ahpa perspective certificate of need regulation richard k. thomas, ph.d. september 28, 2015
TRANSCRIPT
AHPA PerspectiveCertificate of Need Regulation
Richard K. Thomas, Ph.D.September 28, 2015
2
Credentials: AHPA• Oldest existing organization focused on
community health services planning• Only organization currently advocating for
publically oriented health services planning• Operated by experienced health planners
(many with CON experience)• Tracks state planning and CON activity• Frequently testifies on CON and other
health planning issues
3
Credentials: Richard K. Thomas• 40+ years experience in health services
research, planning, and evaluation• Author of a widely used health services
planning text• Consultant to dozens of healthcare
organizations• Extensive involvement in the CON process and
in state health plan development• 20-year board member of AHPA
4
AHPA Perspective:Initial Statement
• AHPA is not a proponent or an opponent of CON regulation in and of itself
• AHPA’s main interest is the promotion of the orderly development of the health care system
• The emphasis for over 50 years has been on the promotion of public and private community-oriented health services planning
• AHPA supports CON regulation to the extent that it serves this purpose
5
Questionable Assertions Concerning CON
• Primary purpose of CON is to:• “Control” healthcare costs• Limit entry into the market• Protect existing providers• Limit the expansion of services
6
Original Purpose of the National Health Planning Act (PL 93-641)
• To manage, through regional planning and supportive regulation, the supply and distribution (location) of health services
• Other functions are subsidiary to this• CON regulation was to be used a tool to this end• In implementing CON other functions may have
been added
7
Benefits DerivedFrom CON Regulation
• Improves access to care (especially for the underserved)
• Supports safety net hospitals• Supports rural hospitals• Assures availability of services to the
community• Assures the provision of charity care
8
Benefits DerivedFrom CON Regulation (cont.)
• Establishes standards for the provision of services
• Prevents unqualified entities from providing certain services
• Limits excess bed capacity• Assesses quality by monitoring
outcomes
9
Benefits DerivedFrom CON Regulation (cont.)
• Discourages unnecessary growth/expansion• Standardizes processes for service and
facility development• Encourages alignment of supply and demand• “Stops some of [the really bad] ideas”• Creates a forum for public involvement and
discussion
10
Comments on Attempts toEvaluate the Impact of CON
• Numerous attempts over the years to evaluate the impact of CON
• Some designed a priori to discredit CON• Many conducted by researchers with limited
knowledge of healthcare • Most flawed in some major way• Most come to tentative rather than definitive
conclusions
11
Challenges in ConductingEvaluation of CON
• Circumstances are different in every state (and among CON programs)
• Difficult to measure the relevant variables (e.g., quality, access, costs) or to even track the utilization of services
• Many difficult to measure factors affect the operation of the system and its attributes
• Very difficult to isolate, much less assess, the effect of CON regulation
12
The Impact of CON on Competition
• Detractors often argue that CON regulation stifles competition
• We have tried to operate as a competitive market for many decades, but there is little evidence of positive benefits
• Arguably the most profit oriented healthcare system in the world
• Many assume that healthcare operates like a traditional “market,” but does it?
13
No Market = No Competition
Many economists acknowledge that healthcare does not have the characteristics of a competitive market• No efficient, rational way of setting prices and ensuring
adequate access to care• Little relationship between costs, prices and payments• Consumers do not make most of the purchase
decisions• Consumers (and professional decision makers) often
do not know prices or take them into account• Normal laws of supply and demand do not operate
14
The Impact of CON on Supply
• Some argue that CON artificially limits supply by preventing entry of new providers
• Admittedly there is some localized shortage of certain personnel and services
• Main problem often is maldistribution, not limited supply
• U.S. overall has higher rates of facilities, personnel and equipment than most countries
15
The Impact of CON on Supply
Counter argument:• To the extent that CON operates to assure
appropriate allocation of resources, it reduces the likelihood of maldistribution and localized shortages
16
Response to FTC Testimony
Questionable value –includes information that is:• Outdated• Misleading• Irrelevant• Unsubstantiated
17
Response to FTC Testimony
Based on published results of 2003 FTC hearings• Much of the testimony based on
outdated information and data• Reflects very different circumstances
than exist today
18
Response to FTC Testimony
Very little based on defensible research:• Opinions accepted as fact• Stated facts are cherry-picked to reflect
often unique situations• Situations described without full context• Persistent use of “may”, “could”,
“potentially”, “may possibly” indicating little or no solid evidence
19
Response to FTC Testimony
Presentation of irrelevant arguments:• Comparison to anti-competitive
situations that are not related• Reference to cases in other industries
quite different from healthcare
20
Response to FTC Testimony
Unsubstantiated statements:• Little supporting documentation (even in
original hearings)• Claims that could not possibly be verified• Presentation of statistics without citation,
documentation or context
21
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
Virginia COPN has artificially limited the number of beds available to patients:• Claim that the U.S. has 362 beds per
100,000 population today• Because of COPN Virginia has only 231
beds per 100,000 population• Thus, Virginia residents are deprived of
needed beds (i.e., a deficit of 10,800 beds)
22
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
Irresponsible presentation of data:• At the time of the 2003 hearings U.S.
had <290 beds per 100,000• Today the U.S. has < 250 beds per
100,000• Today Virginia has 220 beds per
100,000
23
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
If it means anything, the FTC testimony proves the opposite of the point argued:• The U.S. had (and has) too many beds• Virginia had (and has) a more appropriate number of beds• The U.S. ratio has been (and is) moving closer the Virginia
ratio• Did Virginia COPN regulation cause it to have a more
appropriate bed ratio?• COPN regulation certainly did not cause Virginia to have a
more inappropriate ratio
24
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
If the bed ratio is a relevant indicator (and it’s not):• The correlation between the bed ratio and
the presence of CON requirements is not strong
• Non-COPN states picked at random all have a lower bed ratio than Virginia (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho)
25
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
• Moreover, variation in the hospital and nursing home bed to population ratios is greater among Virginia’s planning regions than it is among states with and states without CON regulation
• Given that COPN regulation applies equally in all Virginia planning regions, it cannot be argued that the intrastate variation is a function of the presence or absence of CON regulation
• The FTC and other opponents of CON regulation do not address this phenomena and its likely implications
26
Response to FTC Testimony:Case in Point
The same point could be argued with the other examples:• Nationwide we have too many facilities,
too much equipment, and do too much testing
• Virginia’s rates and experience, it could be argued, likely reflect a more appropriate balance of supply and demand
27
Have changes in the healthcare system eliminated the need for CON?• Argument has been made that changes in
the system make CON no longer necessary• Case based primarily on the assumption that
the primary purpose is to “control” costs• Argued that elimination of cost-based
reimbursement makes CON no longer relevant
28
Have changes in the healthcare system eliminated the need for CON?• Main purpose of CON is not cost control• Nevertheless, the cost of healthcare
continues to be an issue• Other issues that prompted the need for
CON regulations remain • Increases in health disparities indicate that
problems have not been eliminated
29
Have changes in the healthcare system eliminated the need for CON?Counter argument• Shortages/maldistribution of facilities, services
and personnel persist• Millions of newly insured patients making
demands on the system• Emergence of “population health” approach with
emphasis on system-wide remedies• New evidence of potential reduction in the overall
healthcare costs
30
AHPA Perspective:Closing Statement
• AHPA is not a proponent or an opponent of CON regulation
• AHPA’s main interest is the promotion of the orderly development of the health care system
• Our emphasis for more than 50 years has been on the promotion of community oriented health services planning
• We support CON regulation to the extent it serves this purpose
31
AHPA Perspective:Closing Statement
• As suggested above, it is virtually impossible to evaluate accurately and reliably the impact of CON regulation
• Relatively few opponents of CON regulation are objective observers; many are philosophically opposed to regulation and appear to have an ideological opposition to CON
• There are ways in which to improve the CON process; grounding it in a transparent community oriented health services planning program is critical
• To the extent that CON regulation contributes to the orderly development of the healthcare system, AHPA will continue to be supportive
32
AHPA Perspective:Additional Information
American Health Planning Association7245 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 319
Falls Church, Virginia 22042703-573-3101