Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Healthcare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate health committee weighs easing certificate-of-need rules to speed rural health projects
Summary
Sen. Stutz told the Senate Health Committee that SP82 would exempt qualifying rural counties from certificate-of-need review so hospitals and clinics can quickly use federal rural-health funds; members agreed to form a subcommittee to refine safeguards for existing rural providers.
At a Senate Health Committee meeting, Sen. Stutz, sponsor of SP82, said the bill would remove the certificate-of-need (CON) requirement for projects in designated rural counties so local hospitals and clinics can more quickly use incoming federal rural-health funding. "If we're going to put a lot of money into the rural health care, we don't need to make them go through a one or two-year process to get approval to do it," Stutz said.
The bill is designed to accelerate use of federal dollars Stutz cited for rural health and would initially affect about 46 counties, using a federal definition of "rural," he said. Stutz told the committee the aim is to eliminate what he described as an unnecessary barrier to expanding services or offering new services in underserved areas.
Sen. Coleman Madison pressed for specifics about the bill language on page 13, asking what it means that certain new institutional health services would "not be subject to a review under this article." In response, sponsors and members described the current CON process as costly and time-consuming: they said applicants often spend tens of thousands of dollars preparing applications, that opponents within a service area may object and trigger hearings, and that administrative appeals can extend the process to as long as one to two years. "We recently had [a] psych hospital that was trying to expand some psychiatric services in my home county... they spent $250,000 on legal fees and it took two years," Coleman Madison said.
Other members raised concerns about market impacts. Sen. Weaver warned that faster entry could allow new providers to "cherry-pick" profitable services in rural areas, putting existing local providers at risk. Weaver offered to work with the sponsor on guardrails to protect current rural providers while still speeding access to federal funds.
To resolve those issues, Stutz asked for a small subcommittee to refine the bill. He named Senators Weaver, Gavan, Beasley and Stewart as potential members; several agreed to meet within about a week to draft revisions and report back to the full committee.
Next steps: the sponsor asked the subcommittee to meet quickly, and the committee will revisit SP82 after the group proposes language that balances expedited access to federal funds with protections for fragile rural providers.
