• John Locke Update

    CON: Certificate of Need, or Cronyism Ongoing Now?

    October 15, 2013
    View in your browser. Certificate of Need (CON) laws were foisted upon the states by the federal government with the passage of the Health Planning Resources Development…
  • Research Report

    Certificate-of-Need Laws: It’s Time for Repeal

    November 27, 2005
    In North Carolina and 34 other states, if you are a health care entrepreneur and you want to do anything from adding a new wing or extra beds to an existing hospital, to opening an office that offers MRI or other services, you need a “Certificate of Need” from the state. If this sounds like the kind of central planning one might find in a socialist economy – it is. In North Carolina, the central planning authority is known as the Health Planning Development Agency, part of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The role of this agency is to plan economic activity provided by medical-care facilities. This is done down to the most minute detail, circumventing the most basic function of private decision-making in a free enterprise system, i.e., the allocation of resources based on entrepreneurial insight and risk taking.
  • Press Release

    Analyst: Repeal N.C.’s Certificate-of-Need Laws

    November 27, 2005
    RALEIGH — Medical providers in North Carolina must receive permission from the state — called a certificate of need (CON) — to add services such as extra hospital beds or…
  • John Locke Update

    How an Overzealous Licensing Board’s Threat Shows the Need for Structural Licensing Reform

    July 16, 2021
    The state licensing board for massage and bodywork said reflexologists didn't practice massage and bodywork — then they changed their mind. House Bill 434 would ward off this licensing threat by creating a state healing arts commission to oversee reflexologists and music therapists, with other practices sure to be added. North Carolina needs structural overhaul of its occupational regulation, especially a careful, thoughtful approach in law to make sure any future regulation of a practice is the "least restrictive regulation necessary to protect consumers" and "demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to legitimate health, safety, and welfare objectives."