2025 Life Care Planning Summit: Aligning for Consensus, Past Foundations to Future Needs

The 2025 Life Care Planning Summit, held on May 16^th and 17^th in Minneapolis, Minnesota offered a unique and inspiring forum for professionals from diverse primary professional disciplines including nursing, rehabilitation counseling and other rehabilitation professions to unite in the advancement of the specialized practice of life care planning. This gathering provided an invaluable platform for exchanging ideas, fostering professional growth, and promoting best practices amid the rapidly evolving landscapes of healthcare, rehabilitation and the legal system. It spotlighted the leaders shaping educational programs, professional organizations, and certification standards within the field. Through rich interdisciplinary dialogue, participants generated fresh insights and renewed energy, collectively shaping the future of life care planning.

Next, the Summit focused on the organization and refinement of the Consensus and Majority Statements (Johnson et al., 2018). The statements are guiding principles generated through expert collaboration over multiple decades and serve as one of the foundations for life care planning practice. The statements embody the life care planner’s commitment to reliable and valid development of objective, defensible, and client/evaluee-centered life care plans. Reorganizing these statements will further aid the practicing life care planner’s focus on the most relevant and timely guidance.

The 2025 Summit utilized reliable and acceptable methodologies, consistent with those of prior Summits, to achieve the outlined objectives. A mixed methodology was used combining Nominal Group Technique (NGT) (Delbecq et al., 1975) and Audience Response System (ARS) for Real Time Voting (RTV) (Burnstein & Lederman, 2006). Both ARS and RTV were previously used in the 2010 Summit and the 2025 Summit utilized Mentimeter, an online platform that allows for integration of real time data collection into presentations. The platform allowed participants to answer questions using personal electronic devices and populated the data in real time for participants to view the outcome. Over the course of the 2025 Summit, Mentimeter was used to collect data in various formats including questions with word cloud and free response answers, multiple choice trivia questions, and real time voting with a pre-set selection of choices. As reflected in this publication, the 2025 Life Care Planning Summit stands as a testament to the field’s collaborative spirit and unwavering dedication to meeting the complex needs of individuals and families navigating challenging health journeys.

The History and Background of the Life Care Planning Summit

Attendees were briefed on this history of life care planning summits. For a more comprehensive history, see previous summit-related publications in Journal of Life Care Planning, volumes 16(4), 17(3), and 21(1).

Since 2000, life care planners have relied upon the outcomes of the life care planning summits in their daily work. These published results have culminated in the Consensus and Majority Statements (Johnson et al., 2018), which are updated regularly and published in the Journal of Life Care Planning. The works of Johnson and Preston (2012), Johnson (2015), and Johnson et al. (2018) have served as guiding principles for life care planners. Life care planning summit proceedings are developed by life care planners specifically for other life care planners and focus on life care planning practices. Familiarity with the results of these summits, including the publication of Consensus and Majority Statements (Johnson et al., 2018), is crucial for practitioners.

Summits have ensured that life care planners sustain professionalism and confirm that we are not paint by number scribes. They follow the long-standing tenets and methodology consistent with the multidisciplinary aspect of life care planning. These have been reassuringly affirmed in state and federal court decisions and jurisdictions, and adopted by other venues (e.g. Medicare-Set-Aside, family planning, trusts, catastrophic healthcare reserves, workers’ compensation claims, and others) (Albee et al., 2017).

Since its inception, it has been regularly recommended that practitioners take a vested interest in the future of life care planning and actively participate in summits to address emerging issues affecting life care plans, the process of life care planning, and the role of life care planners. There have now been 13 Life Care Planning Summits held throughout the United States and Canada. A brief history of these events is summarized below.

Demographics

During the first day of the 2025 Summit, a series of questions regarding relevant demographic background information of the participants was asked using the ARS, and data was collected and presented via RTV to allow the participants to familiarize themselves the other attendees in the room. The questions were as follows:

1. What is your primary profession?

2. What certifications pertaining to Life Care Planning do you hold?

3. Which professional associations are you a member of to support your life care planning practice?

4. In which state/province do you live?

5. How many years of experience do you have preparing Life Care Plans?

6. How many Summits have you attended (including this one)?

The 2025 Summit attendees self-identified 13 unique primary professions including 42.1% nurses, 29.5% rehabilitation counselors, 7.4% occupational therapists, 5.3% vocational rehabilitation experts, 4.2% life care planners, 3.2% physician assistants, 2.1% case managers, 1.1% nurse practitioners, 1.1% advanced practice registered nurses, 1.1% doctors of physical therapy, 1.1% physical therapists, 1.1% psychologists, and 1.1% damages experts.

Question 1: What is your Primary Profession?

Of the attendees, 89% of attendees self-reported at least one life care planning specific certification, while 11% reported holding none. Of those with a life care planning specific certification, 73.6% held a single certification, 12.1% held two certifications, and 3.3% held three certifications. Of individuals with a single certification, the most common certification was the CLCP with 57.1% of single certification holders having a CLCP followed by CNLCP 9.9%, FIG LCP-C 4.4%, CHLCP 1.1% and ICCC-PF 1.1%. Upon individuals with multiple certifications, combinations of certifications included CLCP/CNLCP, CLCP/FIG LCP-C, CLCP/ICCC-PF, CLCP/CNLCP/FIG LCP-C, and CLCP/CNLCP/ICCC-PF. Alternative certifications attendees held that supported their life care planning practice included CRRN, CRC, CDMS, CCM and ABVE-D.

Question 2: What Certifications Pertaining to Life Care Planning do You Hold?

Attendees reported being involved in up to four professional organizations to support their life care planning practice with 1.1% being a member of no organizations, 23.7% being a member of one organization, 36.6% being a member of two organizations, and 38.7% being a member of three organizations. Organizations listed by participants included the International Association of Rehab Professionals (IARP), the International Academy of Life Care Planners (IALCP), American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP), Association of Certified Life Care Planners (A-CLCP), Association of Rehabilitation Nurses (ARN), Case Management Society of America (CMSA), American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC), American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants (AALNC), North American Nursing Diagnosis Association International (NANDA-I), American Board of Vocational Experts (ABVE), College of Vocational Rehabilitation Professionals (CVRP), American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and American Rehabilitation Economics Association (AREA).

Question 3: Which Professional Associations Are You a Member of to Support Your Life Care Planning Practice?

Twenty-seven states and two provinces were represented including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minneapolis, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, New Brunswick, and Ontario.

Question 4: In Which State/Province Do You Live?

Attendees reported 0-43 years of experience preparing life care plans including 22.3% with 0-5 years of experience, 13.8% with 6-10 years, 18.1% with 11-15 years, 13.8% with 16-20 years, 11.7% with 21-25 years, 8.5% with 26-30 years, 4.3% with 31-35 years, 5.3% with 36-40 years, and 2.1% with greater than 40 years of experience.

Question 5: How Many Years of Experience do You Have Preparing Life Care Plans?

When asked how many summits they had attended, including the 2025 Summit, 29.3% reported that they were first time attendees. Amongst the remaining attendees, number of summits attended ranged from two to 12 with 29.3% having attended two, 15.2% having attended three, 10.9% having attended four, 2.2% having attended five, 1.1% having attended eight, 2.2% having attended 10, 3.3% having attended 11, 2.2% having attended 12, and 4.3% having attended an unknown number of summits.

Question 6: How Many Summits Have You Attended (Including This One)?

Part 1: Breakout Sessions

All known life care planning entities who oversee education programs, certifications, professional associations, and research organizations were invited to participate in the 2025 Summit and educate the attendees on their mission, goals, and specific details about their program. Questions were developed by the 2025 Life Care Planning Summit planning committee, and interviews were conducted as short question-and-answer style pre-recorded presentations.

On day one of the Summit, the pre-recorded presentations were divided into sessions by category (Educational Programs, Professional Associations/Research Organizations, Certifying Bodies) and played for the attendees. Following each session, the attendees divided into their assigned breakout rooms to discuss the information provided in the presentations utilizing a modified nominal group technique methodology to ensure all attendees had a voice. Participants were asked to answer using the ARS and RTV, three specific questions: (1) What are the strengths? (2) What are the concerns? (3) What do we need? The data for each question was collected via free-form answer using Mentimeter and compiled to identify the most recorded responses. The outcomes of the presentation and discussion groups were as follows:

The break out groups identified the top strengths of the current educational programs to include accessibility and flexibility, variety of available options, and affordability. The top concerns included lack of available mentorship, lack of consistency among educational programs, and the quality of education provided. When asked what the life care planning community needs from their education programs to rectify concerns and improve the education for current and future life care planners, the top answers included increased mentorship and continued support following completion, more in depth education and training on coding and costing for the life care plan, and increased consistency and collaboration among educational programs.

The top strengths of the certifying entities identified by the breakout groups included certification providing greater support and respect/reputation for life care planners and the work they do, having diverse options for certifications, and having a means to test for competency. The top concerns included the number of options available, the lack of uniformity across the available options, and whether there is validity to the certifications in their current state with their varying requirements, standards, processes and lack of oversight/standardization. When asked what the life care planning community needs from their certifying entities to rectify concerns and improve the confidence in the certifications, the top answers included stability and unity across certification programs, greater consistency for receiving and availability of continuing education units, and transparency from the certifying entities.

The top strengths of the professional associations identified by the breakout groups included availability of opportunities for networking, mentorship and community support, availability of opportunities for continuing education units, and the diversity of backgrounds that the associations united. The top concerns included the fragmentation and divisiveness that comes from having multiple associations that function independently of each other, the lack of consensus between the associations, and the level of active participation from the associations. When asked what the life care planning community needs from their professional associations to rectify the concerns identified by the participants, the top answers included collaboration between and/or merger of the existing organizations, more opportunities to receive continuing education units, greater availability and access of mentorship opportunities, and up to date information and resources critical to the practice of life care planning.

Part 2: Consensus Statement Review

In the afternoon of day one the large group convened, and a discussion was held regarding the need for analysis and organization of the existing Consensus and Majority Statements. The group agreed to return the following day to embark on reviewing these prior Consensus and Majority Statements.

During day one of the Summit, the attendees were charged with sorting the 96 Consensus and Majority Statements into domains. Consensus was reached among attendees that these would be tentatively titled as follows:

Relevant to the Life Care Planner – Not Found Elsewhere

Relevant to the Life Care Planner – Found Elsewhere

Advisory to Entities

No Longer Applicable.

Sorting was carried out using real time voting via the Mentimeter platform.

Each statement was shown to the group, and they were asked to vote on a category. Each individual was allowed to submit a single vote without the option to go back and change their vote once the group’s data was collected. In keeping with past summit proceedings, majority was set at 75% of votes received; total Summit participant counts were maintained throughout voting and vote counts were tracked in real time by Mentimeter to ensure complete voting and accurate calculation of percent support for each category. If a single category received majority votes, the statement was sorted into the majority domain. Following review of all 96 statements, any statements for which a majority was not reached were revisited with opportunity for open discussion amongst the group, immediately followed by repeat voting. The same threshold for majority was used if a single category received majority votes, then, the statement was sorted into the majority domain.

Upon completion of voting, discussion was held regarding permanent domain titles. Titles were proposed by the participants and by consensus agreed upon by the group. The group arrived at the following nomenclature and accompanying definition for the organization which include:

1. RELEVANT TO THE LIFE CARE PLANNER: Statements originally developed dating back to 2000 by majority and consensus that have been deemed still relevant and applicable to the individual practice of the life care planner.

2. RELEVANT TO THE LIFE CARE PLANNER – PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE: Statements originally developed dating back to 2000 were deemed relevant and applicable to the practicing life care planner that were further reinforced in alternative literature sources.

3. ADVISORY TO LIFE CARE PLANNING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, CERTIFYING BODIES, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS: Statements originally developed dating back to 2000 were deemed relevant and applicable; however not directly applicable to the practitioner, but instead agreed to have advisory value to ancillary life care planning entities who oversee the standards of practice, educational programs and certifications, and professional associations and organizations.

4. UNDER FURTHER REVIEW: Statements that are considered relevant to life care planners but in need of review and revision to keep up with current times. These statements still hold relevancy to the life care planner until such time as consensus is reached to modify.

Once the statements were organized into their respective domains, all of the statements within the Under Further Review domain, including all of the statements voted to be no longer applicable and the statements where no majority was reached, were subjected to further review to determine whether they should be accepted in their current state as relevant to the life care planner, modified to become relevant to the life care planner, or archived as historically important but no longer relevant. Statements deemed relevant were added to the Relevant to the Life Care Planner domain, and statements requiring modification remained in the Under Further Review domain. A fifth domain was created for archived statements that would include those voted to delete during the 2025 Summit as well as historically deleted statements. The fifth category was named as follows:

5. PREVIOUSLY DELETED, AND NOW HISTORICALLY IRRELEVANT OR NO LONGER VALID: Statements, which were reviewed in 2010, via Delphi methodology in 2018, and in 2025 that were recommended to be archived for historical preservation and removed from the Consensus Statements.

Within these categories the following results reached consensus with a threshold of 75%.

RELEVANT TO THE LIFE CARE PLANNER: 12 Statements

RELEVANT TO THE LIFE CARE PLANNER – ALSO PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE: 41 Statements

ADVISORY TO LIFE CARE PLANNING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, CERTIFYING BODIES, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS: 15 Statements

UNDER FURTHER REVIEW: 15 Statements

PREVIOUSLY DELETED, AND NOW HISTORICALLY IRRELEVANT OR NO LONGER VALID: 13 Statements (plus 3 previously deleted statements)

A full updated reprint of the Consensus and Majority Statements since 2000 has been updated at the 2025 Life Care Planning Summit is available and included in a document published in this issue.

Discussion

As life care planning evolved, it was necessary to aid in its construction. Summits aided in that process and continue today. The results of the 2025 Summit were a continuation of the advances made within the specialty practice and acknowledgement of the diversity of profession, geography and practice type of the practitioners, and the inclusion of all. The process of reviewing, updating, guiding, and developing best practice was and continues to be important work completed by life care planners for life care planners, about life care planning. This Summit was no different. The attendees agreed that there is work to be done and the outcome of this Summit should serve as a charge for educational programs, certifications, professional life care planning associations and organizations to review this proceeding and consider the recommendations for future action.

Conclusion

As history has shown, evolution occurs. When the original 2000 Summit occurred, it was the early in the evolution of the specialty practice of life care planning. Twenty-five years later, the growth within this practice and dedication of the practitioners has created a long-standing guidance which requires monitoring and evaluation to remain current. However, it is essential to be mindful of the past and strive for a better future at all levels including those entities which support, develop and encourage life care planners in their daily work.