Back 

CON Certificate of Need State Laws

CON-Certificate of Need State Laws

8/25/2016

Certificate of Need (C.O.N.) programs are aimed at restraining health care facility costs and facilitating coordinated planning of new services and facility construction. Many "CON" laws initially were put into effect across the nation as part of the federal "Health Planning Resources Development Act" of 1974. Despite numerous changes in the past 30 years, most states retain some type of CON program, law or agency as of 2016.

Intent and Structure of CON

The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity stemming from overbuilding of health care facilities results in health care price inflation. Price inflation can occur when a hospital cannot fill its beds and fixed costs must be met through higher charges for the beds that are used. Bigger institutions generally have bigger costs, so CON supporters say it makes sense to limit facilities to building only enough capacity to meet actual need or demand.

CON programs originated to regulate the number of beds in hospitals and nursing homes and to prevent purchasing more equipment than necessary. Mandatory regulation through health planning agencies determined the most urgent health care needs, contributed to solutions for these needs and attempted to manage the fluctuations in prices often found in a competitive market. The intent was that new or improved facilities or equipment would be approved based primarily on a community’s genuine need. Statutory criteria often were created to help planning agencies decide what was necessary for a given location. By reviewing the activities and resources of hospitals, the agencies made judgments about what needed to be improved. Once need was established, the applicant organization was granted permission to begin a project. These approvals generally are known as "Certificates of Need."

History

The first national law related to this issue was the Hill-Burton Act in 1946, which was intended to control increase the supply of medical facilities in the country.

In 1964, New York became the first state to enact a statute granting the state government power to determine whether there was a need for any new hospital or nursing home before it was approved for construction. In 1974, the federal government tied funding to CON programs. The 1974 federal Act required all 50 states to have structures involving the submission of proposals and obtaining approval from a state health planning agency before beginning any major capital projects such as building expansions or ordering new high-tech devices. By 1975, 20 states had enacted CON laws; by 1978, 36 states had enacted them. Eventually, all states except Louisiana enacted such laws.

The federal mandate was repealed in 1987, along with the associated federal funding. In the decade that followed,

  • 14 states discontinued their CON programs. New Hampshire was the most recent repeal, effective 2016.
  • 34 states currently maintain some form of CON program. Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia also have CON programs.
  • 3 states have variations, noted on the map and list below.

States that have retained CON programs currently tend to concentrate activities on outpatient facilities and long-term care. This is largely due to the trend toward free-standing, physician owned facilities that constitute an increasing segment of the health-care market.

Arguments In Favor and Against CON Laws
Arguments in Favor of CON Laws Arguments Against CON Laws
  • Health care cannot be considered as a “typical” economic product.
  • Most health services (like an x-ray) are “ordered” for patients by physicians, patients do not “shop” for these services the way they do for other commodities.
  • The American Health Planning Association (AHPA) argues that CON programs limit health-care spending. CON programs can distribute care to areas that could be ignored by new medical centers.
  • CON requirements do not block change, they mainly provide for an evaluation, and often include public or stakeholder input.
  • By restricting new construction, CON programs may reduce price competition between facilities and keep prices high.
  • Some changes in the Medicare payment system (such as paying hospitals according to Diagnostic Related Groups – “DRGs”) may make external regulatory controls unnecessary by sensitizing health care organizations to market pressures. 
  • CON programs are not consistently administered. 
  • Health facility development should be left to the economics of each institution rather than being subject to political influence.
  • Some evidence suggests that lack of competition encourages construction and additional spending.
  • Potential for CONs to be granted on the basis of political influence, institutional prestige or other factors apart from the interests of the community.
  • It is not always clear what the best interests of the community entail.

Interactive Map of State CON Laws

Scroll over the map below and click on the states to retrieve a list of the facilities covered under the CON laws of each state.

CERTIFICATE OF NEED STATE LAWS

       
CON program in place

Variation on CON program* (click on map for details)

No CON program  No data

Source: NCSL, August 2016

 

Certificate of Need (CON) Moratoria

STATE

MORATORIA?

FACILITIES COVERED UNDER MORATORIA

Alabama

Yes

Skilled nursing beds (Ala. Admin. Code r. 410-2-4-.03);

Alaska

No

 

Arizona

No

 

Arkansas

Yes

ICF/MR (Ark. Admin. Code 049.00.1-005), psychiatric residential facilities, residential care facilities, hospice services (Ark. Admin. Code 049.00.1-003)

California

No

 

Colorado

No

 

Connecticut

Yes

Nursing homes (C.G.S.A. § 17b-354), hospital mergers and acquisitions until 2017

Delaware

Yes

No additional hospitals offering medical/surgical or obstetrical beds shall be established for five years (2014).

Florida

No

 

Georgia

No

 

Hawaii

No

 

Idaho

No

 

Illinois

No

 

Indiana

Yes

Comprehensive care beds—effective for three years (2015)

Iowa

No

 

Kansas

No

 

Kentucky

No

 

Louisiana

Yes

Adult residential care providers (ARCP), intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (ICF/DD), nursing homes; long-term care hospital facilities and beds (LSA-R.S. 40:2103)

Maine

No

 

Maryland

No*

“The Commission may not issue a certificate of need or a determination with respect to an acquisition that authorizes a general hospice to provide home-based hospice services on a statewide basis.” (MD Code, Health - General, § 19-120)

Massachusetts

Yes

Long term care beds

Michigan

No

 

Minnesota

Yes

Hospitals and hospital bed expansions (M.S.A. § 144.551), nursing homes, radiation therapy facilities (certain locations)

Mississippi

Yes

“New construction of, addition to, expansion of, or conversion of vacant hospital beds to provide skilled or intermediate nursing home care,” “new construction, addition to, or expansion of an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR),” new Medicaid-certified inpatient psychiatric beds for children/adolescents, “new Medicaid-certified child/adolescent chemical dependency beds,” (Miss. Admin. Code 15-8-90) 103.02 Certificate of Need Criteria and Standards for the Establishment of a Home Health Agency and/or the Offering of Home Health Services, conversion of vacant hospital beds to provide skilled or intermediate nursing home care

Missouri

No

 

Montana

No

 

Nebraska

Yes

Long-term care beds (Neb.Rev.St. § 71-5829.04), rehabilitation beds (Neb.Rev.St. § 71-5829.06)

Nevada

No

 

New Hampshire

No

 

New Jersey

No*

Nursing homes, comprehensive rehabilitation, and home health care agencies subject to the issuance of a call for applications. (N.J.A.C. T. 8, Ch. 33, 8:33 APP. B; N.J.A.C. 8:33H–1.1)

New Mexico

No

 

New York

No

 

North Carolina

No

 

North Dakota

No

 

Ohio

No*

Ohio has an effective, though not official, moratorium on long term-care facilities.; Addition of long-term care beds to an existing long-term care facility or for the development of a new long-term care facility (R.C. § 3702.59)

Oklahoma

Yes

Long term care

Oregon

No

 

Pennsylvania

No

 

Rhode Island

Yes

Nursing home beds, nursing home bed capacity expansion (Gen.Laws 1956, § 23-17-44)

South Carolina

No

 

South Dakota

No

 

Tennessee

No

 

Texas

No

 

Utah

No

 

Vermont

No

 

Virginia

No

 

Washington

No*

Nursing home bed banking program

West Virginia

Yes

In-home personal care services, opioid treatment programs (W. Va. Code, § 16-5Y-12), new skilled nursing facilities or ICF/DD, intermediate care or skilled nursing bed additions to existing facilities (W. Va. Code, § 16-2D-9).

Wisconsin

No*

Statewide nursing home bed limit (W.S.A. 150.21; W.S.A. 150.31).

Wyoming

No

 

District of Columbia

No

 

Puerto Rico

No data

 

US Virgin Islands

No data

 

Additional Resources

NCSL Resources

Federal Resources

Other Resources

 

Contact the Authors: Richard Cauchi, Health Program director and Ashley Noble, Health Program policy specialist.

Share this: 
We are the nation's most respected bipartisan organization providing states support, ideas, connections and a strong voice on Capitol Hill.

NCSL Member Toolbox

Denver

7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800

Washington

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069

Copyright 2017 by National Conference of State Legislatures