpbEsSkH-Ezw3zaWEfSNH5D7NQh4zuQ5FdkzIRjdntBmc2t4MZeC9rpYT4FbKDq8caF69tpZMI0MLqYQnkD8TkTtfkb8qVkt3sIfp5~ByPemtbQZ~ieMsMS~a~eW2PrZt8Vde9uu91zLa9cMDYpiP3YBFt9RGQyJUSNNn2Jrk6nZvO6nLFoPMOD5qZIQXhP9Cn~JW-l2a3VgxF6Rfbl5XeatnyuJwA-IdKCAUbcycDVLruyLJt1OdcWakDSqcw4RUwhbdZto91jqBCyFy~sv3HjlfYtKiJI4HFXLmSQnXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Residents from several Massachusetts CCRCs told the Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities that stronger, codified resident participation and transparency on nonprofit and national governing boards are needed to protect residents’ interests.

Zephyrin Helmreich, a Linden Ponds resident, said residents “believe that Massachusetts should also pass legislation requiring that representation so that we will know what is going on at the national board.” Paul Sprecher, chair of a resident advisory committee at Linden Ponds, said his community previously had a local board and a director in residence but “gradually, the board became nationalized” and the resident director role was eliminated in 2019. He said residents now “can't even get minutes of board meetings,” which he described as “egregious” for a nonprofit board.

Multiple witnesses urged the commission to require resident board membership or, at minimum, reliable channels for resident input. Judith Foster, a resident at the Commons in Lincoln, told commissioners: “There is no question that we as residents have thoughts about management, about what we like, what we don't like. And I think that, much of the success of any of the CCRCs rely heavily on the input of residents.” Denny Janie pressed for resident voting seats on a national senior communities board: “I would like to see the legislator go after that particular aspect in terms of allowing us as a resident to sit on the national senior communities board with full voting rights.”

Operators and nonprofit representatives said resident participation is common and valuable but that approaches vary. Chris Centros, CEO of the New England Deaconess Association, said his not‑for‑profit CCRC “often have resident participants but not members” on the governing board, and he argued for varied mechanisms to ensure resident voice. Loomis Communities CEO Margaret Mantoni described a volunteer board that currently includes three resident directors among 15 members and said residents participate on board committees and financial panels.

Witnesses proposed a range of reforms for the commission to consider: statutory requirements for “directors in residence,” mandated public posting of board minutes, routine financial reporting to resident committees, and clearer rules about the governance of nonprofit versus nationalized boards that oversee multiple campuses.

Commission members acknowledged the diversity of governance models and asked whether statutory requirements would be workable for all CCRCs. Senator Pat Jalen and others signaled interest in studying models used in other states and the tradeoffs between local control and resident protections.

Ending: The commission heard sustained resident calls for formalizing resident voice — through board seats, committee rights, or guaranteed access to minutes — as a tool to improve oversight and protect residents’ financial and quality‑of‑care interests.","Multiple residents and advocates at the June 9 hearing urged Massachusetts to require resident representation on CCRC governing boards, public access to board minutes, and other transparency measures so residents can influence strategy and protect invested funds.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6198492,"Residents, advocates urge state limits and safeguards on CCRC entrance-fee refunds",2347,652000,2999000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1&start=652&end=2999","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3846752-751096c48244eced6ad284edb0629dc1/thumbnail_652000.jpg","/articles/6198492/Massachusetts/Residents-advocates-urge-state-limits-and-safeguards-on-CCRC-entrance-fee-refunds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6198492-04835900aefbf156b23b8e767d05dc78/orig.mp4?Expires=1770450696&Signature=jvbr1S6nf4biJJhb-XzQSUFKRCY1QNFTPTKO~JHFX0hRsVQZlq5IxOqLhQYTrDoJL0EscWm5UGT3n--7Al9X8EgsYZBgvp32fozLqURczAOCOHNHB7~Nqba2~3TyWgFJyFofMh~r1fIvTGy4n0NBFy1BmXxYPokgdwimJpPNumqVz9N1DxqK~eTGIAUbQnBlSMUcM306~NnHWDuk~yANffJ1Y-KZcpDd3C7G3sTYoAO0nPYGhbXTVnyZb~alOSUC0EfK51-ikFmGPHucEbFcWmazzyL9ex0iJ1g-HBbjFc-lqYILSDQY6d9L18GcVlwaYRMqcR~9cs-Yjo~0l8nN2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Residents of continuing care retirement communities and consumer advocates told the Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities on June 9 that entrance‑fee refund practices can leave former residents without timely access to life savings and asked the legislature to set firm limits and financial safeguards.

Ivy Cooley, who testified she is the primary caregiver for her 80‑plus‑year‑old mother, said the family was owed $170,000 after her mother moved from independent living to an assisted‑living memory care unit and that “it took 18 months for her unit to be rerented.” Cooley said that the facility’s refund policy — which requires re‑rental of the same specific apartment before a refund is triggered — “discriminates against less affluent residents” whose units are less desirable and can mean long delays in getting funds returned.

Cooley urged multiple protections: limits on the time a facility may retain entrance fees, moving to refund systems that use an order‑of‑vacancies (rather than a specific apartment), placing a portion of entrance fees in interest‑bearing escrow or endowments, requiring actuarial reserves or surety bonds, and creating a state guarantee fund to protect resident deposits. “Make entrance fees nonrefundable. Offer a lower refund percentage, put some of the money in interest bearing escrow funds or in an endowment and use the interest and uncommitted percentage for the operating budget,” she said.

Denny Janie, a resident of Linden Ponds, reiterated the call for time limits on refunds and asked that returned monies be required “within a reasonable time frame, let's say, a year.” Multiple speakers reported instances of long delays and cited bankruptcy as a circumstance that can sharply reduce or postpone refunds.

Commission members and witnesses noted existing statutory context referenced at the start of the hearing: the special commission was established “in section 29 of last session's long term care reform law, chapter 197 of the acts of 2024,” which charged the commission with studying entrance‑fee policies and consumer protections. Witnesses requested that the commission recommend specific statutory language and oversight measures to reduce consumer risk.

Proposed oversight steps described by witnesses included annual certificates of solvency filed with state regulators, mandated actuarial reserves for future refund liabilities, and requirements that facilities disclose refund mechanics and typical timelines to prospective residents at the point of sale. Several witnesses suggested a central consumer information repository, hosted by the Executive Office of Aging and Independence, to provide standard disclosure documents and comparisons across CCRCs.

Commission members asked clarifying questions about existing housing and consumer protections and about whether different apartment types should be treated differently when reporting average refund times. Senator Pat Jalen observed that “it depends on which kind of apartment you're in” and recommended any public data be disaggregated by unit type.

The commission did not take formal votes at the hearing. Commissioners said the testimony would inform the group's recommendations to the Legislature.

Ending: Witnesses asked the commission to include concrete, enforceable rules in its report — time limits for refunds, financial safeguards such as escrowed funds or reserve requirements, and publicly available disclosure documents — to reduce the risk that residents will lose timely access to substantial sums they used to secure long‑term care at CCRCs.","At a Massachusetts commission hearing, residents and advocates detailed long waits and financial harm tied to entrance‑fee refund policies and urged statutory limits, escrow or endowment protections, and annual solvency reporting for continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Witnesses urge clearer CCRC definition, licensing and statewide consumer information

Residents press for board seats, minutes and stronger transparency at CCRCs

Residents, advocates urge state limits and safeguards on CCRC entrance-fee refunds