- | Healthcare Healthcare
- | Feature Feature
- |
Certificate-of-Need Laws: How They Affect Healthcare Access, Quality, and Cost
What years of study reveals about the effectiveness of CON programs
Certificate-of-need (CON) laws require healthcare providers to seek permission from state regulators before they offer new services, expand facilities, or invest in technology. While the original hope was that CON laws would restrain healthcare costs, increase healthcare quality, and improve access to care for poor and underserved communities, a large body of academic research suggests that CON laws have instead limited access, degraded quality, and increased cost.
Despite this poor track record, CON laws remain in 35 states and the District of Columbia, keeping millions of Americans from getting the care they need.
Given the evidence from academic research and the experience of states which have undertaken reform, state policymakers who wish to increase patient access to high-quality, lower-cost care would be well advised to eliminate their entire CON programs. Reforming CON laws also represents a valuable step policymakers can take to improve the responsiveness of their healthcare systems in times of crisis. See below for research related to CON laws and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Which States Have Certificate-of-Need Laws?
As of May 2021, 35 states and the District of Columbia required providers to obtain a CON before offering at least one healthcare service. Two additional states, Minnesota and Wisconsin, set numerical caps on certain services such as the total number of hospital beds and nursing home beds. Other states require a CON for ground and air aPeoplembulance services, though these laws are often found in transportation statutes, and their effects on health outcomes are not as well studied. Hawaii has the highest number of CON restrictions (28) of any state, with North Carolina (27) and the District of Columbia (25) following close behind. Eleven states have removed all CON laws or caps: California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Options For Reforming Certificate-of-Need Laws
Many legislators see CON repeal as a common-sense way of improving healthcare in their states. While research shows full repeal is best, there are still ways to make meaningful reform happen even when full repeal is not feasible. Click on one of the reform options below to learn more about it.
If you'd like to schedule a consultation with one of our scholars on CON reform, email our outreach team.
More on Certificate-Of-Need Laws
Click on a topic below to learn more about CON laws. You can also visit our 2020 update on the state of CON laws across the country.
- A brief history of CON laws
- Do CON Programs Ensure an Adequate Supply of Healthcare Resources?
- Do CON Programs Ensure Access to Healthcare for Rural Communities?
- Do CON Programs Promote High-Quality Healthcare?
- Do CON Programs Ensure Charity Care for Those Unable to Pay or for Otherwise Underserved Communities?
- Do CON Programs Encourage Appropriate Levels of Hospital Substitutes and Healthcare Alternatives?
- Do CON Programs Restrain the Cost of Healthcare Services?
- Full List of Mercatus Peer Reviewed Research on CON Laws
- Full list of Mercatus Certificate-of-Need policy briefs
- Testimonies
- Other Helpful Links and Resources