License to Cure
Medical protectionism
Many states require medical providers to obtain a "certificate of need" before setting up new facilities, ostensibly to control health care costs and protect consumers by requiring hospitals to see a minimum number of patients for each service they offer. Recent research suggests that the requirement makes medical services more expensive without improving outcomes.
Starting in the 1960s, the American Hospital Association lobbied states to enact certificate of need (CON) laws. Every state eventually passed CON regulations in response to a 1974 federal law, the Health Planning Resources Development Act. Although the act was repealed in 1987, 36 states and the District of Columbia still require CONs, meaning that planning boards can prevent health service providers from building or expanding facilities, offering new services, or purchasing equipment.
In an October study published online in Medical Care Research and Review, Rice University health care economist Vivian Ho finds that states that deregulated "experienced a 4 percent decrease in the average cost of patient care" overall. She speculates that "the desire to attract more patients in a competitive market leads hospitals to offer higher quality care. It may sound counterintuitive, but recent studies show that higher quality surgery lowers costs because costly hospital complications are avoided when one improves care."
Looking at two cardiac procedures (coronary artery bypass grafts and percutaneous coronary interventions), Ho finds that CON regulations do not lower costs per patient or Medicare reimbursements, despite the fact that more hospitals are performing fewer surgeries.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?