A recent report (November 2025) from the State of New York Department of Health with the results of an audit “which covered April 2019 through November 2023, concluded that the state Department of Health and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene must improve oversight and coordination to address significant deficiencies in the practice of funeral directing” according to the reporting from this article in the Albany (NY) Times Union.

The audit covered that time period listed above in which, according to the report there were 801,421 deaths in the state.  There is some interesting data in the report that I found, but before I report on that I’ll post what seemed to interest the New York State Department of Health and the various news sources.

The audit report, in its entirety from the Department of Health can be found here.

Among other issues, here are four areas where the report mentioned that New York’s funeral establishments can improve:

• Risks with handling of remains.  In this area the report suggested four areas that could be improved upon.

1.  Verifying deaths by the funeral director via pulsation and and listening for a heartbeat via stethoscope or putting an ear over the chest.  Audit workers confirmed that a full 1/2 of funeral directors who were asked said they did not perform these verifications of death.
2.  Funeral directors could reduce mis-identification by labeling or tagging of bodies
3.  There is a “lack of assurance of acceptable preparation rooms”.  Evidently in 2006 the NY DOH stopped inspections and now relies on an annual photo of the preparation room.  Some firms seem to submit the same photo year-after-year so there is no “assurance” the room is in compliance.
4. Burial and cremation permits are not to be issued until after the Death Certificate has been filed.  Evidently, it is widespread not to follow this practice as the audit found 2,545 death certificates that were registered after the disposition took place.  Those death certificates came from 872 different funeral directors.

• Funeral Director and Firm Registrations.

1. It seems that the biggest issue with this point is that there may be funeral homes with multiple branches where some of those multiple branches are not registered.

• Death certificates with duplicate or no Social Security numbers.

1. The audit found 773 Social Security numbers that were used for more than one person.  That affected 146 death certificates and these certificates were filed by 111 funeral directors from 108 funeral firms.

• Reporting firm closures and other firm changes. 

1. There is somewhat of a “muddled” situation between primary firms and secondary firms at the same locations.  Because of no inspections the DOH has reason to believe that many of these licenses are not up to date and or correct.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Funeral Director Daily take:  As so often happens with these types of reports authored by those not in the Death Care profession, much gets lost in the translation of what really is important.   For instance, when you have 773 Social Security numbers that are duplicated that means one thing if it is on a 10,000 death caseload, but it means a completely different thing if that is in the context of over 800,000 deaths.

And yes, funeral directors should be reporting those numbers correct, but in most instances, they are at the mercy of the number that was provided them by the family.  Keeping proper records should be a goal of all in the profession.

Also, the problem with the prep room photos and the potential for funeral director and funeral firm registrations probably gets corrected if the New York State Health Department puts an inspector or two back on the road to check on these establishments.  My guess, is that the State has other priorities that take the resources that should probably be used for this purpose but are designated for other programs.  . . . and, if you don’t fund inspections, then you cannot expect to find the bad actors in the bunch.

The State of New York is scheduled for a 2026 annual budget of $254 billion.  If better funeral home enforcement was a priority, it would probably take less than $500,000 to make it happen.

Finally. . . some statistics I found interesting:  One of the statistics I found very interesting in the audit was one you could probably only get from an audit of Death Certificates.  It was the statistic on the place of death.  Here’s what they found for those New York residents between 2019 and 2023 — a period that did cover the pandemic era deaths:

1.  46.3%  –  Hospital
2.  30.8%  –  Residence
3.  17.2%  –  Nursing Home
4.    3.4%  –  Hospice Facility

Anecdotally, I think those numbers represent a real change from when I started in the profession in 1980.  And, I think the change represents the value of Hospice and how it has moved forward and been almost universally accepted.  My guess, is that when I started the ranking would have been (1) Nursing Home, (2) Hospital, (3) Residence.  I think the higher ranking of Residence at this time reflects the fact that many in those residences are receiving Hospice care at home.

I also wonder if Hospital deaths are higher than normal on this list, simply because it was conducted during some of the pandemic era dates.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,201 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

Oklahoma House Bill #1029 which would have extended the “Sunset of the Oklahoma Funeral Board” for one year, among other issues, was vetoed when it reached Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s desk.

Update — After this article was written the Oklahoma legislature went back to work and passed House Bill 2286 which extends the Oklahoma Funeral Board until 2029.  Governor Stitt did not sign nor veto that bill letting it silently become law.  We are continuing to run this Funeral Director Daily article that was composed before that law passed because the issues of why the Governor vetoed the previous bill are, in my opinion, still relevant.

This article from Oklahoma Public Radio makes this comment about the veto, “The veto cancels a one-year extension of the board’s sunset. State agencies often have sunset dates to ensure they remain necessary and effective.”

That same article also makes this statement, ” (the veto) effectively dissolves the board, and unless other legislation revives it, (Oklahoma Funeral Board executive Tyler) Stiles said it’s unclear who will be in charge of licensing funeral homes, crematories, funeral directors and embalmers.”

Note — New legislation did revive the board as mentioned in the Update.

The following is Governor Stitt’s published reasoning for vetoing the bill:

“Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution, I have vetoed Enrolled House Bill 1029. HB 1029 would extend the life of the Oklahoma Funeral Board—a state agency that, by now, should be consolidated under a more appropriate umbrella. For too long, the Funeral Board has shielded the funeral industry from meaningful competition in the sale of caskets, urns, and other funeral related merchandise and services. These barriers keep prices artificially high for grieving families. Instead of modernizing, the Board has preserved outdated regulations and entangled businesses in unnecessary red tape. Before granting another sunset extension, the Legislature should seriously evaluate where this Board belongs and what its core duties should be. Until the Funeral Board becomes more accountable and responsive to legislative oversight, its continuation should not be rubber-stamped. For these reasons, I have vetoed Enrolled House Bill 1029.”

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Funeral Director Daily take:  Living in Minnesota I don’t know the full actions behind this bill and the veto.  However, it appears to me that Governor Stitt’s published reasoning portrays a sense that he believes that funeral directors are too protective of their businesses and that that protectionism is interfering with the public consumer’s ability to purchase Death Care choices in a free and open market.

What is great about the freedom in America is that any right or guarantee not expressed, or added to by legislation, in our  country’s founding documents becomes an issue of the individual states. . . . that’s why most funeral home rules and regulations are state regulations.

It’s why in some states you cannot own a cemetery and a funeral home. . . .Or in some states why you cannot serve food in your funeral business. . . . .Or in some states why you need a college degree to practice mortuary science and other states you don’t need that degree. . .  And, I think how those rulings come to be state regulations is important — the decisions are made closer to the people who must abide by them . . . . instead of in Washington, DC.

In my opinion, in today’s day and age when you can purchase almost anything online a regulatory barrier of having to be a licensed funeral home to sell a casket or urn to a consumer would certainly be looked at as a regulation that stifles competition.  It’s probably a rule or regulation that has out-grown its purpose.

If that is one of the issues causing the non-renewal of the funeral licensing board I would suggest that Oklahoma’s funeral homes have a visit with the governor.  Without some type of compromise it looks like Oklahoma may be on its way to non-regulation of the funeral profession and that is certainly not a good look for the profession nor a way to look out for the funeral consumers of Oklahoma.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,164 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

The “Funeral Rule” came into effect in April 1984.  That’s 40 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong. . . . I’m an advocate for consumer protections.  The “Funeral Rule” was supposed to offer those protections back in 1984. But in my opinion, the actual reality of the rule ever since it was implemented, has never seriously helped consumers in search of information on how to compare and purchase funeral and memorialization services.

Without going into too much detail, it has been my opinion that since the implementation, the format of the rule and the requirements for notifying the public of it have been too complicated and burdensome for the consumers it was meant to protect.  From my point of view, the rule seemed to stress the charges involved with what was a “traditional casketed burial with services”.  Since the time of implementation, death care and how and what consumers choose for their death services have changed . . . and changed dramatically.

Again, without going into too much detail, I think it is time for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to look at exactly how consumers of today look at their death care purchase options.  No longer do they simply defer to the traditions and mores of the church they worship at, but they look at all the growing options that are available — which is many more and many different options than those options available in 1984.

I’m in somewhat of a unique position to look at today’s consumers and their interactions and choices of death care options.  I’ve owned and operated a funeral home, I have been a front-line funeral home arranger for 33 years, I study and write on the changes and other business interests of death care professionals, and I’m a retired member of communities and churches who hears a lot of what my fellow retirees are looking for in death care.

For what it is worth, here are what I see as the major decisions of every death care consumer.

1. Choice of Disposition
2. Choice of Celebration
3. Choice of Memorialization

Those choices differ from what was available in 1984.  In 1984 consumers basically chose from earth burial and cremation.  There were some variables of such, but in general if a family told the funeral director that they wanted earth burial, the funeral director knew, dependent on the church traditions, how that funeral would be carried out and the charges that would be incurred by the family, including cemetery items.  The same was true, in most cases, for cremation memorial services.

Forty years later however, the “choice matrix” of consumers has drastically changed and the FTC should understand  that and not implement changes to a rule that does not reflect that growing choice matrix complexity.  Here are some of my thoughts on today’s consumer choices:

Disposition:  Disposition of the dead human body is the only requirement that needs to be purchased because of legal reasons.  Something has to be done and a family has to choose which disposition method to be used for their loved one.  Choices might include earth burial with embalming, earth burial without embalming, cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, natural organic reduction, or body donation (followed by the institution’s final choice of disposition).

It is also quite possible that a going-concern business may operate dealing in only the disposition of the human remains and not offer services such as celebrations and memorialization.  Businesses that feature “disposition” only that come to mind are some online cremation providers and some natural organic reduction providers.

Celebrations/Services/Tributes:  The 2nd death care choice of those I talk to is an optional choice that I term the Celebration/Service/Tribute.  This is something that is not required and even when a consumer family chooses a gathering, there is no guarantee that they will use a traditional funeral home for the logistic planning and/or venue.

Here’s some examples of Celebration/Service/Tribute companies that compete with traditional funeral venues for this business.  It’s my belief that over time more and more families will opt for the services and venues that these companies, and others like them, provide.

As we move forward and the off-funeral home site venues become more practical, I believe that wedding venues, that are traditionally used during the weekends, may be re-branded as “Tribute Venues”.   It’s my opinion that you will see more and more death care memorial-type events held at these venues on weekdays.

Here’s a venue near me that one would think is perfect for this type of business during the week days.  I found it quite by accident, but it offers facilities for services and for hospitality such as meals.  I think the evolutionary future for this type of venue will be as a Tribute/Conference center that will include gathering and meal services for Death Care in its options.

Memorialization: The third leg of the stool that I see in death care consumer choices is what I will term “Memorialization”.  This is the purchase choice of how families decide to “Memorialize” their loved-one for the long term.  Again, this can be an optional choice and it can be a choice that does not have to be decided immediately at the time of death.

Obviously, if the Disposition choice is some type of earth burial then this choice involves a decision regarding a cemetery and monument and at least the cemetery lot decision needs to be done at the time of death.  However, if the family would choose a Disposition method such as cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, or natural organic reduction, this choice can be delayed and it may not involve the funeral home or other company used for the Disposition.

This memorialization process of the family can be as simple as an obituary placed on Legacy.com or it might be with such memorialization processes such as Better Place Forests or in a scattering garden.  It may be solidified remains such as Parting Stone.  There are any number of choices available to families including urns kept at home and scattering of remains.

The fact is that some of these options can be purchased through a funeral home, but many don’t need to be.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

The Final Thought:  The death care thought process of the American consumer has changed much since the inception of the FTC Funeral Rule in 1984.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the rule, but I believe that simply re-writing a rule that places so much emphasis on the General Price List and costs such as embalming, costs for use of vehicles, and  use of facilities costs misses the mark when the options that the American consumer now chooses for death care disposition, celebrations, and memorialization has changed so drastically.

It’s my opinion that if the rule is to protect the American consumer and explain the decisions necessary to them about their choices, then a whole-new perspective on global choices possible and available by the American consumer should be part of the discussion.  If they are not we end up with a rule based on 1984 consumer thought processes that does little to protect, or educate, the American consumer on death care purchase options.  . . . . . . The “same old, same old” thought process in formulating this rule is a lazy and ineffective way for the Federal Trade Commission to proceed.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,120 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

As my first post of the New Year I find it imperative that I look into the world of Death Care, Funeral, and Cremation business with a perspective of change that is happening all around us.  And, when I look at that change, I think in our Death Care world, as well as the rapid changes in our nation and world in general, the implications are passing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and their review of the “Funeral Rule” by.

The “Funeral Rule” was put into law in April 1984 as a mandate for consumers to be able to compare and look at prices of funeral and cremation services without having to commit to those services by a funeral home for a deceased loved one.  It was seen as a much needed tool for consumers in their selection of a funeral/cremation service provider.  The FTC was the regulatory agency that was selected to handle the implementation and enforcement of the rule.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

In my opinion, almost since the very inception of “The Rule” in 1984 it has not done what it was intended to do.  That’s partly because it was complicated in nature and used a Death Care vocabulary of services that the public was not well versed in.  And secondly, almost since its inception, America started turning from a world of funerals to a world of cremations.  I’m not so sure that the FTC saw that coming.

For the record, I’m not against regulation and consumer protection.  But, I’m afraid if the FTC comes up with a final revision of the rule going forward in the near future, they will be in the exact same position  — authors of a rule which is already behind the times.

I say that because consumers purchase things in different ways today. . . .a process that is continually evolving.  And while, at least to me, the FTC has concentrated their review partially on the availability of consumers to see prices on the internet — internet purchasing is only one of the ways that things are changing in the Death Care business.   From what I understand, so much of the FTC’s vision has been focused on website and internet purchasing that they may be missing part of how consumers are buying Death Care services.  (More on that in an upcoming column).

Another reason I suggest a slow-down of any FTC decision is the recent (June 2024) decision by the United States Supreme Court known as the “Chevron” decision.  The ruling “struck-down” an old precedent that gave the FTC much more power in these types of regulations.  That 2024 decision which is defined like this —  “The Chevron doctrine was a 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent that required courts to defer to regulatory agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws” —  probably means that one might question what can the FTC do as to funeral home regulations when there is no clear-cut Congressionally passed law to back their regulations.

Finally, come January 20, 2025, there will be a new Presidential administration in Washington, DC.  If you believe what you read, this administration will be more open to less regulations in business and industry.  Here’s a recent article from Reuters about that titled, “Trump names Andrew Ferguson to head the Federal Trade Commission”.

Again, I’m all for consumer protections. . . . but, with what we now know about the changes in consumer behavior, the Supreme Court “Chevron” ruling, and the change of administration in Washington, DC, I think it would be a mistake for the current FTC to move “full-speed ahead” without acknowledging that if they do, their rule will more than likely be “obsolete” in reality the minute it is printed.

Related Material:

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,111 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”