By Jack Cumming

What kind of resident would you be if you were 87 years old and living in an entrance-fee Life Plan Community (CCRC)? Would your CCRC be new and shiny, middle-aged and a bit careworn, or very old and shabby but filled with love? Would you be a resident at all?

These were questions that coursed through my mind as I listened to a recent LeadingAge “conversation about capital market and finance trends to watch for 2026.” LeadingAge’s focus was on capital markets and the strategic outlook for the senior housing industry’s business and profit interests.

A discussion on resident experience, services, living conditions, empowerment, life enrichment, or care models might have placed residents at the center. This conversation was about money. Implied is that demographics will bring sufficient paying residents.

Not-for-profit Experts

The panel consisted of Stuart Jackson, executive vice president (Greystone,) Rich Scanlon, senior managing director (Ziegler), Katelyn McCauley, VP of senior living research (Ziegler), and Dana Anders, senior living & care segment leader (CliftonLarsonAllen). I listened in as a financially-expert resident, though there was no resident expert on the panel of experts. The only mention of residents was of the potential bonanza from the baby boomer demographic surge.

It’s common in not-for-profit CCRCs for resident entrance fees to anchor the equity funding. In the for-profit world, providing equity funding comes with ownership and usually a democratic voice in governance. Moreover, specifically for CCRCs, investor equity funding in for-profit enterprises cushions residents from financial risk. Not-for-profits lack that cushion.

The privileges that come with equity investing in for-profits are reserved for the state in the case of not-for-profits. Generally, that means that the executives exercise ownership with little oversight. Regulatory oversight varies widely from state to state, but is nowhere near as robust as the comparable state oversight of the insurance industry.

Money and Taxes

The financial experts on the panel are in business to advise and assist the executives, primarily of not-for-profits. Resident interests are represented only to the extent that executives are concerned with them. Advising is a lucrative business.

The advising experts are also financial mainstay supporters of LeadingAge. LeadingAge and Ziegler have a long-standing, 20+ year partnership to produce the LeadingAge Ziegler 200 ranking of nonprofit senior living organizations. Greystone is recognized as a “Gold Partner” of LeadingAge, and they collaborate on events such as the Ziegler Greystone Executive Symposium.

LeadingAge is a large 501(c)(3) organization representing over 5,000 members with revenue streams from dues, conferences, and various products. Although trade associations are recognized by the IRC under 501(c)(6), LeadingAge maintains the more favorable 501(c)(3) qualification, presumably as an educational organization. Donors to 501(c)(3) organizations may deduct contributions from their federal income taxes, while 501(c)(6) donors cannot.

Comrades In A Cause

Among the panelists and the LeadingAge facilitator, there was jollity, camaraderie, and commiseration. The jollity related to next fall’s Philadelphia conference. Rich Scanlon agreed to play the kazoo at the event. The camaraderie came from years of working together profitably in the not-for-profit, tax-exempt senior housing space. The commiseration was in response to a McKnight’s article that appeared on the day of the session. McKnight’s reported:

“Bankruptcy filings in the senior living and care sector increased 18% year over year in 2025, making the sector the only one in healthcare other than hospitals to see an increase, according to a new report from healthcare restructuring advisory firm Gibbins Advisors.”

Reaction

Since the panelists all profit from the industry just as it is, they see no reason for change. Primarily, they advocate growth to meet anticipated demographic demand. It’s not surprising that they saw the McKnight’s report as flawed. National Investment Center (NIC) data were cited as evidence for a prosperous future.

After complaints about data categorization in the McKnight’s story, one panelist remarked, “I would also maybe talk just about the absolute numbers on that, because it’s, like, bankruptcies are up 60%, it’s, you know. It’s a terrible thing, but it also says that it went from 5 to 8, so… the thresholds… still pretty small there.” Actually, the 5 to 8 figure was for hospitals; there were 13 “Senior Care filings.” For resident entrance fee investors in those thirteen communities, that’s concerning. Since entrance fees are the primary source of equity, we have to conclude that those residents’ entrance fee investments are gone… lost.

Happy Talk Only

The discussion was kumbaya, and then time ran out, so there was no time for discussion of anything that might have been more substantive. Moreover, there is no LeadingAge forum to facilitate such discussion.

That absence of the grassroots voice deserves some thought. Might LeadingAge better serve its mission, “to be the trusted voice for aging,” by collaborating with those served as well as those serving? If LeadingAge does extend its advocacy to residents, it should be robust and not tokenistic.

In a free society, trust and loyalty are two-way. Opportunity is knocking, and some residents are asking to be admitted, while others don’t think it possible. Still others are followers by nature and love a structured culture in which executives act unilaterally. Inclusion governance is messy, but LeadingAge and other organizations can be stronger when they are inclusive. I hope it doesn’t take a crisis to bring residents into the conversation.