Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Need topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H.96 to raise certificate‑of‑need thresholds for health projects
Summary
Office of Legislative Council staff summarized bill H.96 for the House Health Care Committee: the bill would raise monetary thresholds that trigger certificate of need review for many health‑care projects and index them, and would add an exclusion for projects resulting from state‑awarded contracts.
Jen Carby of the Office of Legislative Council briefed the Vermont House Health Care Committee on H.96, a bill that would increase several monetary thresholds that trigger certificate‑of‑need (CON) review for health‑care facility projects and services.
Carby summarized the primary changes: for a health care facility other than a hospital the capital cost trigger would rise from $1,500,000 to $10,000,000; the statutory threshold for the purchase or lease of a single piece of diagnostic or therapeutic equipment would increase from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000; and several operating‑expense thresholds would similarly be raised to $10,000,000. Carby told the committee the bill would also convert an existing discretionary indexing authority for thresholds into a mandatory indexing provision so statutory figures would be automatically adjusted.
The bill would also change the thresholds for projects requiring a conceptual development phase CON: projects currently anticipated to exceed $30,000,000 would trigger an early‑stage CON; H.96 would raise that figure to $50,000,000. The proposal would add an exclusion from CON review for a health service or facility project that is the result of a contract awarded by the state, a change Carby said proponents may defend on the basis that a state contract implies a prior determination of need.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about how operating expenses are defined and whether the CON statute’s exclusions would remove other permitting obligations. Carby said the CON subchapter determines when the Green Mountain Care Board must perform a jurisdictional review and that other state environmental and zoning rules would remain applicable even if a project were exempt from CON review.
Why it matters: raising CON thresholds would reduce the number of projects that must undergo Green Mountain Care Board review and could shift oversight and local review processes for projects that would fall below the new thresholds. Committee members and Carby noted there are multiple threshold proposals in other bills, and the committee indicated it would take testimony later in the day from proponents and stakeholders.
No formal action or vote was taken on H.96 at the briefing; the committee signaled an intention to accept public testimony and further staff analysis before any decision.
