Florida's Certificate of Need Program Turns to Certificate of Want
On June 25, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a new bill deregulating the requirements governing the establishment of new health care facilities and programs in the state of Florida. Nonexempt programs, including nursing homes, hospice and specialty hospitals, have not been deregulated by this recent change in the law.
September 12, 2019 at 09:39 AM
5 minute read
On June 25, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a new bill deregulating the requirements governing the establishment of new health care facilities and programs in the state of Florida. Nonexempt programs, including nursing homes, hospice and specialty hospitals, have not been deregulated by this recent change in the law. Effective July 1, facilities such as general in-patient hospitals and programs such as tertiary services are no longer subject to the highly contested requirements of certificate of need approval by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
The process delineated by the prior certificate of need program required health care facilities to demonstrate an unmet need for a service or facility that was subject to regulation. Applicants for new services or facilities were required to file a detailed application with AHCA evidencing an unmet need in the proposed community or service area. Thereafter, existing health care facilities were entitled to file a statement of opposition to rebut the assertions made by the applicant. AHCA would then issue an initial decision to either approve or deny the application, depending on whether the statutory review criteria were met. After AHCA's preliminary decision, the losing party would then file an administrative challenge with the Division of Administrative Hearings. After the parties presented evidence to an administrative law judge in a process analogous to a nonjury trial, a proposed recommended order would be issued and transmitted back to AHCA. The agency would issue a final order, and the parties could then appeal AHCA's final decision to the district court of appeal.
The certificate of need process was originally enacted in Florida in 1973. It underwent significant changes in the 2004 and 2008 legislative sessions, in an attempt to streamline the process. According to the Florida Hospital Association, only 12 states are entirely deregulated without a certificate of need program. Florida now joins the list of states that are minimally regulated, having removed 18 services and beds.
Proponents of the certificate of need process argue that maintaining significant barriers to entry helps ensure high quality medical care. This is particularly true as it relates to complex medical procedures, where meeting volume thresholds is key to safeguarding patient safety. Proponents also argue that limiting excess capacity stemming from overbuilding leads to reduced health care price inflation. And finally, proponents cite the distribution of care to rural and less affluent areas, where health care facilities often do not seek to establish new facilities or services.
On the other hand, deregulation proponents criticize the certificate of need process for significantly restricting competition. Proponents argue that deregulation and free market economics reduce health care prices and costs. Additionally, proponents cite the political influence that has become deep-rooted in the certificate of need process. By removing the prevalent political influence, proponents argue that more important factors, such as the interests of the community, will influence decision making.
Despite both sides legitimate arguments, it is unquestionable from the process described at the outset that the certificate of need process is costly, highly contested and lengthy. Simply put, this process imposes additional burdens such as litigation fees, poor public relations and decisions that lack finality. Although limiting unproven entrants to the health care market is a valid consideration, the practical result has been existing health care facilities using the certificate of need process offensively, to proactively limit new players from usurping existing market share.
For example, many of Florida's general in-patient hospitals are comprised of large corporations and nonprofit entities that benefit from dominating the market share in their service areas. Under the old regulatory scheme, existing facilities would discourage other hospital systems from entering their market with threats of protracted litigation and absorbent litigation fees in the guise of a lack of need for the proposed service or facility. Even if innovative services or increased levels of charity care to indigent patients were being proposed, existing health care facilities would nonetheless use the certificate of need process to protect existing market share at all costs.
As a result of deregulating much of the certificate of need process in Florida, the requirements to establish a new hospital or provide complex tertiary health care services have been significantly reduced. Now, rather than going through a lengthy and contested process, health care facilities only have to satisfy licensing requirements with AHCA. Importantly, existing health care providers are no longer able to rid the market of competition with their de facto veto power to prevent new systems from entering an existing market.
The ultimate question that has not been resolved by the new law is how AHCA will implement the new licensing process. The bill that DeSantis signed into law does not provide for the applicable licensing requirements; therefore, AHCA will be left to implement administrative rules to govern this process going forward.
Alec J. Zavell is a Fort Lauderdale attorney with Hinshaw & Culbertson where he defends clients in a broad range of civil litigation, focusing on personal injury and property damage matters. Contact him at [email protected].
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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