State Regulators Float New Rules in Hospital War Battles
House Speaker Jose Oliva made eliminating the certificate of need programs a top priority during the legislative session that ended in May.
July 08, 2019 at 01:24 PM
4 minute read
Eliminating the certificate of need program for hospitals may have been the easy part, but how to license them in the future may be more complex.
Tallahassee health-care regulators on Wednesday started the layered process of reshaping the state's certificate of need program, moving ahead to focus it on nursing homes, hospices, and institutions for individuals with developmental disabilities.
But the proposed changes to the CON rules are only the beginning of a two-step process for Florida hospitals, as the Agency for Health Care Administration simultaneously moves to change the licensure requirements for hospitals.
The changes are necessary after the Legislature eliminated certificate of need program requirements for general acute care hospitals and tertiary services. The new law, which went into effect last Monday, keeps CON requirements for specialty hospitals in place until July 1, 2021.
Agency officials considered a pair of proposed changes to the CON regulations at a public meeting last Wednesday.
Before the new law, regulators reviewed applications in four cycles: two for hospitals and two for “other beds and programs.”
The proposed rules would maintain the four review cycles, but split them into two different categories. One category would deal with applications for hospital facilities and hospice.
The other category would be dedicated to nursing homes and intermediate-care facilities for individuals with disabilities.
The regulators moved quickly Wednesday to quash any questions related to any of the future licensure requirements that also are under consideration, such as changes to the rules for tertiary programs.
“I would like to just ask that we limit our questions to the rules that we are addressing today, as opposed to the questions related to HB 21 or other impacts that we will be addressing,” said Laura MacLafferty, AHCA bureau chief of Health Facility Regulation. “We will have rules that address those services in the very near future on the licensure side, as opposed to the CON rules we are addressing today.”
House Speaker Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes, made eliminating the certificate of need programs a top priority during the legislative session that ended in May. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the CON measure into law last month.
Florida has had a CON program since the 1970s. The program limits the ability to create health-care services and build new facilities. Advocates for CON have argued that overbuilt environments can lead to overutilization and can increase health-care costs. Moreover, proponents maintain that certificates of need help create safer environments in a variety of ways. For example, providers must perform a minimum number of procedures to maintain their certificates.
Opponents of the process argue that it limits the free market and, because CONs stifle competition, leads to increased costs. Critics have long argued that the requirements to maintain CONs can be shifted from certificates of need to licensure requirements.
Though the changes mostly impact hospitals, most health-care providers are watching them closely. Wednesday's meeting at the agency's headquarters was standing room only. A telephone line was available for those who couldn't travel to Tallahassee to attend the public meeting.
“This is a major change to our health-care laws, and it's more than nuance here because there also is going to be change to the licensure law,” said Florida Health Care Association lobbyist Bob Asztalos said of the larger-than-usual crowd. “I think the question everyone has here is, how much of the CON requirements for hospitals will actually roll over into licensure. We'll see how much leeway the agency is going to give hospitals to build or whether or not they are going to have a lot of requirements in licensure.”
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
- 1'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 2Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 3Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 4Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 5Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250