Mississippi saw some spectacular inauguration events over the past couple of weeks. Governor Reeves was sworn in for a second term, the House got a new Speaker, Jason White, and our lawmakers came together for the start of the new legislative session.
Amid the celebratory atmosphere, there was much talk about the need to work together to improve our state. It was great hearing leaders talk seriously about the need to improve the health of our state. According to various indexes, the Magnolia state has some of the worst health outcomes in the country. What can state leaders actually do about it? Often in politics, it is easier to define a problem than it is to solve it. State leaders might have plenty of powers, but the reality is they cannot always solve some of society’s most intractable problems. However, there is one thing that our state leaders could do this legislative session which would significantly improve healthcare in Mississippi: abolish the anti-competitive laws in the health-care sector that intentionally limit the number of healthcare providers in our state.According to a new report published by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, removing these outdated restrictions would boost health care in Mississippi, cutting costs, and improving access to treatment.
For several decades, if a healthcare provider wants to offer new services or expand existing services in 19 key areas of health care, it has to get a permit. These Soviet-style permits, known as Certificates of Need (CON), are also required for a provider wanting to spend more than $1.5 million on new medical equipment, relocate services from one part of the state to another, or change ownership.Unlike other sensible licensing requirements, CON requirements are not designed primarily to assess a provider’s qualifications, safety record, or fitness. The Certificate of Need application process uses central planning to determine if each applicant’s services are “needed” by the community. I believe it should be up to patients and practicioners to decide what health-care is needed, not government bureaucrats.
In many parts of our state, there is not medical care where it is most needed. Much blame should fall on CON laws since they have intentionally restricted what is available. What started out a generation ago as a misguided attempt to restrict increases in health-care costs became a legally sanctioned protectionist scheme.
CON laws in Mississippi limit the provision of long term care, despite demographic change that has seen the number of elderly people needing care increase dramatically. Ambulatory services, key diagnostic services, psychiatric services and many other services are all limited by CON laws. Mississippi’s leaders could remove the red tape restricting these services right away. Our report provides lawmakers with a list of options for reform. If the case for change is so overwhelming, why has it not already been done? In any market, when there are restrictions imposed to keep out the competition, there will be various vested interests lobbying for their retention. So, too, with CON laws. Defenders of CON restrictions suggest that CON repeal would be risky and dangerous. They like to imply that any reform would reduce access and quality would suffer. Such concerns are unfounded. Over 100 million Americans—nearly a third of the population—live in states without CON laws in health care. Four in ten Americans live in states with limited CON regimes that apply to only one or two services, such as ambulance services or nursing homes.If our lawmakers are serious about improving healthcare in Mississippi, I hope they read our report, which sets out not only what needs to be done, but provides a roadmap explaining how to do it. Let’s get down to work.
This post was authored by Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. The report, Mississippi’s Certificate of Need Laws: Options for Reform, can be accessed at mspolicy.org. MCPP sponsored this post.
12 comments:
Why is being healthy always associated with access to healthcare? State resources should go into educating Mississippians about the dangers of and eliminating processed foods from the diets of Mississippians.
He’s right but good luck doing anything! Hospitals are buying up private practices so there is no competition. If a billionaire built a world class hospital in Jackson he couldn’t open it because St D and Baptist would stop it. Crazy!
@2:25
that's a very good question. Access to care is associated with number of healthcare provider visits (preventive care included).
which in turn, leads to better health outcomes (statistically)
2:25 PM, it has never been about access. That is the misdirection play.
Government doesn't want you to smoke and will use its power to root out tobacco products. But when it comes to obesity, government does nothing.
Cons control the CON process.
Hell hath no fury when a healthcare competitor seeks a CON.
Great report
Note that the improved healthcare promoted by the author did not have any mention of improved quality! Their words: “…removing these outdated restrictions would boost health care in Mississippi, cutting costs, and improving access to treatment.”
This is 100% true.
Healthcare of all varieties will sprought everwhere especially if there was some state incentive to provide to places like the Delta, etc.
Note also that nobody anywhere, where a need has been identified, has been denied a certificate, so dire the need.
So why this push. There’s money to be made at the expense of the taxpayers and the folks getting treatment.
"Access to care is associated with number of healthcare provider visits (preventive care included)."
SO, taken to its obvious conclusion, the best health care will be associated with daily appointments with the doctor (or doctor-substitute at the big organizations).
Good to know. Ka-Ching!
Increase supply of healthcare providers! Let the market decide what the "need" is not the government and incumbent providers.
If our government would take as good care of it's citizens as it does the illegals we would not have any problems with healthcare.
With all the Conversation these days being about Rural Hospitals going broke, not getting enough reimbursement fro BCBS, Medicare, Medicare etc, etc. I have to wonder why-how anyone would be interested in Building a New Hospital-thus needing a CON? I just don't quiet understand that?
Post a Comment