If you believe that free and competitive markets deliver better quality at lower costs, you will enjoy reading the decision handed down by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves yesterday in the case of Charles Slaughter vs. Dr. Thomas Dobbs as the Mississippi State Health Officer. The case concerns Certificate of Needs (CON) laws that are pervasive in Mississippi’s healthcare arena.
Judge Reeves ruled “Taken as true, as the Court must, the allegations reveal that CON laws result in more costly, less accessible, and worse quality health care. What’s more, plaintiff claims that the basis for CON laws and the moratoria is pure economic protectionism—an illegitimate government interest.”
Judge Reeve’s also points out Mississippi’s case is an outlier from other CON cases due to Mississippi having a 40-year-old moratoria, banning start-ups, and that “this unprecedented context is highly relevant”, especially in light of a global pandemic when at-home health care is in demand.
Mr. Slaughter discussed his fight to overturn the certificate of need laws in the podcasts posted below.
This post was sponsored and authored by Bigger Pie Forum.
10 comments:
I'm building a widget factory and I want mine to be the only one so I can control the price of widgets
Fish you should know better. This was an order denying a motion to dismiss, not a ruling on the merits, and Bigger Pie either intentionally or recklessly misrepresents what the judge did. He wasn't "ruling" on the merits. He was simply reciting the allegations (as yet unproven) of the plaintiff's claims. This trash from the Bigger Pie has no place on your site, even though they paid you to post it.
The CON laws are the single most anti-competitive laws impacting any industry in Mississippi and need to be overturned. Every private individual seeking healthcare would benefit from the elimination of CON laws as access to healthcare, quality of healthcare, and competition among all providers would be greatly enhanced.
The ONLY groups that benefit from CON laws (at the expense of all MS residents) are the existing healthcare providers and their silk stocking law firms who aggressively use CON laws as a sword to protect their turf to the death of any anyone else who applies.
Serious question - do hospitals get federal/state/local tax breaks? If so, keep the CON because government has an interest in the facility and can tell them where to be. If they do not get a break on location, they should be able to set up wherever they want.
Bill: I didn't write it, knucklehead. As usual, you get it wrong.
Solid decision from Judge Reeves. For anyone who thinks that he is a screaming liberal judicial activist, that is not correct. He has dismissed constitutional claims from my clients before. He is a very smart jurist. Even when his rulings are adverse to my clients. They are well-reasoned.
CON is a con, and needs to be abolished forthwith.
Kingfish has been listening to Supertalk. This was covered there from top to bottom two days ago. I thought KF only ripped off Maggie.
But, all Gerard and the guy supporting the trashing of CON (which I agree with) would mention was the unfair disadvantage CON causes entrepreneurs. Not one damned word in an hour about hospitals leaving town for greener pastures north of Jackson. Nothing but yacking about an entrepreneur being verbally-assaulted in hearings by the very people who he plans to compete with.
Today we argue about whether it's fair (and legal) to restrict the dreams of those who want to establish a medical presence.
In three years we'll argue about whether it's fair (and legal) to restrict the dreams of those who want to open pot shops on the corner in every town.
Let's call it the 'Marijuana Certificate of Need'.
Post a Comment