Montana Bill Would Establish Stricter CON Process for ASCs
House Bill 306 (pdf) would require an organization to apply for a certificate of need and also conduct an impact study to find the financial and operational ramifications of the proposed ASC on existing healthcare facilities, such as critical access hospitals, in a county with 50,000 people or less. Applicants will also have to pay for the impact study and provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposal, among other stipulations.
If Montana finds the proposed ASC would adversely affect the CAH in the county, the state would either deny the CON or "impose conditions on the applicant…to mitigate the adverse impact."
CAHs praised the bill, sponsored by Rep. Ron Ehli (R-Hamilton), saying it would prevent ASCs from draining profits from their organizations that are used to pay for less profitable and essential service lines, such as emergency care, according to a Missoulian report.
Larger hospitals and health systems opposed the bill. Kalispell (Mont.) Regional Healthcare, one of the largest systems in the state, said the bill would make it difficult for them to expand their ASC services in rural areas, according to the report.
More Articles on ASCs and CONs:
Outlook for De Novo ASCs in 2013 and Beyond: Q&A With Luke Lambert of ASCOA
CON Regulations by State: ASCs and the Limits on Expansion
Outlook on ASC Opportunities for CON States: Q&A With Dr. Edward Gronka of Fayette Plastic Surgery Center
© Copyright ASC COMMUNICATIONS 2014. Interested in LINKING to or REPRINTING this content? View our policies by clicking here.
New From Becker's ASC Review
Texas Health Resources to build ASC at RockwallRead Now
- Consumer and clinician opinions on big data, telehealth and mHealth: 8 things to know
- Innovation's moral quandary: When am I obligated to reinvent the wheel?
- House Republicans sue Obama administration over PPACA: 5 things to know
- Just 1% of organizations will eliminate healthcare coverage, survey finds
- DOJ recovers $2.3B in healthcare False Claims Act cases in FY 2014