A study released in Alabama questions whether the state should have a certificate-of-need process to control the number of healthcare facilities.
The study, by the Alabama Policy Institute, concludes the state's CON regulations need to be repealed to improve care delivery.
"Scaling back CON restrictions allows doctors, clinics and hospitals to respond to patients needs more quickly and efficiently," said Michael Ciamarra, vice president of legislative affairs for the institute.
The study surveyed other states and found that 13 have recently repealed CON regulations, allowing consumers to have improved access to care, while giving providers a faster and less bureaucratic process for opening new hospitals and clinics.
There has been a resurgence of interest in CON regulations. In some states, they're seen as a way to restrict unbridled growth in the development of specialty hospitals or other types of competitive building that unnecessarily increase capacity.
However, the author of the Alabama report, Roy Cordato, pokes holes in arguments typically offered by CON supporters. In terms of effectiveness in containing costs, the report suggests there is virtually no empirical evidence that Alabama's program has been effective in reducing costs.
Rather, the state's law has prevented competition and a rapid diffusion of medical and health innovation, said Cordato, vice president for research and resident scholar with the John Locke Foundation in North Carolina. The laws eventually result in higher prices for consumers and often leave communities without adequate medical resources, he said.
Cordato says states should repeal CON laws "to increase competition, reduce prices and increase access to hospital care."
"CON laws are used to create a hidden tax," he said. "If the goal is to make sure that those who cannot afford healthcare have their needs taken care of, then the costs of that policy should be upfront and explicit, not hidden."