The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Republicans Testify on Raft of Gender-Related Bills in Contentious Public Judiciary Committee Hearings
  • Susan Collins Tells Trump Admin to Crush Chinese-Linked Illegal Cannabis and Human Trafficking Operations in Maine
  • Lawmakers Mull and Meditate over Allowing Marijuana “Consumption Lounges” to Operate in Maine
  • Judiciary Committee Poised to Unanimously Reject Bill Blocking Maine from Issuing Real IDs
  • Cardinal Robert F. Prevost Elected 267th Supreme Pontiff Of Roman Catholic Church, Becoming First American Pope
  • Trump Announces First Post-Tariff Trade Deal
  • When the Going Gets Rough… Biddeford Gal Turns to Violence to Silence Witness in Murder Case
  • If You’re Mad At Maine Cops Nabbing Illegal Aliens Just Play the Religion Card, “Bishop” Says It Works
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Friday, May 9
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
    • Contact
  • Investigations
    • Data
The Maine Wire
Home » News » News » Evidence continues to mount against the efficacy of CON laws
News

Evidence continues to mount against the efficacy of CON laws

Melissa BakerBy Melissa BakerDecember 6, 2020Updated:December 6, 2020No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Certificate of Need (CON) laws are state regulatory procedures that require health care facilities to obtain  permission from the state and their competitors before opening, expanding or purchasing new equipment and technologies. The state health planning agency either approves or denies an applicant based on a set of criteria and the perceived “community need” of the proposed service. CON programs remain law in a number of states, including Maine, despite mounting evidence that they fail to achieve their intended goals.

Thirty-eight states and Washington D.C. have CON programs on the books, and the laws are supposed to control health care costs and increase access to care. Defenders of CON insist the programs limit health care spending and help distribute care to disadvantaged populations. 

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University’ recently published a study challenging the effectiveness of these programs. Researchers found that CON laws are associated with higher levels of per capita spending on health care and physicians. Mercatus estimates Maine could see a change of $271 in annual per capita healthcare spending without CON.

When comparing rural areas in CON states with rural areas in non-CON states, research finds that the presence of a CON program is associated with fewer rural hospitals. In fact, CON states have fewer hospitals in general.

Mortality rates for pneumonia, heart failure and heart attacks, as well as patient deaths from serious complications after surgery, are significantly higher in hospitals in states with at least one CON regulation. Maine has five CON categories and our law contains 42 independent requirements. The application fees cost providers anywhere from $5,000 to $250,000, are nonrefundable, and can take 90 days for approval from the start of the review.

Opponents of these regulations argue the political influence inherent within the CON process subjects some healthcare facilities to unfair abuse and manipulation. When a company applies to enter the market or seeks to offer a service that is already offered by one or more of its competitors, the CON process is often used to block competition. Preventing new providers from competing within the market has proved to raise the price of medical care. 

Not only do CON laws undermine the health care market, providers are at the mercy of the state when trying to evaluate immediate need for increased capacity or new technologies. These laws have proven particularly harmful amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as they stand in the way of a hospital instantly increasing bed capacity as need grows for care. That may explain why so many states have suspended these regulations in 2020 in the face of the virus.

Maine took similar action  earlier on in the pandemic. Lawmakers should examine this data carefully and explore ways to end CON requirements in Maine in the upcoming legislative session.

capacity Certificate of Need Commentary CON COVID-19 Featured health care pandemic
Previous ArticleSCOTUS rebukes NY pandemic orders targeting religious services
Next Article Portland’s ‘Green New Deal’ initiative complicates ongoing school renovations
Melissa Baker

Melissa Baker serves as the donor relations and events manager at Maine Policy Institute.

Related Posts

Republicans Testify on Raft of Gender-Related Bills in Contentious Public Judiciary Committee Hearings

May 9, 2025

Lawmakers Mull and Meditate over Allowing Marijuana “Consumption Lounges” to Operate in Maine

May 8, 2025

Judiciary Committee Poised to Unanimously Reject Bill Blocking Maine from Issuing Real IDs

May 8, 2025

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Republicans Testify on Raft of Gender-Related Bills in Contentious Public Judiciary Committee Hearings

May 9, 2025

Lawmakers Mull and Meditate over Allowing Marijuana “Consumption Lounges” to Operate in Maine

May 8, 2025

Judiciary Committee Poised to Unanimously Reject Bill Blocking Maine from Issuing Real IDs

May 8, 2025

Cardinal Robert F. Prevost Elected 267th Supreme Pontiff Of Roman Catholic Church, Becoming First American Pope

May 8, 2025

Trump Announces First Post-Tariff Trade Deal

May 8, 2025
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.