During the last several months, I have traveled frequently to participate in law and aging conferences and to speak on deep concerns about consumer rights in senior living, including concerns of residents of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), also sometimes called Life Plan Communities (LPCs). My opportunities for engagement have taken place in Washington state; Montreal, Canada; Atlanta, Georgia; Jacksonville, Florida; Pennsylvania (of course) and concluded this last week when I was back in Seattle.
Certainly some of the reasons for these recent invitations are the concerns raised by state regulators, practicing elder law attorneys, estate planning professionals and current residents in the wake of some high profile insolvencies of enterprises. For example, in the last week, on Wednesday, I participated in a live “Q and A” session for a CCRC program rebroadcast for the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and on Thursday I was a co-presenter on CCRCs (with great Seattle Attorney Teresa Byers), in a room with some 300 professionals for the Seattle Estate Planning Council’s annual seminar. Then, on Saturday morning I met with residents at their annual meeting for the Washington Continuing Care Residents Association (WACCRA).
In 2025, news stories about financially troubled CCRCs include those about The Harborside in New York, Aldersgate in North Carolina, and Tampa Life Plan Village in Florida. Although not as high profile, recent news stories in Pennsylvania indicate a group of 6 related-CCRCs in South-Central Pennsylvania are hoping to complete a major reorganization under the auspices of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code during 2025. Another example of financial problems hit the news in Pennsylvania in 2024 when a CCRC in Somerset Pennsylvania was “sold’ for an undisclosed sales price as a result of reorganization, following the news of defaults on its bond payment obligations.
I try to speak on the themes of greatest concerns to residents and residents’ family members. But more importantly, in order to research, write and speak on these themes, I’m constantly listening. Here are a few highlights of what I’m hearing:
Florida: During their annual 2025 meeting in October, members of FLiCRA were intently focused on state legislative initiatives, especially those that might touch on uses of admission fees, including fulfilling promises made in contracts about “refundability” of fees. (For example, CCRCs/LPCs frequently offer one price for a “traditional” non-refundable entrance fee; to incentivize higher payments, they may offer a 50% or even a 90% “refundable” entrance fee, but, the price tag increases substantially with the percentage of refund promised. ) Any refund “promise” is not usually treated as conferring the legal status of a “secured” creditor for the resident in the event of insolvency. Attempts to do so trigger pushback by the industry where representatives argue “any” restrictions on use of entrance fees makes it less likely the enterprise can get a favorable rate on commercial loans. Delays or “offsets” in promised repayments can cause confusion and uncertainty for residents and their families, plus extra costs to probate estates. And if the enterprise was to fail completely, is it fair that residents lose not only their homes and their life-care plan, but their payments that should have been allocated for “use” over time. Is it fair and financially sound to leave reserves entirely up to the discretion of management? One of the options FLiCRA members are looking at is some type of automatic lien against property and other assets that would give high-paying residents a “priority” in the event of a Chapter 11 or other proceeding in bankruptcy court, while still giving traditional lenders a primary, secured status. See my earlier post about the Texas Lien statute (October 28, 2025). The Florida Life Care Residents Association, FLiCRA, was formed in 1989.
Washington: During WACCRA’s annual meeting in Seattle on November 1, 2025, over 200 CCRC residents participated and shared their morning with key representatives from state government, including Mike Anbesse and Mandy Weeks from Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and Seann Colgan, Litigation Section Chief for Consumer Protection in the Attorney General’s office. A bit of history: I can remember in 2014 when residents in Washington formally organized their own state’s association, inspired by then-President of NaCCRA, Dan Seeger, a national group that supported over 900,000 national residents on a variety of topics. There was no “CCRC-specific” regulation in Washington at the time, even though I can recall there was more than one enterprise causing serious concerns. Beginning in 2017, at the urging of resident advocates, Washington state CCRCs became subject to “registration” rules. In May 2025, a modest revision of the CCRC law, supported by WACCRA, was signed into law by the Governor. On Saturday, the additional good news is that the Attorney General’s office, in conjunction with DSHS (which has a threshold role in oversight), has pledged response if complaints disclose gaps between promises and performance, the type of gaps that typify “consumer protection” concerns. WACCRA and the State officials appear to agree on next steps that may be necessary to better assure that the state, current and prospective residents have additional information they will need to protect important consumer rights at all CCRCs and LPCs operating in the state.
Pennsylvania: Because I live and work in Pennsylvania, I often tend to hear from individual residents or residents’ family members asking questions about CCRC practices in the Commonwealth. This year, the trend I noticed was residents at CCRCs around the state who felt threatened by management to stay silent on concerns about operations, especially expansion plans that may generate additional fees for current residents. Residents at two different communities described written “warnings” they had received not to discuss CCRC financial matters outside of “official” resident council meetings with management in attendance. This was a surprise to hear as Pennsylvania law expressly recognizes that residents at Continuing Care Retirement Communities have the “right of self-organization,” as well as an additional or separate right to meet quarterly with the governing body of their CCRC. See Title 40 Pennsylvania Cons. Stat. Section 3215.
Consumer advocacy “by” consumers is hard to ignore. All in all, I hear from residents around the country who are refusing to sleep on their rights and responsibilities. State-wide organizations add strength to their individual voices — and individual voices identify real needs to be addressed.