Senate committee hears wide-ranging testimony on narrowing CON for cancer treatment; no vote

The Senate Regulated Industries Committee held an extended public hearing on SB 367, a proposal to eliminate or limit certificate-of-need (CON) requirements for facilities that are "exclusively or primarily" dedicated to cancer treatment. The chair called the session a hearing only and said he would not take an indigent-care amendment up that day, but invited stakeholders to continue working with the committee.

Multiple oncology practitioners and health-industry representatives told the panel they support narrowing CON for outpatient cancer services because CON rules can create long delays for diagnostic imaging, biopsies and certain surgeries. "From a patient perspective, CON is viewed as a waiting list," said Petros Nicola Nicholas, a medical oncologist who identified himself as president of University Cancer and Blood Center (UCBC). He said his practice waited five years to obtain a PET scanner under prior CON rules; after the statutory change last year to remove CON for that device, his center received a scanner quickly and cut scan wait times from weeks to days.

David Squires, CEO of Augusta Oncology, said the original federal-era rationale for CON to limit duplication has been outpaced by technological change and that in practice CON can increase costs and constrain access. He described applying in Georgia for radiation services, facing opposition from hospital systems, then opening a large outpatient radiation and oncology facility just across the South Carolina border after that state eliminated outpatient oncology CON rules.

Mike Riley of the Georgia Association of Health Plans said insurers generally view competition as a price-reducer and supported SB 367. Sydney Roberts of Emory Healthcare and Winship Cancer Institute told the committee that Winship's linear accelerator machines were operating above utilization thresholds and that Emory received approval in mid-2025 for a fourth LINAC after the Department of Community Health opened a batch cycle.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several points: how uninsured or underinsured patients are served, whether outpatient centers would siphon revenue from hospitals, and how indigent-care obligations would be enforced if CON exemptions are expanded. The chair said he has an amendment (taken from existing statute) that would require exempted providers to provide at least 3% uncompensated charity or indigent care; he declined to take that amendment in the hearing but said stakeholders should work with him before the next session on the bill.

The hearing produced no vote; the chair adjourned the committee with an instruction that interested parties (including the Georgia Hospital Association and groups listed as concerned) meet with him before the next meeting.