Petunia Resource Center · Senior Living Referral Transparency

What Families Should Know: States Are Requiring More Transparency From Senior Living Referral Companies

A state-by-state breakdown of what families should expect when it comes to referral fees, before they sign anything.

Last updated: August 2026 · For informational purposes only. Not legal advice.

Illustration of a puppeteer controlling several small figures on strings, representing how commission-driven referral services steer families while the community pays the fee.

The Transparency Gap Nobody Talks About

When a family begins looking for Assisted Living or Memory Care for a Loved One, one of the first resources many of them find is a senior care referral company. These services position themselves as free advisors who help families navigate a confusing market. And in many respects, they do provide a useful service.

But the business model of these services is rarely made clear upfront. The referral company is almost never paid by the family. It is paid by the Community that the family ultimately chooses. And those fees can be substantial.

200K+

Americans placed annually through commission-driven referral services

$10K+

Typical referral fee per placement, paid by the Community to the referral service

7 states

Have enacted laws requiring disclosure of these financial relationships

Petunia research

That is the Transparency Gap. And across the country, state legislatures are beginning to close it.

This page summarizes what each of the eight states reviewed actually requires, where the gaps remain, and what families can do right now to protect themselves regardless of which state they live in.

What Is a Senior Care Referral Company?

Senior care referral companies (sometimes called placement agencies or senior living advisors) offer families a list of Communities that may be appropriate for a Loved One. They conduct intake interviews, tour Communities on a family's behalf, and help narrow the options. In many cases, their staff have genuine knowledge of the local market.

The defining feature of commission-driven referral services is their payment structure. When a family places a Loved One in a Community recommended by the service, the Community pays the referral company a fee. The family pays nothing directly. The fee is typically not disclosed unless the family asks, and in most states, there is no legal requirement to disclose the exact dollar amount.

Family

Looking for help to find the right Community

Shares info with

Referral Service

Recommends Communities it has contracts with

Recommends

Senior Living Community

Where the family moves their Loved One

The referral service is paid by the Community, not the family, so it's incentivized to recommend whichever Communities it has fee agreements with, not the best fit for your Loved One.

Referral fees paid to placement companies can equal one to one-and-a-half months of a Resident's rent. At prevailing Assisted Living rates, that can mean a fee of $4,000 to $10,000 or more. The family learns about the fee only if they ask.

The Legislative Landscape: Where States Stand Today

The following summaries are drawn from publicly available state statutes, administrative codes, and legislative summaries. Laws can change; verify current status with a licensed attorney in your state. This is not legal advice.

Arizona

Most Protective

SB 1477 (2026), amending A.R.S. § 36-446.14

A.R.S. § 36-446.14

Disclosure required?

Yes: business and financial ties, plus the fee amount or a good-faith estimate

Consent required?

Yes: signed acknowledgment required before a fee can be paid

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Yes: exact amount or good-faith estimate required

Other protections

Fee capped at 50% of first month's rent (25% for stays under 30 days) · $1M/$3M liability insurance required · Civil fines up to $1,000 per violation

Strength

The only state reviewed that requires disclosure of the fee amount itself, not just that a fee exists, and the only one that caps the fee as a percentage of rent. Updated by SB 1477 in the 2026 session on top of the original 2018 law.

Still unclear:

Enforcement runs through the Attorney General or county attorneys; the statute as reviewed does not spell out a separate private right of action for families.

Maryland

Enacted

Health-General § 19-1813

Disclosure required?

Yes: all financial relationships and services

Consent required?

Yes: plus state registration required

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Relationships disclosed; not the dollar amount

Other protections

2-year fee cap · Background checks · Liability insurance · Medical record confidentiality · Data-sale ban without written consent

Strength

One of the broadest consumer-protective frameworks reviewed. Public registration, multi-layered disclosure, background checks, liability insurance, medical record confidentiality, a ban on selling client data without written consent, and a two-year limit on when a referral fee may be requested after placement.

Still unclear:

Requires disclosure of financial relationships, not the exact dollar amount of each fee.

California

Enacted

Health & Safety Code § 1569.47

Disclosure required?

Yes: written, electronic, or verbal before referral

Consent required?

Yes: disclosure-before-referral model

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Compensated referrals disclosed; no dollar cap

Other protections

Licensing framework creates baseline accountability

Strength

Licensing requirement; disclosure-before-referral model.

Still unclear:

No statutory cap on the fee amount.

Colorado

Enacted

HB 19-1268 (2019) and HB 20-1101 (2020)

C.R.S. § 6-1-729

Disclosure required?

Yes: agency-Community relationships and that a fee is received

Consent required?

Yes: written agreement allowing cancellation at any time

Exact fee amount disclosed?

No explicit requirement found

Other protections

Bans selling contact information without written consent · $500 civil penalty per violation, enforced by the Attorney General or a district attorney

Strength

A clear disclosure-and-consent framework with a real enforcement mechanism: a $500-per-violation civil penalty the Attorney General or a district attorney can pursue, plus an outright ban on selling a family's contact information without written consent.

Still unclear:

No explicit requirement to disclose the exact fee amount paid by the Community.

Washington

Enacted

HB 1494, Elder and Vulnerable Adult Referral Agency Act

RCW 18.330

Disclosure required?

Yes: fees and terms upfront

Consent required?

Yes: consumer authorization built in

Exact fee amount disclosed?

No explicit requirement found

Other protections

$1M liability insurance minimum · Background checks every 24 months · Standardized referral intake forms

Strength

Early, structural protections; consumer authorization before placement.

Still unclear:

No explicit requirement to disclose the precise dollar amount of the referral fee.

Georgia

Enacted

SB 439, Fair Business Practices Act Amendment (effective July 1, 2026)

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.22

Disclosure required?

Yes: business, financial, and contractual relationships

Consent required?

Yes: written, electronic, or verbal acknowledgment of receipt

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Existence disclosed; no dollar requirement

Other protections

24-month fee-collection window (resubmission allowed after 12 months)

Strength

Acknowledgment model with teeth: a referral agency cannot collect a fee without proof of the signed disclosure, and families have the statutory right to terminate all services, including use of their personal data, at any time.

Still unclear:

Existence of the fee is disclosed; the exact dollar amount is not.

Texas

Enacted

SB 1383, Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121 (effective September 1, 2025)

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 121

Disclosure required?

Yes: services, payment responsibility, right to stop at any time, and notice the list is not exhaustive

Consent required?

No: written disclosure only, no signed acknowledgment required

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Payment responsibility identified; no dollar amount required

Other protections

Bans referrals to owned or managed Communities · Requires license-status audits · Criminal background checks on consumer-facing staff

Strength

The only state reviewed with an explicit ban on referring families to a Community the referral agency owns, manages, or holds a financial interest in, plus a requirement that the agency itself audit every Community's license status before referring.

Still unclear:

No requirement for a signed consumer acknowledgment before a referral is made, and no dollar amount required in the fee disclosure.

Missouri

Failed (2025 and 2026)

HB 390 (2025), reintroduced as HB 2463 (2026)

Disclosure required?

Would have required: financial relationship and fee existence

Consent required?

Would have required: consent before contact info is shared

Exact fee amount disclosed?

Not addressed, even in either failed bill

Other protections

Civil fines up to $500 per violation (proposed, not enacted)

Strength

HB 390 and its 2026 reintroduction, HB 2463, would have added one of the strongest consent-before-sharing provisions of any state reviewed: explicit consent required before a family's contact information could be shared with any Community.

Current status:

Failed twice: died in committee in 2025, then stalled after committee approval in 2026. None of these protections are currently law in Missouri.

The Common Thread and the Common Gap

Across every state reviewed, there is a shared pattern. Each state that has enacted legislation has moved toward requiring some form of disclosure and, in most cases, some form of consumer consent. That is meaningful progress. Families in those seven states have at least a legal basis for expecting a conversation about financial relationships before they engage a referral service. Missouri has tried twice, in 2025 and again in 2026, and both attempts followed the same pattern but failed before becoming law, a reminder that this protection isn't guaranteed just because a bill is introduced.

What almost no state requires

Arizona is the only state reviewed that requires disclosure of the exact dollar amount of the referral fee, or a good-faith estimate. In every other state reviewed, families may be told “a fee exists.” They are rarely told “that fee is $6,500.”

What Families Should Demand (Regardless of State Law)

State law sets a floor. It does not set a ceiling. Regardless of where you live, families navigating Senior Living decisions have the right to ask direct questions and expect direct answers. Below is a practical checklist for any interaction with a commission-driven referral service.

The Family's Rights Checklist: What to Ask Before You Engage Any Referral Service

1

Ask for written disclosure.

Before sharing your name, phone number, or your Loved One's details, ask: "Will you provide written disclosure of any financial relationships you have with the Communities you recommend?"

2

Ask about the fee amount.

"Do you receive a referral fee if my Loved One moves into a Community you recommend? Approximately how much?" A legitimate advisor will answer directly.

3

Ask for consent control.

"Will you share my contact information with any Community without my explicit written permission?" Washington builds consumer authorization into its process, and Colorado bans selling your contact information without written consent. Missouri has tried twice to add an explicit permission requirement, HB 390 in 2025 and HB 2463 in 2026, and neither passed, so in most states, this remains a reasonable ask rather than a legal requirement.

4

Ask who pays.

"Are you paid by me, or by the Community?" Almost always, the answer is "The Community pays me." That does not make the advisor dishonest, but it changes the nature of the relationship.

5

Get the referral agreement in writing.

Arizona requires a signed statement. Washington builds in consumer authorization. Savvy placement advisors will have a Scope of Work document as part of their intake process. Read it carefully.

Why This Matters for Employers, Too

🏢

A workforce issue hiding in plain sight

Approximately 23.6 million employed Americans are providing unpaid eldercare, and more than half report going in late, leaving early, or taking time off to manage this process (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). The average family spends 70 or more hours navigating the Assisted Living selection process, much of it during business hours.

The Sandwich Generation is a segment of the workforce facing simultaneous pressure from aging parents and dependent children. When an employee spends weeks managing an opaque Senior Living search process, the impact is not just personal. It shows up in absenteeism, reduced productivity, and, in some cases, early exits from the workforce entirely.

Employers who invest in transparent, conflict-free eldercare resources for their workforce are not just offering a benefit. They are addressing a structural productivity issue that is growing as the workforce ages. The Senior Living referral transparency problem is, at its core, also an HR problem.

How Petunia Approaches This Differently

Petunia was built specifically to address the conflict of interest at the center of the commission-driven referral model. Petunia does not receive referral fees from Communities. Petunia is not paid by the Community a family ultimately chooses. The service is paid for by the employer as a benefit, or directly by the family at a transparent flat rate.

That structure changes the relationship entirely. When Petunia recommends a Community, it is because the Community is a good fit for the Loved One, not because the Community offers the highest referral fee. Families get the guidance of a knowledgeable Senior Living Advisor without the hidden financial incentives that can distort the advice.

Petunia provides employees and their families with the guidance and expertise of a seasoned Senior Living Advisor without the conflicts of interest the old model creates.

Offer your employees a conflict-free alternative.

Petunia is a zero-cost employer benefit. No referral fees. No operator payments. Just your employees, making better decisions.

Legal Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently; consult a licensed attorney in your state for guidance specific to your situation.

Sources:Missouri Independent (April 2025); Missouri House Bill 390 status, house.mo.gov (2025 session); Missouri House Bill 2463 status, house.mo.gov (2026 session); Washington RCW 18.330, HB 1494; Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-1-729, HB 19-1268 (2019) and HB 20-1101 (2020); Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-446.14, SB 1477 (2026 session); Maryland Health-General § 19-1813; Georgia SB 439 (enacted May 2026, effective July 1, 2026); Texas Business & Commerce Code Chapter 121, SB 1383 (effective September 1, 2025); California Health & Safety Code § 1569.47; Bureau of Labor Statistics Eldercare Report (2023).