The Indianapolis Star has a conflict-of-interest piece about the General Assembly that attempts to show "just how cozy the relationship between state officials and industry can be in this state." It focuses on a bill that would limit the number of licensed nursing home beds in Indiana because the state's Family and Social Services Administration thinks that would keeps costs down and improve patient care. Indiana is one of only 14 states that don't require a certificate of need for new nursing home construction, so we have too much bed space only an 82 percent occupancy rate, which industry experts say is too low.
One of the legislators who will vote against the bill is Eric Turner, who says, "I'm a free-market guy." He's also a nursing-home business guy. He and his wife are partners in Mainstreet Capital Partners LLC, which invests in Mainstreet Property Group, a nursing home developer. The chairman and president of Mainstreet is Paul "Zeke" Turner, the legislators's son. The lobbyist for Mainstreet, who testified before the appropriate committee, which Turner sits on, is Jessaca Turner Stults, former FSSA attorney for the state and, by the way, Turner's daughter.
Cozy, indeed. But:
Peggy Kerns, director of the ethics center at the National Conference of State Legislators, said the situation is not so uncommon for a part-time legislature. Nor does she believe it's necessarily a problem.
"Conflicts of interest are inherent in the job, particularly for a citizen legislature," she said. "Certainly citizens have a right to testify before a committee whether a relative sits on the committee or not, and the fact that somebody switched sides (from administration to lobbying), there's nothing illegal or unethical about that."
The story notes that Turner disclosed his potential conflict, which is all the law requires him to do. And his daughter followed the state rule requiring she not be a lobbyist for a year.
This is not just a "free market" vs. "state interference in private industry" issue. The story mentions -- almost in passing -- why this is of interest to taxpayers: 80 percent of the tab for the state's 35,000-person nursing home population is picked up by the FSSA, which costs the state roughly $1 billion a year. The decision on whether to emphasize nursing homes over home care when it comes to divvying up tax dollars has obviously been skewed by such conflicts, which is why we've overbuilt nursing homes. But the real source of the conflict of interest is the belief -- never even challenged these days -- that the state must be responible for elederly care. As long as the state is going to operate under that premise, more subsidies for home care make more sense than more nursing home beds. It's better for the patient and the patient's family, and it's a lot less expensive for the state and taxpayers.
