Witnesses urge clearer CCRC definition, licensing and statewide consumer information

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.