Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Who Decides What Health Care Is 'Needed'?
Too often, it's government bureaucrats acting under the influence of special interests and against the wishes of doctors and patients, with sometimes tragic results.

In a functioning market, entrepreneurs feel encouraged to bring new products and services to consumers—and get rewarded when those efforts succeed.
Too often, that's not how it works in health care. Patients end up paying the price.
On this week's episode of Why We Can't Have Nice Things, host Eric Boehm dives into the murky waters of certificate of need laws, which restrict the availability of health care in many states and limit the ability of new providers to enter those markets. Though they vary a bit from state to state, these regulations generally allow state bureaucrats to determine what services are needed—often at the behest of existing providers, who use the process to cut off potential competition.
That's exactly what happened to Katie Chubb and Dr. Jay Singleton. Chubb is a mother and serial entrepreneur who has spent years trying to open a new birth center in Augusta, Georgia. Singleton is an eye doctor in North Carolina who spent more than $1 million to build a cataract surgical center, then found out the state wouldn't let him use it to full capacity. Both have been fighting their state's certificate of need systems in the hopes of making lasting changes.
"To put it simply, you have the government saying that less expensive, quality health care services that patients actually need are not needed," explains Josh Windham, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who recently argued on behalf of Singleton at the North Carolina Supreme Court. "Who is the government to say that to people? Shouldn't patients and doctors make those choices?"
Certificate of need laws are particularly pernicious because the costs are not always evident. We don't see the clinics that aren't built or the services that aren't offered. But the special interests that benefit have a strong interest in blocking reforms.
"The folks that have most at stake here are the would-be competitors, and they're very well organized," says Matthew Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Knee Regulatory Research Center at West Virginia University, who has been studying the effects of these regulations for years. "Those who stand to lose, the patients, typically don't even know these rules exist."
Further reading for this week's episode:
"A Baby Dies in Virginia," By Eric Boehm, Reason
"Justices Wrestle With New Bern Eye Surgeon's CON Challenge," The Carolina Journal
"Companies Shouldn't Have the Right To Veto Their Competiton," by Jack Brown, Reason
"Certificate of Need Laws in Health Care: A Comprehensive Review," by Matthew Mitchell
Written by Eric Boehm; produced and edited by Hunt Beaty; fact-checking by Anthony Wallace.
- Producer: Hunt Beaty
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 comments
Commie-Healthcare ... Because only Commies know what's best for EVERY F'ONE!!!! /s
And if you don't buy their BS they'll come after you with a Gov-Gun.
Land of the Free? My *ss. Thanks to [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
That’s what Boehm voted for, ‘strategically and reluctantly’.
Healthcare is the people motive.
Applying the profit motive, greed, to it is disastrous for those who aren’t wealthy.
Sick people don’t work. But not like the elite don’t work.
And since the govt muscled in on the churches very precise and economical charity biz of supporting the indigent and made it universal with little to no accountability – this is what you get. They pick winners and losers in business as they do with losers in the game of life.
People are removed from the very real impulse to help that once existed because where once empathy kicked in and they could see how easily that could be them, so they kick in a bit… now they have that same instinct but its blunted by the idea that the govt will do the kicking in with all the %$#&^%$@!! surfeit taxes they take from ‘me’.
The limited nature of local charities imposes the necessity of economy and responsibility that is targeted with the values of those closest to the community affected. None of the gross distortions of universalization and non of the value compromises such brings.
The unlimited reach of govt means they can get to the bottom of even the deepest pockets so why should they care about ‘local values’ and responsible distribution of aid money?
The people motive isn’t a charity. It’s the way to run civilized efficient societies that have constitutions that value human rights.
Social infrastructure isn’t left to charity. Sick people aren’t productive members of society.
Greed destroys civilization, just like it would any other closed system. A mars colony.
Not THE way, just A way (I’m assuming you’re referring to govt programs for ‘the poors’)…. and it corrodes empathy and hence the social bond between people that societies are all about.
Dont get me wrong – I’m not saying they are all and universally evil… just saying they are (can, and prob in most cases are…) mismanaged, wrongly envisioned, divorced from real values and crowd out any other possible solutions [that could scale while incorporating the virtues reflected by local constituencies]
Distributed network of charities that reflect local values is yet another way – so long as that ecosystem is allowed to express itself without govt programs skewing the prerequisites for such an ecosystem.
One way to think of it is like a course of antibiotics. It will improve your health w.r.t. its target... but also includes collateral damage of killing all your gut flora - both good and bad.
Infrastructure needs a steady stream of funding. Not a gamble on the philanthropy of the excessively wealthy.
Thats what you’re suggesting.
Healthcare is infrastructure.
The 'excessively wealthy' are not the drivers of local charities in the vast majority of cases I'd warrant. Proper lifestyles [the knowledge, and will to live healthily] are infrastructureand need a steady stream of support (and would obviate the need for your bloated and corrupt bureacracies)…. and like I said – the programs arent all or only evil. They just shouldnt be the biggest or only game in town. In fact, due to its skewing of local values it should be a small supplement to more local organizations – which also in my world could involve local government - just not be run by or solely funded by. Make the people close to the cause pay the piper as much as possible.
But I would add that universal programs are universally -lets say – ‘problematic’.
People run the infrastructure therefore people ARE the infrastructure. All work is economic infrastructure.
People who are sick can’t run the infrastructure therefore healthcare is a required cost of society and is paid for with taxes.
Your dislike for authority doesn’t change the fact that complex civilizations REQUIRE management and in our democracy this is done with an elected government.
According to latest records 33% of the Nation is too sick to work…
That is the kind of BS your *ideas* end up being.
Take your ‘Gov-Guns’ will supply for me BS and stick it up your *ss. Criminal.
From programming, cleaning, art-work, organizing bolts; things that don’t even require getting off a bed; there are a million ways to *EARN* something. Yet here we are with nation just full of “I CAN’T” mentality without ‘Gunning’ down those ‘icky’ people. The Criminal Mentality is what is breaking the USA; nothing else.
Commie-Labor camps (Labor Dept) certainly is a major factor in the "I CAN'T" mentality; but that is what need taken care of. NOT 'Gunning' others down because bureaucrats have made it illegal to be productive.
If you want to deal corruption a death blow, simply criminalize lying.
When someone says, I can’t, ask why. If the answer is the truth, what’s the problem?
If their answer becomes truthfully, “I don’t want to” then perhaps some CHARITY should no longer be offered.
Criminalizing lying and the process of implementing it is truly the end of institutionalized corruption.
One of the blessings of using extremely localized donation instead of centralized armed-theft is the local people donating respond more directly to the 'truthful' need and receivers are more respectful of that being someone else's labors/help being donated.
Which lack there-of is in centralized armed-theft is directly displayed by the 3rd party theft model (i.e. Spending money they didn't have to earn (or even know the earner) to buy something not for themselves (or even know personally)). Literally taking all accountability out of the equation.
You can avoid “Armed theft” by not using anything that requires the infrastructure paid for by taxes.
What exactly, besides your skin, do you own that meets that criteria?
Are you prepared to give all that up?
Or are you simply a “can’t” kind of person who wants something for nothing?
lol... paraphrased, "but, but, but 'roadzzzzzzz' is why 'armed-theft' has to be used to shovel wealth from one person to another."
Predictable. Absolutely predictable. 1st. Roadzzzzzzz is localized and is taxed on fuel usage (direct link) and 2nd. Roadzzzz is but a needle-in the haystack in contrast to the massive $ of 'armed-theft' going on.
Course you know this. You're just making "but, but" excuses.
"Greed destroys civilization, just like it would any other closed system."
Yes; yes it does and there is nothing more "greedy" than 'armed-theft'.
Pleading insanity eh?
Taxes used by the government to manage infrastructure.
Trying to distract the conversation by playing vague and ignorant eh?
You, “HEY LOOK OVER THERE! A UNICORN!!!”
Until you define what “manage infrastructure” means in your vague comment and the details of it that is all your doing.
Do you think STEALING from one person and giving it to another (welfare – the ORIGINAL CONVERSATION) is “managing infrastructure”?????????
If you need someone to explain to you what “managing infrastructure” means, you should stay in the shallow end of the pool.
If that’s the case no amount of explanation will help you. If it’s not the case this is merely an attempt to distract on your part.
Your final question is more relevant.
Since people are both societies infrastructure and purpose, the objective is to keep them working.
When something happens that causes them to accidentally, prematurely or temporarily be unemployed they may need supplemental income to stay solvent while their condition improves until they again work as productive members of the social infrastructure.
In the “people motive” people are the priority and the purpose to everything.
“We the people”
“When something happens that causes them to accidentally, prematurely or temporarily be unemployed they” …. Need to use ‘Guns’ (Gov-Guns) and STEAL/ENSLAVE their working neighbors.
You know that is exactly what you are saying. Everyone does. It’s your P.O.S. criminal-mentality that is destroying this nation. Yet you’ll keep making excuses after excuses for it day-in and day-out.
The [WE] gang of P.O.S. Criminals RULE!!!!!
…is the only take away you get from that last phrase.
Too criminally motivated to realize the document was written as Supreme Law over "the people's" government that actually prevented the Government from working for Criminal P.O.S.'s. Do you see power granted to the government in that document for wealth distribution?
“while their condition improves until they again work as productive members of the social infrastructure”
That place is called PRISON.
Where criminal-minded people like yourself belong.
"We the People" founded this nation to ensure Liberty and Justice for all; not to allow 'Gun' theft of your neighbors until your criminally-minded 'condition improves'.
I bet that somewhere in the Certificate of Need process flowchart, there's a "Bribe legislator(s)" action item.
if by "not having this in place would be racist, and you don't want to be racist, do you?" action item you mean bribe, then yes.
Everyone has a “Certificate of Need” for a Slave … Nobody wants to end up being that Slave.
Maybe the best anyone can hope for is having Freedom and Justice for all.
The libertarian critique of CoN laws is almost as useless as CoN laws. It should be obvious to anyone that a bureaucrat deciding whether facilities should be constructed is a dumb idea that adds no value but a lot of paperwork. Meaning – obsessing about low hanging fruit is often more about some sort of cronyist lobbying than it is about dealing with the actual problem.
That said:
1) the feds/states provide a host of tax incentives/subsidies re those facilities. Some of which can be so significant that they are the tail that wags the dog.
2)the feds and state govt are major payors of medical services. Like insurers (as insurers or just administrators) - or provider groups (eg HMOs like Kaiser or others like Mayo, the ONLY way they can be fiduciaries re those payments is to create networks. Where volume is steered to within the network in exchange for discounted prices. Meaning – that those payors ARE going to exert some economic/pricing power if they are at all responsible. That is on the demand/revenue side – while CoN is on the supply side for those states that have those laws. But where is the analysis that indicates whether ‘the state’ is trying to do one or the other or both or neither or is distorting ‘provider networks’ in order to control supply? And no, that doesn’t mean advocating a free market Somalia system as a starting point.
3)The issues are very different re primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care. The biggest failure of the US is primary care but it ain’t doctors offices. It’s a lack of GP’s. Secondary care is probably the original intent of CoN laws – but the 35% reduction in hospital beds over the last 50 years is not a result of CoN laws but of mergers. Tertiary care is almost certainly where CoN laws create obstacles to investors who want to ‘densify’ pill hills. Those are also the areas where those who want to invest also want to make sure that payors dismantle networks and move to fee-for-service that massively jacks up costs.
Those are all real issues. A focus on CoN is a fucking diversion of attention. Likely for cronyist/lobbyist reasons – like everything in our medical system.
“To put it simply, you have the government saying that less expensive, quality health care services that patients actually need are not needed,” explains Josh Windham, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who recently argued on behalf of Singleton at the North Carolina Supreme Court. “Who is the government to say that to people? Shouldn’t patients and doctors make those choices?”
I worked in healthcare for over 20 years. While yes, it’s technically the government telling you that, and it’s the government that has the enforcement power, it’s the existing, large corporate institutions (this includes non-profits) who are telling the government that. Because guess who sits on those boards who make those decisions?
" Who Decides What Health Care Is 'Needed'?"
Our obvious betters in power is the correct answer.
They've all read Marx, Lenin and Mao's writings, so they're so much smarter than all us illiterate and ungrateful peasants.
We should let them determine who should get healthcare, who lives, who dies, and who gets front seat tickets to rock concerts.
Otherwise, the people will be faced with the onerous task of thinking for ourselves.
"To put it simply, you have the government saying that less expensive, quality health care services that patients actually need are not needed"
Except that in more cases the services are more expensive and of dubious efficacy. And they want someone else, often the taxpayer, to pay for them.
Cite?
"And they want someone else, often the taxpayer, to pay for them"
^EXACTLY... The problem. Well Said.
IN-Justice is precisely a consequence of Justice being ignored.
if you think more privatization and profit-seeking is going to fix this problem fucking kill yourself
If you think more state control of healthcare is needed, then you should die. Regardless of whether it’s by your own hand.
die.
FOAD, steaming pile of lefty shit.
What were those people called that worked without profit??????
OH YEAH.... Slaves...
Still the Party of Slavery.
Humorously; Once upon a time when it was more privatization and profit-seeking it wasn’t a ‘Healthcare Crisis’ and doctors came to your door for the price of a pizza.
Ya know; just like the dental healthcare that hasn’t been [Na]tional So[zi]alized as much.
UR the perfect case of doubling-down of blatant stupidity.
'Guns' (Gov-Guns) aren't a tool of healthcare.
In discussions about who decides what healthcare is "necessary," it's clear that patient autonomy often takes a backseat. This can be particularly concerning with preventative health measures, where quick access to testing can empower people to make informed choices about their health. For instance, rapid and accessible testing options for STDs and STIs can be life-changing for those seeking peace of mind or immediate intervention. Sites like readyhelp.it https://readyhelp.it/rapid-std-sti-test/ provide quick testing solutions, helping bridge the gap between traditional healthcare delays and individual needs. Expanding these resources could ease pressure on healthcare providers while respecting personal health decisions.