Oklahoman: Policymakers Should Revisit Certificate of Need Programs
Policymakers should revisit certificate of need programs
by The Oklahoman Editorial Board
IN health care, government “certificate of need” programs have limited consumer choice and increased prices so much that even the federal government has largely abandoned them (as have 14 states). Why doesn’t Oklahoma do the same?
Certificate of need programs prohibit health care providers from entering new markets or expanding facilities without first receiving the blessing of state regulators. A new paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “Certificate-of-Need Laws: Implications for South Carolina,” shows how these laws are counterproductive and reduce health care access.
Two rationales, which contradict one another, are typically offered by defenders of certificate of need programs. On the one hand, they claim such regulations help reduce or control health care costs. On the other hand, they argue that the programs help subsidize charity care for the poor by allowing health care providers to reap outsized profits on other patients.
“These programs intend to create quid pro quo arrangements: state governments restrict competition, increasing the cost of health care for some, and in return medical providers use these contrived profits to increase the care they provide to the poor,” the Mercatus report notes.