CON Reform

Be sure to read Chrisishardcore’s comment here about CON reform for a pretty short and to the point explanation of what’s going on and why it is important.

There is a real balancing of interests going on between the needs of hospitals, rural communities, and private enterprise.  Chris does a good job of capturing the essence of that battle.

13 comments

  1. Chris says:

    Legitimate hospitals are against CON because they know they’ll be stuck being full service providers while their best doctors can jump ship and open up their own roadside medicine stands.

    Legit hospitals are against CON or CON reform?

  2. Sorry Chris F, I meant that legitimate hospitals (the Emory’s, Grady’s, etc) are against CON Reform.

    CON Reform is technically a free market “solution” to a perceived problem in Georgia, but I would contend that though I am normally in favor of a free market that because most of our healthcare system is not operating under a free market system it doesn’t make any sense to just apply it here and there.

  3. Ben Marshall says:

    Chris is overstating it. You say it is a perceived problem. Actually, it is a real problem when one hospital wants to be able to use certain equipment to do a certain procedure , but other hospitals in the same area use CON as a means to prevent that hospital from doing so, because it will mean their monopoly on that equipment and procedure will end.

    Some reform of CON needs to be done, particularly in the appeals process. Even Balfour, who is on the hospital side (against CON reform) and was on the CON Reform Commission, admitted that smaller reforms like this need to be done.

    Also, what is a non-legitimate hospital? Wellstar? Your use of “legitimate” isn’t clear.

  4. Ben Marshall says:

    Cancer Treatment Centers of America doesn’t even opeate in Georgia currently. And partly because currently operating hospitals use the CON process as a means to stop them. And this doesn’t even have to be CTCA, you could make up another hospital that doesn’t have the baggage of CTCA, and every hospital would line up to object to its opening.

    Also, I would hardly classify amublatory surgery centers as “roadside medicine stands.”
    I bet there are some bad ones, but I’ve also been to some terrible hospitals (private and public).

    I’m going to argue against Erick’s assertion that Chris’s presentation of the CON argument is a good overview of what’s going on. It’s not, and it’s pretty one-sided in favor of hospitals. I’m not going to say Chris is wrong, but it is wrong to say it is not a good overview of the issue and that it is one-sided.

  5. Ben Marshall says:

    I meant ot say in the last sentence, “but it is wrong to say it is a good overview of the issue.”

    Also, the CTCA battle is not necessarily the battle over CON Reform. You can have CON Reform and that argument without even touching the CTCA issue.

  6. Misunderestimitated says:

    Putting CON reform in the call does give Perdue another reason to have the Special, so its not all budget related. He was perturbed that his bill didn’t even get out of committee. It would add an interesting dynamic to the session and at least get something substantive done for the time spent.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    “CON” should be gotten rid of…otherwise, perhaps we should look at implementing a “CON” for:

    Lawyers
    Churches
    Political Consultants
    …and, so on…

  8. Demonbeck says:

    I’ll admit, I have not paid attention to this debate at all and am still formulating my position on this issue, but hospitals and other medical facilities have to gain approval from the state to provide certain services? If the state deems that those services are not needed/are already being fulfilled in that area, they deny the request?

  9. Inside_Man says:

    Demonbeck, yes. The biggest problem with this is that nearly every application is met by a legal challenge from an existing provider.

Comments are closed.