Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Public Need topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate on phased repeal of Certificate of Public Need ends with committee split; motion to report fails
Summary
Senate Bill 910, a phased repeal of Virginia's Certificate of Public Need (COPN) program, prompted speakers for and against repeal and a lengthy discussion; a motion to recommend the bill to the parent committee failed on a 4–1 roll-call (noes 4, ayes 1).
Senator Stanley presented Senate Bill 910, a phased, structured approach to eliminate Virginia's Certificate of Public Need (COPN) program for many categories of medical facilities and services. Senator Stanley argued the program is “ant i-competitive,” increases costs, and limits access in rural and underserved urban areas; he framed repeal as a way to increase competition, lower prices and expand local access to services such as PET, CT and MRI imaging.
Nut graf: SB 910 would phase out COPN requirements in a structured way the sponsor said would reduce regulatory burdens and encourage market-driven investment into underserved and rural areas; opponents warned repeal would harm financial sustainability for facilities that currently provide essential services to underinsured populations.
Proponents at the hearing included Benjamin Knotts of Americans for Prosperity and Caleb Taylor with the Virginia Institute for Action, who said other states saw increased capacity and no catastrophic outcomes after COPN repeal. Opponents included Brent Rawlings (Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association) and Clark Barron (Medical Society of Virginia); hospital representatives argued COPN supports financial stability for essential services in rural areas and that workforce shortages, not COPN, are the chief barriers to rural access. Beth O'Connor of the Virginia Rural Health Association described herself as neither for nor against and requested streamlined COPN requirements for clear rural needs.
After debate and several motions (including a motion to table later withdrawn), a motion to recommend reporting SB 910 to the full committee was called. The roll-call recorded: Senator Fevella — No; Senator Cederlein — No; Senator Bagby — No; Senator Aird — No; Senator Durant — Yes. The clerk announced “Noes, 4; Ayes, 1,” and the motion failed.
Ending: The subcommittee did not advance the bill; members and stakeholders asked staff to review existing rural-health task-force reports and continue bipartisan work on access and regulatory reform.
