By Jack Cumming

It’s only natural for residents moving into independent living in a CCRC to think that they will be collaborators with the owners in their new home. Part of the marketing covenant is that residents trade independent home ownership for collaboration with experts in aging.

Moving into a CCRC requires a leap of faith. It’s a trust undertaking in which residents believe that they are paying the provider to act in harmony with them as they age.

Trust

Many residents sell homes they love and own to raise the money to pay an entrance fee. They trust in good faith that their “investment” will be used to ensure the promise of lifetime residency and care. Few read the many clauses in their residency and care agreements. They trust the providers and the regulators to do the right thing.

Residents assume in good faith that the provider is committed to giving them the lifetime care and security that they have been offered. They don’t expect the interpretation of every contractual clause to be used to their disadvantage. They are trusting.

They believe that providers, especially not-for-profit providers, understand that the relationship is one of mutuality and trust. It can be a shock when residents believe, rightly or wrongly, that they’ve been left out of a lopsided undertaking in which providers are paramount. Only the most desperate would voluntarily choose to leave a home they love to live as second-class citizens in a home in which they are not fully respected.

The Weak and the Strong

When there’s a difference between providers and residents, residents are the weaker party. Many residents come to senior living expecting to have peace of mind and surcease of care. Their belief in that trusting hope can lead them to be more than willing to acquiesce in whatever the provider decides. It’s likely that those prospective residents who want to have input into governance just stay put in the larger community.

This power disparity came up recently in Florida. In Florida, the dominant not-for-profit providers are represented by LeadingAge Southeast. LeadingAge Southeast, like most state LeadingAge organizations, serves IRC 501(c)(3) qualified senior living providers.

Specifically, the organization declares itself to be “The premier association serving high-quality senior living providers across the continuum of care in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.” “High-quality” may connote tax exemption primarily.

Residents, in response to their exclusion from the providers’ organization, formed FLiCRA (the Florida LifeCare Residents Association). Roughly half the residents in the state are FliCRA members. That is, I believe, a more robust resident membership than any other resident organization.

The regulator is the Office of Insurance Regulation, which has the expert capabilities found in many state insurance departments. The OIR is professionally committed to sound regulation for Florida senior living residents.

Seeking Cooperation

For many years, it’s been the custom for FLiCRA and LeadingAge Southeast to work together constructively on a legislative agenda. This year was no exception, and the legislator sponsoring the bill worked collaboratively with the OIR, LeadingAge Southeast, and FLiCRA to find common ground.

A joint workgroup of providers and residents met from June to December 2025 to examine Florida Statute 651 for possible changes. Both associations’ boards of directors reached consensus on over fifty pages of proposed statute changes in December 2025.

Areas of agreement reached among FLiCRA, LeadingAge Southeast, and OIR include provisions to increase financial transparency, strengthen resident protections when providers run into trouble, clarify accountability, give residents a clearer voice when changes are discussed, and give regulators earlier warning signs and more tools when finances deteriorate.

Off the Rails

No one benefits when providers fail or resident grievances roil the market for senior living. Still, despite the months of discussions and the best efforts of a wise and committed legislator, the effort for providers and residents to work together has failed. Why? The best explanation that I have found is “There remain issues of philosophical and policy disagreement between OIR and LeadingAge Southeast.”

“Issues of philosophical and policy disagreement” might lead one to think that there is an anti-business political bias that LeadingAge Southeast found unacceptable. Without knowing the specific thinking that led to the failure of comity, we can only speculate.

It’s Not Politics

The Republican Party in Florida controls the governorship, both houses of the state legislature, and all statewide cabinet offices. Thus, Republican pro-business thinking has shaped the OIR with leadership appointments and oversight. The “philosophy” difference cannot be an anti-business political bias.

For a resident like me, this disconnect between providers and residents is concerning. When I moved into senior housing in 2006, the biggest, unexpected discovery was how providers viewed their residents. I didn’t expect that providers would view residents who are less than complacent and grateful as adversaries.

I expected that the relationship would be one of cooperation to improve the lives of older people. Why isn’t that the case? Why are resident fees used to fund trade associations to advocate for business interests over the well-being of those same residents? That’s a subject that I’ll be addressing in future articles.

This is one in a series of articles exploring how providers, residents, and resident families might work together for better aging.