This is the time of a legislative session when bills that are requests or subjects of specific circumstances are moving through. It is particularly worth watching because often, in addressing one matter, others are impacted and often with unintended consequences.
Such is a bill being considered in the House Judiciary II today.
Rep. Rick Glazier (D Cumberland) explains a proposed committee substitute for Senate Bill 804, CON Changes. The new bill does the following:
1. Specifies that the applicant who received a CON can petition to the Court of Appeals for a high bond rather than the holder of the CON
2. Prohibits any CONs for certain type of emergency depts for a certain time period
3. Requires DHSS to study the licensure of hospital based offsite emergenct depts.
The bill also changes some effective dates for issuance of a CON. Reportedly the effective date changes are made due to a conflict between US Oncology (in line for a CON) and Rex Hospital.
Lobbyists for several hospital and medical groups speak on behalf of their clients. There are outstanding court and agency cases currently being litigated around stakeholders’ capital expenses and investments. The discussion confirms some of JLF research into the inherent problems with CON laws.
Glazier has an amendment that has to do with the bond and changes part of the effective dates to being effective immediately and says “The policy is that there should be the right to appeal and the appeal should not be muted because of the way the law is written.”
The bill passes by a voice vote and goes to the House floor next. If it passes there, it would go back to the Senate for approval of the changes made by the House. Parties affected by these CON changes want this done before adjournment.
