Michael Flaherty

I am writing to respectfully oppose this bill and urge the committee to vote it Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) operate under a unique and highly regulated model. CCRCs offer life care contracts, which function in many ways like a long-term care insurance product. Residents pay significant entrance and monthly fees in exchange for a contractual promise of care across the continuum—independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing—through the end of life. Because of this structure, CCRCs are regulated by the New Hampshire Insurance Department, not merely as housing providers, but as entities carrying long-term actuarial and financial obligations. Mandating open enrollment and requiring CCRCs to provide below-cost services to at least 20 percent of residents directly conflicts with existing New Hampshire Insurance Department regulations. These regulations are designed to ensure CCRCs remain financially solvent so they can meet their long-term promises to residents. Imposing below-cost care requirements undermines actuarial assumptions, threatens reserve requirements, and ultimately jeopardizes the financial stability—and potential survival—of CCRCs. Additionally, forcing CCRCs into Medicaid participation represents a reversal of long-standing state policy. CCRCs were intentionally structured to reduce reliance on Medicaid by encouraging private pre-funding of long-term care. Requiring Medicaid participation would not only increase state Medicaid expenditures but would also weaken the financial model that allows CCRCs to remain viable and self-sustaining. The bill’s requirement that providers “quantitatively demonstrate” that they reduce government burden is also problematic. This language is vague and subjective, and it conflicts with the existing legal standard outlined in RSA 72:23 I. Under current law, an organization qualifies as charitable if it provides a public benefit that advances the well-being of the general public. That standard does not—and should not—depend on whether an organization can prove direct cost savings to government programs. CCRCs already provide substantial public benefit by offering housing stability, health care access, workforce employment, and reduced strain on public long-term care systems. Altering the legal and regulatory framework in this way would create uncertainty, discourage investment, and place long-term care promises to current residents at risk. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote this bill ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate). Thank you for your consideration. Michael Flaherty President/CEO Taylor Community