Certificate of Need in the Post-Affordable Care Act Era

E. W. Parento
{"title":"Certificate of Need in the Post-Affordable Care Act Era","authors":"E. W. Parento","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2845687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Certificate of need (CON) programs were conceived approximately fifty years ago as supply constraint mechanisms for health care services, in an environment that is essentially unrecognizable today. Every aspect of the health care landscape has changed dramatically, particularly in the years since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The historical rationales in support of CON programs have been vigorously questioned by scholars across disciplines, roundly criticized by the federal government, and largely disproven by research. Yet the status quo persists, with 36 states retaining CON laws, due in large part to a combination of entrenched interests and political inertia that prevents either repeal or significant modification. Still, proponents of a more efficient health care model need not lose hope. Kentucky was widely recognized as among the most successful states in its implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As part of its implementation efforts, the Commonwealth reformed its CON program to reward health care providers who embrace rather than resist the changes occasioned by health care reform. While the eventual impact of Kentucky’s CON modernization cannot yet be known, these reforms may offer insights for additional states as they consider whether and how to reform their own CON programs. Indeed, rather than being an historic relic that must be tolerated in the absence of political will for change, it may be possible for a modernized CON program to serve as an additional regulatory tool for states seeking to nudge their health care providers into fuller engagement in the post-Affordable Care Act health care landscape.","PeriodicalId":309156,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Health Care Delivery (Topic)","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Health Care Delivery (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2845687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Certificate of need (CON) programs were conceived approximately fifty years ago as supply constraint mechanisms for health care services, in an environment that is essentially unrecognizable today. Every aspect of the health care landscape has changed dramatically, particularly in the years since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The historical rationales in support of CON programs have been vigorously questioned by scholars across disciplines, roundly criticized by the federal government, and largely disproven by research. Yet the status quo persists, with 36 states retaining CON laws, due in large part to a combination of entrenched interests and political inertia that prevents either repeal or significant modification. Still, proponents of a more efficient health care model need not lose hope. Kentucky was widely recognized as among the most successful states in its implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As part of its implementation efforts, the Commonwealth reformed its CON program to reward health care providers who embrace rather than resist the changes occasioned by health care reform. While the eventual impact of Kentucky’s CON modernization cannot yet be known, these reforms may offer insights for additional states as they consider whether and how to reform their own CON programs. Indeed, rather than being an historic relic that must be tolerated in the absence of political will for change, it may be possible for a modernized CON program to serve as an additional regulatory tool for states seeking to nudge their health care providers into fuller engagement in the post-Affordable Care Act health care landscape.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后平价医疗法案时代的需求证明
大约50年前,需求证明(CON)项目被设想为医疗保健服务的供应约束机制,其环境在今天基本上是不可识别的。医疗保健领域的各个方面都发生了巨大变化,特别是在《平价医疗法案》颁布以来的几年里。支持CON项目的历史依据受到了各学科学者的强烈质疑,受到了联邦政府的严厉批评,并在很大程度上被研究证明是错误的。然而现状依然存在,有36个州保留着CON法律,这在很大程度上是由于既得利益和政治惰性的结合,阻止了废除或重大修改。尽管如此,支持更高效医疗模式的人不必失去希望。肯塔基州被广泛认为是实施平价医疗法案最成功的州之一。作为其实施工作的一部分,联邦改革了其CON方案,以奖励那些接受而不是抵制卫生保健改革所带来的变化的卫生保健提供者。虽然肯塔基州的CON现代化的最终影响尚不清楚,但这些改革可能会为其他考虑是否以及如何改革自己的CON项目的州提供见解。事实上,在缺乏政治变革意愿的情况下,一个现代化的CON计划可能不会成为一个必须被容忍的历史遗迹,而是可能成为各州寻求推动其医疗服务提供者更充分地参与后平价医疗法案医疗保健领域的额外监管工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
China's Governance of COVID-19: Achievements and Limitations Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Health IT & Analytics Internationalization of COVID-19 Vaccine Using the Biotech INVs Model Public and Private Options in Practice: The Military Health System Pricing Above Value: Selling to an Adverse Selection Market
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1