Part 3: Writing their own rules

When Rendell took office, he named as his welfare commissioner Richman, who believed that tougher rules were needed. Her team decided to write its own, a process that took almost two years.

One reason it took so long, Richman said, is because she also attempted, and then abandoned, a campaign to write a separate, more stringent set of rules that would have only covered assisted living for the elderly - not other types of care homes.

Other states, including New Jersey, have such rules, but Richman said the industry in Pennsylvania adamantly opposed two sets of regulations.

Richman's first version of the rules included a number of tougher provisions that brought Pennsylvania more in line with other states. It also made some key concessions to the industry.

For example, the department put in a rule that personal-home administrators have a nursing or associate degree, or a nursing-home administrator's license. The old standards said a high school diploma or GED was enough.

But because of industry objections, the welfare department added a grandfather clause - meaning the rule would not apply to the 1,500 administrators already in place.

There was also nothing in the rules that prevented an operator who had lost a license because of providing bad care in the past from running a different home - an omission that dismayed advocates for the elderly and disabled.

Even so, home operators considered the Richman proposal onerous.

The political battle began in earnest. It wasn't much of a fight.

The biggest proponents of the rules, aside from state welfare regulators, were nonprofit advocacy groups with little political clout.

Three main industry lobbying groups - and several smaller trade organizations - were united in their opposition.

Their central objection was financial. A Welfare Department study found the costs would be minimal, but the operators disagreed, arguing that some rules could cost tens of thousands of dollars and force them to hire someone to do nothing but paperwork.

Richman and her staff pushed back. Resident advocates argued that the costs were worth the gains in safety, even if they forced some marginal homes to close their doors.

"We did not feel at that point that our concerns were addressed," said Gwen Bower, a lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Health Care Association, which represents many larger homes.

"So we went to our friends in the legislature."

Other industry groups did the same. Within three months, they had achieved something rare: Identical letters to Richman from the Republican and Democratic chairmen of the committees with oversight of the Welfare Department.

The letters, dated in late January and early February 2005, asked that the regulations be "tolled" - a legal term for a delay - while the department addressed a list of 25 requested changes, including the 18-month delay on smoke detectors and fire alarms.

The list, Bower acknowledged, was written by the industry lobbying groups.

Three of the four lawmakers who sought the changes were from Philadelphia: Republican George Kenney and Democrat Frank Oliver on the House side, and Democrat Vincent Hughes on the Senate side. The fourth was Sen. Jake Corman of Centre County.