House Bill 357 enacts the North Carolina Continuing Care Retirement Communities Act and repeals the prior Article 64 of Chapter 58, replacing it with a comprehensive new regulatory framework for continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) and continuing care at home programs. The bill places oversight of these providers under the Department of Insurance and the Commissioner, and it applies to both for-profit and nonprofit providers. It establishes a licensing and approval structure for entities that market, develop, finance, operate, expand, transfer, or change control of a CCRC, including permits to accept deposits, start-up certificates, preliminary certificates, permanent licenses, and continuing care at home licenses.
The bill imposes detailed financial, disclosure, and consumer-protection requirements. Providers must file extensive disclosure statements, annual audited financial statements, quarterly financial reports, actuarial studies, market and feasibility studies, and notices of material changes. It requires escrow of entrance fees and deposits, limits when those funds may be released, and sets operating reserve requirements tied to occupancy and financial condition. The act also regulates advertising, contract terms, refunds, resident notices, resident councils, semiannual resident meetings, and Commissioner approval for major transactions such as sales of real property, mergers, acquisitions of control, third-party management contracts, and large expansions.
In addition to the new article in Chapter 58, the bill makes a conforming change to the sales tax exemption for sales by providers of continuing care to residents by updating the cross-reference to the new statutory definitions. The act becomes effective December 1, 2025, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date and to contracts issued, renewed, or amended on or after that date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the House 106-0 and the Senate 46-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. The bill’s stated purpose is consumer protection and financial oversight, and the lack of recorded committee opposition or floor dissent suggests the measure was viewed as a technical but important modernization of regulation for a senior housing and long-term care sector.
The main points of contention addressed in the bill itself are not political disputes but policy tradeoffs: stronger state oversight versus provider flexibility. The act gives the Commissioner broad authority to review financial viability, restrict dividends, require escrow and reserves, and intervene in hazardous conditions, which protects residents but increases compliance burdens on providers. It also reaches into contract terms, marketing, and governance, and it applies to both nonprofit and for-profit operators, suggesting the legislature intended a uniform regulatory standard for an industry that handles large resident entrance fees and long-term care obligations.
The bill repeals the former continuing care retirement community article in Chapter 58 and replaces it with a new Article 64A, substantially revising state law governing CCRCs and continuing care at home programs. It expands the Department of Insurance’s licensing, reporting, enforcement, and examination authority over providers, applicants, and related parties, and it creates new statutory duties regarding escrow, operating reserves, disclosure, resident rights, and approval of major corporate and real-estate transactions. The bill also amends the sales tax exemption statute to conform to the new definitions and terminology used in the revised CCRC law.
The bill appears to have been received positively and without significant opposition. It passed both chambers unanimously, with a 106-0 House vote and a 46-0 Senate vote, and there is no committee transcript indicating controversy or dissent. The unanimous votes suggest broad agreement that the existing regulatory structure needed modernization and that stronger consumer protections for older residents were appropriate.
The principal policy tension in the bill is between resident protection and provider operational flexibility. The act requires extensive financial disclosures, escrow of entrance fees, operating reserves, Commissioner approvals for expansions, leases, sales, mergers, and management changes, and restrictions on dividends when a provider is in hazardous condition or not in actuarial balance. Providers may view these requirements as burdensome, while resident advocates would likely support them as safeguards against insolvency, delayed refunds, and service failures. The bill also touches on confidentiality of sensitive financial and actuarial materials, which balances regulatory transparency with provider privacy concerns.