Lawmakers hear from doctors, hospitals as bill would limit certificate-of-need rules for cancer care

A state Senate committee on Monday heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 367, a proposal to limit certificate-of-need (CON) requirements for facilities that provide cancer treatment.

Chairman Press opened the Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee's hearing by describing the bill's narrow focus: it would remove CON barriers for facilities whose primary purpose is cancer treatment, while the chair proposed an amendment (not taken up at the hearing) to require facilities exempted from CON to provide uncompensated or charity care equal to at least 3% of adjusted gross revenue, language drawn from an exemption enacted last year.

Medical oncologists and cancer-center executives urged the committee to act. "It's a no-brainer, sir. I am for it," said Dr. Petro Nicolakos, who identified himself as a medical oncologist and president of University Cancer and Blood Center in Athens. Nicolakos told the panel that CON requirements function as a waiting list for patients: he said his clinic waited five years and litigated with hospital systems before acquiring a PET scanner, and that after CON for PET scanners was eliminated his practice obtained one the next day and cut scan wait times from weeks to two days.

Dr. David Squires, CEO of Augusta Oncology, described similar access problems and recounted moving a radiation facility across the Georgia'South Carolina border after a Georgia CON application was rejected; that South Carolina facility opened in February 2025 and, he said, now treats hundreds of patients. Squires told the committee that CON laws, developed in the 1970s, have not kept pace with technology and in many cases increase costs rather than lower them.

Insurers and large health systems gave measured support. Mike Riley, vice president of the Georgia Association of Health Plans, told the committee the association supports SB 367 on grounds that competition can lower prices and expand choices. Sydney Roberts of Emory Healthcare said Winship Cancer Institute has operated at high radiotherapy utilization and that recent regulatory changes allowed Emory to secure a fourth linear accelerator; Emory said it is reviewing the implications of a full repeal statewide.

Committee members pressed witnesses on tradeoffs. Several senators asked whether expanding outpatient cancer centers would reduce hospital revenue; witnesses replied that outpatient services are typically lower-cost, could decongest hospital operating rooms and clinics, and — they argued — would not put hospitals out of business. Witnesses also described how practices help uninsured patients: patient-account staff pursue Medicaid enrollment, manufacturer patient-assistance programs and partnerships with 340B hospitals for certain treatments.

The chair told stakeholders he wanted feedback on statutory language, including the proposed 3% indigent-care threshold carried over from prior law; he did not take the amendment on the floor. The committee did not vote on SB 367 during this hearing and said it would resume the subject at a later date.

The committee hearing produced competing factual claims: witnesses said CON elimination reduced wait times and lowered patient costs (citing the PET scanner example and an outpatient radiation site across the border), while hospital associations and some committee members urged careful drafting to preserve quality standards, accreditation and indigent-care safeguards. The chair invited hospitals and other stakeholders to meet with him before the committee's next consideration of the bill.

The hearing adjourned without a committee vote on SB 367. The chair also corrected the record on a separate LC number for a different bill passed earlier in the session.