Certificate of Need Laws: A Comprehensive Overview

Photo by Artur Tumasjan on Unsplash

Certificate of Need (CON) laws are regulations that require healthcare providers to obtain permission from a state regulatory board before building new facilities or expanding existing ones. These laws, which were first enacted in the 1960s, were intended to control healthcare costs and improve access to care. However, they have been a subject of debate in recent years, with some arguing that they limit competition and hinder access to care, while others believe they are necessary to ensure the quality and efficiency of healthcare services. In this blog post, we will provide a comprehensive overview of CON laws, their history, and the arguments for and against them.

History of Certificate of Need Laws:

CON laws were first introduced in New York in 1964 as a way to control healthcare costs by preventing the duplication of services and ensuring that new facilities were only built when there was a demonstrated need for them. By the 1970s, most states had enacted some form of CON regulation, and in 1974, the federal government passed the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act, which required states to establish CON programs in order to receive federal funding for healthcare. However, in 1987, the federal government repealed this mandate, and many states began to scale back or repeal their CON laws.

Arguments for Certificate of Need Laws:

Proponents of CON laws argue that they are necessary to control healthcare costs and ensure that healthcare resources are distributed efficiently. They contend that without CON regulations, healthcare providers would engage in a "medical arms race," building new facilities and purchasing expensive equipment in order to attract patients, even if there is no demonstrated need for these services. This, in turn, would drive up healthcare costs and make it more difficult for low-income and rural residents to access care.

Arguments against Certificate of Need Laws:

One of the main arguments against CON laws is that they limit competition and restrict the supply of healthcare services. By requiring providers to obtain permission from a state board before building new facilities or expanding existing ones, CON laws can create barriers to entry for new providers, which can stifle innovation and prevent the development of new and more efficient models of care.

Another argument against CON laws is that they can lead to higher healthcare costs. By limiting the supply of healthcare services, CON laws can create monopolies or oligopolies, which can drive up prices and make it more difficult for patients to access care.

There is also evidence to suggest that CON laws have not been effective in achieving their stated goals. Studies have shown that CON states have fewer hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare facilities per capita than non-CON states, and that residents of CON states are more likely to leave their counties to obtain care.

Certificate of Need laws limit competition, restrict the supply of healthcare services, and can lead to higher costs and reduced access to care. Mississippi has refused to repeal its CON laws because legislators have bowed to large healthcare providers who use these laws to limit competition.

If Mississippians wants better healthcare then its time we make better decisions.