New plan is sought for hospital
House speaker: UA-Banner deal costly; conflict of interest possible
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 11, 2007 12:00 AM
House Speaker Jim Weiers on Tuesday said the plan for a downtown teaching hospital should be redone because it could cost taxpayers unnecessary dollars and be rooted in a potential conflict of interest.
"I just don't want to see taxpayer dollars used and used again," Weiers told reporters.
His comments came as he said he shared concerns raised by two lawmakers that the November agreement to have the University of Arizona College of Medicine partner with Banner Health Systems to build the hospital has the taint of a possible conflict of interest.
There seems to be a little bit of conflict," Weiers said.
"It doesn't seem right."
Weiers said it made no sense to leave Maricopa Integrated Health System, which runs the county hospital, out of the partnership. In his view, taxpayers could save money because the county would build a new hospital, saving the state the expense.
But the November agreement calls for Banner to build the 200-bed hospital at its own expense, estimated at $350 million. In addition, Banner would return some of the hospital revenue to the medical college in the form of a "dean's tax" and provide an easier atmosphere for attracting top doctors to the teaching hospital, backers say.
Lawmakers are considering a $25 million budget request from the state Board of Regents that would help fund the medical campus, but that money would not go toward hospital construction.
Jaime Molera, who represents the regents, said the agreement struck in November maximizes the state's investment in the downtown medical campus because it brings in a private partner willing to pay for hospital construction.
"If they were to redo (the deal) the way they say they want to, it would cost the state a heck of a lot more money," Molera said.
And, if Weiers and other lawmakers are intent on saving taxpayers money, Molera said, perhaps they should question why the aging county hospital wants to relocate, involving a real estate purchase, instead of rebuilding on its site near 18th and Roosevelt streets.
Weiers last week sent a subpoena to the regents seeking details about the $25 million request. None of the requested documents involve the hospital.
Tuesday's developments show the increasing suspicion that some lawmakers are casting on the medical campus.
Weiers said he shared the concerns of Reps. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, about the role of attorney Beth Schermer in the hospital deal.
Schermer took a leave of absence from her law firm in 2005 to join the UA College of Medicine as it attempted to launch its downtown Phoenix campus.
Part of that effort involved finding a partner to build the college's teaching hospital. The college eventually chose Banner, based on a consultant's recommendation.
But those who favored including the county hospital in the deal have complained that the deal was skewed because Schermer's law firm, Copper- smith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman, counts Banner among its many medical clients.
Lawmakers couldn't provide any proof of a conflict, other than their suspicion that Schermer might favor a client. Crump and Kavanagh said they hadn't talked to either the College of Medicine or Schermer, and were relying on "hallway conversations."
Carolyn Allen, chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee, called the accusations unfounded and said they are part of "legislative legend."
"Show me the proof," said Allen, who said the conflict charges appear to be an attempt to derail the downtown medical campus.
There seems to be a little bit of conflict," Weiers said.
"It doesn't seem right."
Weiers said it made no sense to leave Maricopa Integrated Health System, which runs the county hospital, out of the partnership. In his view, taxpayers could save money because the county would build a new hospital, saving the state the expense.
But the November agreement calls for Banner to build the 200-bed hospital at its own expense, estimated at $350 million. In addition, Banner would return some of the hospital revenue to the medical college in the form of a "dean's tax" and provide an easier atmosphere for attracting top doctors to the teaching hospital, backers say.
Lawmakers are considering a $25 million budget request from the state Board of Regents that would help fund the medical campus, but that money would not go toward hospital construction.
Jaime Molera, who represents the regents, said the agreement struck in November maximizes the state's investment in the downtown medical campus because it brings in a private partner willing to pay for hospital construction.
"If they were to redo (the deal) the way they say they want to, it would cost the state a heck of a lot more money," Molera said.
And, if Weiers and other lawmakers are intent on saving taxpayers money, Molera said, perhaps they should question why the aging county hospital wants to relocate, involving a real estate purchase, instead of rebuilding on its site near 18th and Roosevelt streets.
Weiers last week sent a subpoena to the regents seeking details about the $25 million request. None of the requested documents involve the hospital.
Tuesday's developments show the increasing suspicion that some lawmakers are casting on the medical campus.
Weiers said he shared the concerns of Reps. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, about the role of attorney Beth Schermer in the hospital deal.
Schermer took a leave of absence from her law firm in 2005 to join the UA College of Medicine as it attempted to launch its downtown Phoenix campus.
Part of that effort involved finding a partner to build the college's teaching hospital. The college eventually chose Banner, based on a consultant's recommendation.
But those who favored including the county hospital in the deal have complained that the deal was skewed because Schermer's law firm, Copper- smith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman, counts Banner among its many medical clients.
Lawmakers couldn't provide any proof of a conflict, other than their suspicion that Schermer might favor a client. Crump and Kavanagh said they hadn't talked to either the College of Medicine or Schermer, and were relying on "hallway conversations."
Carolyn Allen, chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee, called the accusations unfounded and said they are part of "legislative legend."
"Show me the proof," said Allen, who said the conflict charges appear to be an attempt to derail the downtown medical campus.
There seems to be a little bit of conflict," Weiers said.
"It doesn't seem right."
Weiers said it made no sense to leave Maricopa Integrated Health System, which runs the county hospital, out of the partnership. In his view, taxpayers could save money because the county would build a new hospital, saving the state the expense.
But the November agreement calls for Banner to build the 200-bed hospital at its own expense, estimated at $350 million. In addition, Banner would return some of the hospital revenue to the medical college in the form of a "dean's tax" and provide an easier atmosphere for attracting top doctors to the teaching hospital, backers say.
Lawmakers are considering a $25 million budget request from the state Board of Regents that would help fund the medical campus, but that money would not go toward hospital construction.
Jaime Molera, who represents the regents, said the agreement struck in November maximizes the state's investment in the downtown medical campus because it brings in a private partner willing to pay for hospital construction.
"If they were to redo (the deal) the way they say they want to, it would cost the state a heck of a lot more money," Molera said.
And, if Weiers and other lawmakers are intent on saving taxpayers money, Molera said, perhaps they should question why the aging county hospital wants to relocate, involving a real estate purchase, instead of rebuilding on its site near 18th and Roosevelt streets.
Weiers last week sent a subpoena to the regents seeking details about the $25 million request. None of the requested documents involve the hospital.
Tuesday's developments show the increasing suspicion that some lawmakers are casting on the medical campus.
Weiers said he shared the concerns of Reps. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, about the role of attorney Beth Schermer in the hospital deal.
Schermer took a leave of absence from her law firm in 2005 to join the UA College of Medicine as it attempted to launch its downtown Phoenix campus.
Part of that effort involved finding a partner to build the college's teaching hospital. The college eventually chose Banner, based on a consultant's recommendation.
But those who favored including the county hospital in the deal have complained that the deal was skewed because Schermer's law firm, Copper- smith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman, counts Banner among its many medical clients.
Lawmakers couldn't provide any proof of a conflict, other than their suspicion that Schermer might favor a client. Crump and Kavanagh said they hadn't talked to either the College of Medicine or Schermer, and were relying on "hallway conversations."
Carolyn Allen, chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee, called the accusations unfounded and said they are part of "legislative legend."
"Show me the proof," said Allen, who said the conflict charges appear to be an attempt to derail the downtown medical campus.
Last updated on
October 7, 2008
Family Violence