Relative to continuing care retirement communities.
SB 124 recodifies and substantially revises New Hampshire’s law governing continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), repealing and reenacting RSA 420-D. The bill updates definitions and licensing requirements, requires providers to obtain and maintain a certificate of authority from the insurance department, and expands the information providers must submit with an application, including ownership and management details, financial statements, feasibility studies, disaster recovery planning, cybersecurity certification, and bankruptcy history. It also broadens annual and quarterly reporting obligations and gives the commissioner authority to require financial plans when a provider appears insolvent or financially unsound.
The bill adds or strengthens resident protections throughout the life of a continuing care contract. It requires detailed, department-approved disclosure statements and contracts, mandates a 15-day rescission period, sets rules for refunds and escrow of entrance fees and wait-list deposits, limits termination and eviction practices, and establishes a residents’ bill of rights for independent living residents. It also regulates sales or transfers of a community, temporary and permanent closures, asset pledges, dividends and affiliate transfers, and provides enforcement tools including cease-and-desist orders, liens, civil penalties, rehabilitation, liquidation, and criminal penalties.
SB 124 would significantly expand state oversight of CCRCs by placing these facilities more squarely under the insurance department’s regulatory framework and by imposing detailed solvency, disclosure, escrow, and reporting requirements on providers. It would affect providers, owners, affiliates, residents, and prospective residents by changing how entrance fees are handled, how contracts are formed and canceled, what must be disclosed before sale, and how communities may be transferred, closed, or placed into rehabilitation or liquidation. The bill also creates new resident rights and protections that would become part of the statutory scheme governing senior housing and long-term care arrangements in New Hampshire.
The bill appears generally supportive of stronger consumer and resident protections, with the stated purpose of protecting seniors’ life savings and addressing risks exposed by recent bankruptcies in the sector. The analysis and findings language indicate a policy concern that existing law needed updating to better protect residents in insolvency or bankruptcy scenarios. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s protective framing.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s increased regulatory burden and financial controls on providers, especially the expanded disclosure requirements, escrow rules, reserve requirements, transfer approvals, and commissioner authority to intervene in management or impose liens. Providers may also object to the limits on affiliate transfers, dividend distributions, and the detailed reporting of financial and operational information, including cybersecurity and actuarial data. On the resident side, the bill is designed to reduce risk and improve transparency, so any debate would likely center on balancing resident protection against provider flexibility and financing needs.