|
ICFA Responds to NYT Anti-Preneed News Report
On August 14 the ICFA sent the following letter to the editor of The New York Times in response to an article advising readers against prefinancing their funeral arrangements.
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
Re: "The Perils of Planning One's Own Prepaid Funeral;" 8/12/01
Dear Editor:
Your August 12th story on the so-called "Perils of Planning One's Own Prepaid Funeral" provided no context for the greater perils of "at-need" funeral purchasing where family members, with little or no advance planning, often grief-stricken at the death or imminent death of a loved one, are required by circumstances to make hurried decisions involving thousands of dollars. The Federal Trade Commission said it best when it documented the severely disadvantaged position of consumers when making "at-need" arrangements. These include emotional trauma, guilt, dependency and suggestibility, ignorance, and time pressure. Prearranged or "preneed" funeral plans can substantially reduce, and may eliminate, all of these factors.
The Times article missed a number of opportunities to help consumers become informed preneed shoppers. For example, if consumers are receiving unwanted phone calls from a funeral home or cemetery, they can tell the caller to place them on its "Don't Call" list that is mandated by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as well as under many state telemarketing laws. These laws also establish time limits when calls can be made. The funeral services industries' own codes of ethics and model guidelines prohibit calls to hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices. Moreover, most preneed phone calls seek only to determine the level of interest in making prearrangements and whether a mutually convenient time for a meeting can be scheduled. If your readers had this type of information, they could easily detect the bad apples.
Instead, the Times story seemed intent on persuading readers to avoid making prearrangements, ignoring the usual outcome that thrusts survivors into frantic at-need decision-making. A few highly anecdotal stories were presented while the fact that over 5,500 funerals and burials are performed each day in the United States went unmentioned. A consumer advocate was quoted as saying that there are "a lot of complaints about cemeteries" without any effort on the Times' part to document or quantify this claim. Two years ago, industry critics were claiming that the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into funeral services sales practices would result in a scathing indictment of the profession. But when the GAO published its findings in September 1999 and found a very low number of consumer complaints, these same industry critics promptly forgot the investigation ever took place. It is unfortunate that the Times forgot about it too.
Similar to other end-of-life issues, funeral planning should be given adequate time and consideration before decisions are made. Comparison shopping for funerals, burials, and related services has never been easier thanks to the Internet and the many web sites that provide price and product information. Survey data indicates that almost 80 percent of the American public thinks prearranging one's funeral is smart, yet only about 25 percent have done anything about it.
The misguided concept, given uncritical coverage in your story, that funeral homes and cemeteries should, like children, be seen and not heard only perpetuates the emotionally-wrenching cycle of at-need funeral purchasing from generation to generation. State laws that prohibit any form of marketing prepaid funeral plans are anti-competitive and anti-consumer, even the Federal Trade Commission has said so. The public has shown a keen interest in making prearrangements; let's help them avoid the problems instead of suggesting they should forget about it. What help will industry critics be when family members must make costly decisions on the worst day of their lives?
Very truly yours,
Robert M. Fells
External Chief Operating Officer
and General Counsel
*********************************************************************************************
|
