By Jack Cumming

The other day we reported, in an article titled “Heartless News,” on a long-term CCRC resident who was given three days’ notice to vacate her apartment after her funds ran out. We’ve since learned that, in addition to the $249,000 entrance fee she paid in 2002 to what was then a not-for-profit, she paid an additional $1 million plus in monthly fees before her funds ran out.

Her situation was desperate, but myriad resources came to her aid, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had approved the sale of the not-for-profit community to for-profit Pacifica Senior Living. Other capable agencies also rushed to protect Ms. Jacques, the elderly woman.

Good News

Now we have learned from Bob Sadler, president of the residents association for the community, that “Pacifica reversed the decision and is issuing paperwork that allows her to stay the rest of her life.” That’s wonderful news.

Checking further, it appears that Pacifica is merely managing its business interests, as one might expect any for-profit enterprise to do, and as many not-for-profits do as well. For instance, on May 26, 2023, Pacifica gave 30 days’ notice to vacate to the residents of its assisted living community in Millcreek, Utah. Although that, too, produced an initial outcry in the local press, Pacifica responded:

We have reassured all residents and families we’ve communicated with that we will allow extra time for those who need it. There is no threat of being displaced. We will work with all families and residents on relocation. And of course, we will refund any resident for days paid if they move out prior to that time. This is something we normally do with all resident[s] who move an[d] this would be no different.

Later, in response to an inquiry from a news outlet, a Pacifica spokesperson explained the business rationale for the Millcreek action:

We have owned the community for several years and through the COVID pandemic and it simply never recovered to pre-pandemic levels. While we have many senior living communities across the country, we also operate multifamily and over-55 housing locations, and we have converted a few of our communities to that model and they have flourished. As a result, we made the decision to do the same with our Millcreek location.

Missteps

Similar considerations may be at play in the Pacific Grove, California, situation, and it may just be that Pacifica handled the situation in a ham-handed way, or that the local corporate officer managing the property simply didn’t fully understand Pacifica’s values and corporate persona.

The course of wisdom for providers dealing with the sensitivities of a vulnerable elderly demographic is to be very judicious and compassionate in all communications. It’s especially important not to ambush residents, or their families, with legal requirements before communicating all that the provider is doing to ameliorate any ill effects and to stay within the reasonable bounds of acceptable human conduct.

Need for Industry Response

This is a sensitive area that the industry would be wise to address through its trade associations, regulatory agencies, and accreditation bodies so that the public can have some comfort about the humanity of corporations serving those who are aging, those who are old, and especially those who are very old.

Lastly, since we’re following up on a previous story, ABC’s Good Morning America program had a short report on the residential cruise ship ownership program that we reported on in the article “Villa Vie Residences.”