 What do consumers want? This is the $64,000 question everyone involved in the death care profession is trying to answer. You know your aftercare surveys are overwhelmingly positive. You track your online reviews and celebrate the positive ones, while addressing the negatives. You know your community and encourage engagement with local groups. Your reputation is your brand and you sleep well at night knowing the top-notch service you provide. At the same time a vocal minority of volunteer funeral consumer advocates have been telling the FTC staff for years that funeral service is criminal and in need of close scrutiny. Despite record low complaints, the Funeral Rule remains in place and is likely to be revised. Over the past three years, I have been the lead staff person working with the CANA board, members and other death care leaders to craft comments and responses to the FTC’s proposed revisions. On September 7, 2023, I was privileged to participate in the FTC Workshop: Shopping for Funeral Services. In addition to representing our profession to the regulators and consumers, the event provided a chance to listen to the arguments and requests set forth by consumer advocates and industry reformers. You can watch the recording yourself on the FTC’s website, but here are my key takeaways on how consumers view the funeral profession. FTC Commissioner and Staff RemarksOpening and closing remarks from the FTC focused on how unique the funeral profession is and how important the Funeral Rule is to the FTC. Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter opened the workshop by describing how the Funeral Rule protects customers when they are grieving and vulnerable, and also promotes competition – two reasons the Rule is central to the mission of the FTC. The commissioner quoted NFDA average funeral costs pointing out that funeral expenses carry the third largest price tag after a home or car, but they are the only obligation everyone will universally experience. From the title of the workshop, “Shopping for Funeral Services,” to the selection of panelists, the FTC staff focused on the transactional nature of death care. Consumer advocates are dedicated to lowering prices and educating consumers about the elements of funeral service that are necessary and those that are optional. The General Price List (GPL) is their primary tool used for these purposes. Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices Lois C. Greisman closed the workshop by thanking panelists and the hundreds of attendees who attended in-person and online. She hailed the workshop as a success because the day held lively conversations designed to dig into pressing concerns. There were many disagreements during the course of the discussions, but it was an important opportunity to reimagine the future. How Hard Is It to Post a GPL?During the event, consumer groups advocated hard for posting the GPL on existing websites, particularly for businesses that complete sales online. They maintained that posting a PDF or adding content to a website would be marginally expensive to the business and would build trust. These are difficult arguments to refute. Some consumer advocates admitted that the GPL is confusing and not ideally suited as a standalone planning document. They conceded that it is designed as a tool that is best used in conversation with a funeral director. However, the GPL is up for discussion. That means consumer advocates are empowered to suggest many additions and changes to GPL-required items (including third party crematory fees and other "hidden" fees) and disclosures (like the legality of home funerals, embalming disclosure to include federal and state law reference and then business capacity/policy). The common ground between all workshop participants was an acknowledgement of the necessity for consumer education on selecting and planning funeral goods and services. Members of the profession tended to argue that the GPL was a tool used in consultation with a funeral director. The advocates argued for posting it online and then having the consumer approach funeral providers with informed questions or selections. Throughout the day, there was a strong emphasis on how much the funeral profession and consumer preferences have changed over the past 40 years. It was repeatedly observed by reformer panelists that consumers want more control over and participation in funeral planning and activities. Industry protests against mandatory price posting were countered with accusations of hiding and thievery. Obviously, it’s true that transparency builds trust and many CANA members who post their pricing cited that as a primary reason. However, simply posting the GPL alone will not address the issue because, as we know, shopping for funeral services is a unique and complex experience. My takeaway is that consumer groups, like the Funeral Consumer Alliance and Consumer Federation of America, are focused on transparency and the ease of price comparisons. This can lead to the creation of comparison websites and concierge services—or even a Consumer Reports-style comparison survey or report. Just as the profession prefers not to be required to post pricing, consumers resent being forced to use funeral providers who aren’t transparent. The Devil is in the DetailsThe discussions about the logistics of posting pricing online, assuming it becomes required, centered on details. The consumer advocates on the panel debated format: HTML vs. PDF, mobile-friendly versions, and other accessibility questions. Should the FTC require a specific font, size, color, or document format? Or set general requirements that GPLs are “clear and conspicuous”? Should there be machine- and human-readable requirements? Consumer advocates were arguing for uniformity to assist their work in comparing GPLs, but failing to recognize that funeral providers are businesses who are actively pursuing calls. Technology will change, but market forces will ensure funeral providers meet consumer needs to earn their business. We also discussed that the primary purpose of a funeral provider’s website is to post obituaries and service information. A secondary purpose is to facilitate online condolences and the third is to sell funeral goods and services. This information is based on research CANA conducted among members, and it was well received by the panelists. The research showed that, among CANA members who post pricing, fewer than 1% of website visitors clicked on the pricing information. Additionally, the use of apps or social media largely supports backlinks to the provider’s website and is, therefore, not a replacement for a website. Advocates countered this argument by pointing to the fact that the death rate is about 1% of the population. While true, the death rate and clicks on pricing information have no direct connection. It is an interesting coincidence, I suppose. Discussions around fees were largely non-controversial. There was agreement on the advantages of the ability to discount basic service fees and the difficulties of requiring listing of cash advance items, including third party crematory fees, on the GPL. Basic service fees fall within control of the funeral provider, but cash advance items do not. There also seemed to be acknowledgement that “Direct Cremation” has become a package in the consumer’s mind. Cremation services have changed during the 40 years of the Funeral Rule, and one required item, Direct Cremation, does not meet the modern consumer’s needs. This is an exciting opportunity for our profession to influence the FTC on this topic. Are Consumers Happy with Funeral Providers?Everyone acknowledged that the number of complaints received by the FTC was astonishingly low. Consumer advocates argued that the low number of complaints is irrelevant because most consumers don't know how or where to complain. This is a decidedly weak argument as consumers certainly know how to complain to state boards or to consumer groups—who should point them to the state boards and FTC. I wish there had been more conversation about customer service versus actionable complaints. Wishing you knew more about options before making decisions is not an actionable complaint. Being told you had to embalm when you didn't could be actionable. On the breaks and during meals, I took the opportunity to speak with consumer advocates to network and build some trust. I heard overwhelmingly that consumers want to trust funeral providers. Where we differ is how to achieve that. Listen to Caitlin Doughty, Founder of the Order of the Good Death, make that point in the recent Ask a Mortician video. Her opinions aren’t necessarily the views of CANA, but it’s worth a watch. Everything Old is New AgainThe Workshop closed with a panel looking to the future. Despite some confusion on the part of one panelist about state regulatory issues versus the Funeral Rule, the comments were revealing. The same consumer preferences that are driving the cremation rate increase are fueling challenges to the Funeral Rule – participation, personalization, and possession. Looking to the future, the focus was on new forms of disposition, which currently compose less than 1% of dispositions in the states in which they are offered. But interest in new dispositions such as alkaline hydrolysis and natural organic reduction are also driven by these preferences. Green or natural burial isn’t new at all, but rather was the standard practice until the embalming “fad” became popular over the past 150 years. Throughout the Workshop, there was a strong emphasis on consumer choice and simplifying the GPL. Since the current GPL format and requirements relate to casketed, embalmed burial and cremation is merely an add-on, is it time to realign the GPL entirely to focus on memorialization first, then disposition and body preparation? Looking to the FutureEveryone in the room with me that day acknowledged that the Funeral Rule was designed for a world that no longer exists. Burial and embalming are in decline. Consumer control and participation are increasing. It isn't always about price—and NOR and AH should not be grouped with cremation for that reason, as well as environmental reasons. I was left with several outstanding questions:
The process continues. The true impact of these revisions will be revealed over coming years and decades. But these are big questions to grapple with and our future depends on it—so I urge you to stay involved. CANA certainly will be! As of the start of this week, 711 comments have been submitted post-Workshop, mostly by consumers. To read their thoughts and to submit your own remarks by the October 10 deadline, visit https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0034-0001/comment. With thanks to CANA Board Member Lindsey Ballard for capturing the moment and the photo in our header image. Find more of her photos and screencaps from the webcast on our Instagram page.
 During the multiple heat-related illness cases relating to the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was able to establish extreme heat being a major workplace hazard. However, the agency neglected to provide effective abatement techniques in the case. Due to this, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Review Commission (OSHRC) supported the decision made by the administrative law judge to vacate citations in all but one case. The CasesThese citations were related to seven employees working during the summer of 2016 in five cities. Every letter carrier experienced illness when they were out delivering mail in the extreme heat and had to get medical treatment. OSHA claimed that six of these workers became ill due to excessive heat. Five citations were filed against USPS for these alleged violations. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) vacated the five citations after finding that OSHA neglected to prove the workplace conditions were hazardous and that effective and feasible measures were accessible to abate the conditions. In four cases, the OSHRC agreed the agency established that the extreme heat conditions posed a hazard for the workers under the general duty clause but found the abatement suggestions OSHA made for the hazardous conditions for these cases fell short. For the fifth one, the OSHRC found that USPS indeed neglected to offer proper heat-related illness training to the supervisors. Therefore, this case was remanded for additional review. OSHA Failing to Prove Effective Abatement MeasuresAccording to OSHA, the USPS was in violation of the general duty clause as it failed to implement a proper program to manage exposure to extreme heat. Thus, OSHA suggested the following measures:
However, the USPS proved that it was already following most of these measures or was already in the process of implementing them. Employers Must Establish Heat Illness Prevention Plans With Proper TrainingThis recent incident highlights the significance of a detailed heat illness prevention plan. Employers must not only have a written plan implemented but also provide sufficient training to their workers. Based on guidance provided by OSHA, supervisors must be trained to:
Aside from this, the guidance also recommends employers create a heat illness prevention plan that:
Training must be provided to workers to spot stages and signs of heat illness, steps to report them, provide appropriate first aid when needed, and understand how and when to get emergency medical assistance. This post, excerpted with approval from The Federal Regulatory Review published in August 2023, is provided by Regulatory Support Services, Inc. for informational purposes only. Nothing contained in this publication should be construed as legal advice. It is always recommended that you consult your legal counsel for legal advice specific to your business.
CANA members receive a 10% discount on annual contract for OSHA and other training, services, and guidance from Paul Harris and Regulatory Support Services. Not a member? Consider joining your business to access tools, techniques, statistics, and advice to help you understand how to grow the range of services and products you can offer, ensuring your business is a good fit for every member of your community – only $495!
|
The Cremation Logs Blog
Cremation experts share the latest news, trends, and creative advice for industry professionals. Register or log in to subscribe and stay engaged with all things cremation. Categories
All
Archives
December 2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS Feed