Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7qbj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T01:43:35.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overcoming the Balkanization of State Advance Directive Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Charles P. Sabatino
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

State law requirements for health care advance directive documents were reviewed in every state and the District of Columbia to determine whether they are consistent and/or flexible enough to permit the utilization by the public of “universal” advance directive forms, specifically a health care power of attorney, that would be valid under every state's advance directive statutes. Such documents would have to overcome the wide variability of state legal formalities for validity. If this could be accomplished, the public would benefit from having a variety of multi-state or truly universal forms available that could be used with confidence in their validity.

The review found that a basic, multi-state health care power of attorney appears to be feasible in 41 States and the District of Columbia, compared to 36 states and the District in 2005. Only nine states prevent recognition of a truly universal form. Some barriers were surmountable, including differing agent and witness requirements, execution requirements, and effectiveness triggers. Other barriers were insurmountable, including mandatory forms, mandatory disclosures, and decision-specific language requirements. The strategies identified for overcoming some barriers can be used by lawyers in drafting true multi-state directives. More importantly, states should simplify state advance directive laws to facilitate a more meaningful communication model of advance care planning.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 4: Next Steps in Health Reform , Winter 2018 , pp. 978 - 987
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Institute of Medicine, Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015): at 126, available at <https://www.nap.edu/download/18748> (last visited November 14, 2018).+(last+visited+November+14,+2018).>Google Scholar
Id., at 185-187.Google Scholar
Sabatino, C.P., “The Evolution of Health Care Advance Planning Law and Policy,” Milbank Quarterly 88, no. 2 (2010): 211–239, at 221.Google Scholar
Rolnick, J.A., Asch, D.A., and Halpern, S.D., “Delegalizing Advance Directives — Facilitating Advance Care Planning,” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 22 (June 1, 2017): 2105–2107.Google Scholar
See Gunter-Hunt, G., Mahoney, J.E., and Sieger, C.E., “A Comparison of State Advance Directive Documents,” The Gerontologist 42, no. 1 (February 2002): 51–60; Sabatino, C.P., “De-Balkanizing State Advance Directive Law,” Public Policy & Aging Report 13, no. 1 (Winter 2003): 1-12.Google Scholar
Most state advance directive laws expressly recognize directives from another state validly executed under the law of the other state. See Anderson, D., “Review of Advance Health Care Directive Laws in the United States, the Portability of Documents, and the Surrogate Decision Maker When No Document Is Executed,” NAELA Journal 8, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 183–203. But, that fact does not address the issue examined here, i.e., whether one directive form can be used by anyone in any state and meet the legal formalities of all states.Google Scholar
Anderson, D.A., “Review of Advance Health Care Directive Laws in the United States, the Portability of Documents, and the Surrogate Decision Maker When No Document is Executed,” NAELA Journal 8, no. 2 (2012): 183–203, at 202-203.Google Scholar
Iowa Code Ann. §144A.3 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, §3101.14 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Sabatino, C.P., “National Advance Directives: One Attempt to Scale the Barriers,” NAELA Journal 1, no. 1 (2005):131–164.Google Scholar
Aging with Dignity, Five Wishes (2011), available at <https://www.agingwithdignity.org/five-wishes> (last visited November 14, 2018).+(last+visited+November+14,+2018).>Google Scholar
Examples of other multi-state guides with advance directive forms include: Giving Someone a Power of Attorney for Your Health Care: A Guide with an Easy-to-Use, Multi-State Form for All Adults, (American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, 2011), available at <http://ambar.org/HealthCarePOA> (last visited May 18, 2018); Advance Care Planning: A Guide to Advance Directives, Living Wills, and Other Strategies for Communicating Health Care Preferences (A Harvard Medical School Special Health Report, 2016); and Caring Conversation: Making Your Healthcare Wishes Known, (Center for Practical Bioethics, ed., 2013) available at <http://practicalbioethics.org/files/caring-conversations/Caring-Conversations.pdf> (last visited November 14, 2018).+(last+visited+May+18,+2018);+Advance+Care+Planning:+A+Guide+to+Advance+Directives,+Living+Wills,+and+Other+Strategies+for+Communicating+Health+Care+Preferences+(A+Harvard+Medical+School+Special+Health+Report,+2016);+and+Caring+Conversation:+Making+Your+Healthcare+Wishes+Known,+(Center+for+Practical+Bioethics,+ed.,+2013)+available+at++(last+visited+November+14,+2018).>Google Scholar
Commission on Law and Aging, American Bar Association, State Health Care Power of Attorney Statutes: Selected Characteristics (Jan. 2018), available at <https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_aging/state-health-care-power-of-attorney-statutes.authcheckdam.pdf> (last visited November 14, 2018).+(last+visited+November+14,+2018).>Google Scholar
Alabama is unique in specifying that the principal (as well as witnesses) must be age 19 or older, rather than age 18, the normal age of maturity. Ala. Code § 22-8A-4(c) (2017).Google Scholar
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Virginia.Google Scholar
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-629(d) (West 2017); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.625(4) (West 2017); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 404.815 (West 2017); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1337.12 (West 2017).Google Scholar
N.Y Pub. Health Law § 2981(4) (McKinney 2017).Google Scholar
Cal. Prob. Code § 4659(c) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Conn. Gen Stat. Ann. § 19a-576(d) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145C.03 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-3221 (2017).Google Scholar
Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 127.520(3) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Md. Code Ann. Health-Gen. § 5–602 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Uniform Law Commission, Uniform Health Care Decisions Act §2(b) (1993).Google Scholar
Colorado, Idaho, and Louisiana do not expressly mandate witness in their statutes, but witnesses are nevertheless used in common practice.Google Scholar
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 32A-16(3) (West 2017); S.C. Code Ann. § 62–5–517 (2017); W. Va. Code Ann. § 16-30-4 (West 2017); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 404.810 (West 2017) incorporates by reference §404.705 requiring acknowledgement in the manner prescribed by law for conveyances of real estate (i.e., notarization), but the Missouri Bar instructs that if instructions are also included in the document, it must also be witnessed. See, The Missouri Bar, DPA Frequently Asked Questions, at 7, available at <http://www.mobar.org/pdf/2014-dpa/faqs-instructions.pdf> (last visited November 14, 2018).+(last+visited+November+14,+2018).>Google Scholar
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 9703 (West 2107).Google Scholar
755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 45/4-5.1 (West 2107). Illinois also appears to be unique in also excluding a relative or spouse of the agent or any successor agent.Google Scholar
Cal. Prob. Code § 4674 (West 2107).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-629(e) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 2503(b) (West 2017).Google Scholar
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 23-06.5-05(2) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.5506(4) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Utah Code Ann. § 75-2a-107 (West 2017).Google Scholar
20 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5452 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Wash. Rev. Code Ann, § 11.125.050 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Cal. Prob. Code § 4675 (West, 2017); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-576 (West, 2017); Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 2511 (West, 2017); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 162A.790 (West, 2017); N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2980-2994 (West, 2017); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 127.515 (West, 2017); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 9703 (West, 2017).Google Scholar
Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 2511 (West 2017).Google Scholar
N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2981 (West 2017).Google Scholar
See Aging with Dignity, supra note 11, at 11.Google Scholar
Immediate powers are attractive to many because the principal still remains in the driver's seat for consenting to or refusing treatment until decisional capacity is lost, determinations of incapacity may not need to be as formal as for springing powers, and the agent is given immediate authority to have access to protected health information.Google Scholar
See Commission on Law and Aging, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Aging with Dignity, supra note 11, at 4.Google Scholar
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.5507 (West 2017); N.D. Century Code § 23-06.5-06 (West 2017); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 127.525 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ala. Code § 22-8A-4(H) (2017); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-632 (West 2017); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.625 (West 2017); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137-J:13 (2017); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 127.515(2) (West 2017); Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. § 166.162 (West 2017).Google Scholar
64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Works and Contracts § 120.Google Scholar
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137-J:13 (2017); Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. § 166.162 and § 166.163 (West 2017); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1337.17 (West 2017); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 155.30 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ind. Code Ann. § 16-36-1-14 & § 30-5-5-17 (West 2017); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.5507(4)4 (West 2017); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30-3418 (West 2017); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137-J:10 (2017); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 127.540 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.5507(4)4 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ind. Code Ann. § 16-36-1-14 & § 30-5-5-17 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1337.13(E) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 3101.4 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Okl. A.G. Opin. No. 06-7 (Okl. A.G.), 2006.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. § 765.113 (West 2017).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145C.05 (West 2017).Google Scholar
There is also debate over the enforceability of restrictive pregnancy requirements for advance directives. See e.g., Johnson, K.L., “Forcing Life on the Dead: Why the Pregnancy Exemption Clause of the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act Is Unconstitutional,” Kentucky Law Journal 100, no. 2 (2012): 209–233, at 217–218; Schwager, H., “The Implications of Exclusion: How Pregnancy Exclusions Deny Women Constitutional Rights,” Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 13, no. 2 (2015): 595-624, at 624.Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 155.20 (West 2017) (other conditions also apply).Google Scholar
Ind. Code Ann. § 16-36-1-6 (West 2017); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.5508(1)(g) (West 2017); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 404.865 (West 2017); S.D. Codified Laws § 59-3-15 (2017); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 11.125.140(f) (West 2017).Google Scholar
Ga. Code Ann., § 31-32-7 (West 2017).Google Scholar
Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2986.1 (West 2017).Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 1, at 157.Google Scholar