In years past, I’ve mentioned the fine work done by others in bringing attention to conflicts of interest by state representative Eric Turner. I read about Rep. Turner’s profiting from his son’s leasing of space to ACS during the welfare privatization debacle via Advance Indiana and Angela Mapes Turner and his 2011 problems with nursing home legislation where he was invested in his son’s nursing home related business via Leo Morris and Heather Gillers.
Today, it’s the Indiana Law Blog where I first saw a link to Tom LoBianco’s article about how nursing home legislation would have cost Rep. Turner and his family. This incident from the 2014 session seems very reminiscent of the 2011 situation.
A top Indiana lawmaker, his family and investors in their company risked losing millions in future profits if a proposed ban on construction of new nursing homes in Indiana had become law this year, an Associated Press review has found.
Instead, the bill died after intense private lobbying by House Speaker Pro Tem Eric Turner, R-Cicero, who now faces scrutiny over his actions on legislation that would have directly affected his family.
Public and private financial documents show Turner and other direct investors in Mainstreet Property Group rely on building new nursing homes to make money, generating returns of up to 600 percent in some cases.
The ethics rules for the General Assembly are fairly weak. Even so, Rep. Turner has a reputation for playing closer to the line than most. (And, to be clear, plenty of lawmakers don’t seem to get anywhere near the line.) I don’t expect much to come out of the General Assembly’s own ethics investigation into Turner’s activity; but, I’d suggest that it’s in the General Assembly’s best interest to make it clear whether Rep. Turner’s actions are more of the exception or more of the rule.
Beyond the obvious self-interest… why do we need a ban on building nursing homes? seems like a little over-intrusive of the government to get that involved in the market.
With nursing homes, I think government is already a significant part of the market. But, beyond that, I don’t know the details.
Medicaid pays the nursing home bills for a large percentage of nursing home residents, especially at older and rural facilities. Private pay residents are a smaller percentage of residents at most facilities, but are more profitable. New nursing homes skim off these more profitable residents, risking the financial viability of older facilities. Many states have Certificate of Need laws which only allow nursing homes to be built if a need for more capacity exists.
So because the government is so involved in the nursing home market already, the market can’t self regulate and the government needs to intrude further and further. got it.
It the government is the largest payor, by definition it affects the NH market.
Well, you forgot the part about how the government’s involvement in the nursing home market has a lot to do with the idea that we don’t want to leave our elderly to the tender mercies of the market because the prospect of impoverished old people dying on the streets makes us sad.
veterans and single mothers though: no mercy.
Just step over them.
The Market is always, Doug, even when it throws old people in the street to die.
Isn’t it cool to see what some people think a warped Market is? It’s like some people, [cough, Kilroy, cough] thinks the market is good. Believing that ignores all American history after the Civil War, all English history from 1750-1930, current Chinese history (where the Market seems pretty copacetic with poisoning several hundred million people), and the history of colonialism and slavery.
The “Market’s” rough edges need to be filed away in order to extend its productive capacity to more people.