NC Senate to consider bill ending certification process for new health care facilities
Whether the General Assembly passes the bill, known as Senate Bill 370, may ultimately be a moot point. The state courts are currently considering a case that could also bring an end to certificate of need laws in North Carolina at the direction of the state Supreme Court, which in October wrote that the lawsuit's allegations 'could render the Certificate of Need law unconstitutional in all its applications.'
Currently, 35 states require health care providers to complete the certificate of need process before creating certain new offerings. In North Carolina, that process is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services with the aim of restricting 'unnecessary increases in health care costs' and 'unnecessary health services and facilities based on geographic, demographic and economic consideration.'
The North Carolina Healthcare Association, which represents hospitals, supports the practice, writing in a 2024 policy brief that the program 'ensures that hospitals and health systems maintain the resources to provide high-value care to all.'
Proponents of certificate of need laws say they prevent unnecessary expenses on new medical facilities and services that would be underutilized and whose costs would ultimately be passed down to patients. Opponents say that in practice, the program impedes vital health care expansion and forces patients to shoulder the cost of millions in consulting and legal fees that hospitals pay to navigate the certificate of need process.
Sen. Benton Sawrey (R-Johnston), one of the repeal bill's primary sponsors, criticized the certificate of need process as 'anticompetitive,' arguing that by allowing the market to decide where new facilities and services are necessary, patients will be better off and will be able to pay less for medical services.
'Ironically, a government program originally aimed at reducing health care prices is likely inflating them, at least in some situations,' Sawrey said. 'I think we can be proactive about this decision, but it requires a willingness to have that discussion rather than fall back time and again on the same entrenched positions that don't work, don't control costs, and don't let innovation occur in North Carolina's healthcare space.'
Sen. Jim Burgin (R-Harnett), a longtime hospital board member, called the change 'long overdue' and said in his experience, the process to receive a certificate of need takes a minimum of two years and $500,000 in legal fees.
'We could do not any cancer treatments in Harnett County up until this past year,' Burgin said. 'We went through the CON process in the years, but it took six years — really eight, if you add the work-up to it — from the time we started talking about it.'
Tim Rogers, CEO of the Association for Home and Hospice Care of North Carolina, said during public comment that his group believes the certificate of need law 'plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity, quality, and accessibility of this vital service.'
'The CON process helps prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by ensuring that new providers entering into North Carolina meet rigorous regulatory and financial standards before entering the market,' Rogers said. 'This screening reduces the risk of bad actors, exploiting Medicare and Medicaid, safeguarding taxpayer dollars while ethical business practices are held.'
Cody Hand, a lobbyist with the North Carolina Radiation Oncology Society, said that linear accelerators, like those Burgin said were held up by the CON process in Harnett County, require such careful review because they emit ionizing radiation and so are classified as nuclear technology.
'They require strict safety protocols that in this state don't exist outside of the CON process,' Hand said. 'The CON process serves as a critical checkpoint in both the safety and the staffing, not necessarily for cost control and not necessarily for planning, but for safety and accountability.'
After passing the Health Care committee Wednesday, the bill received a favorable recommendation from the Senate Rules Committee Thursday morning. It has not yet been scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Uruguay could become first in Latin America to pass euthanasia laws
If legislation is enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with a law that regulates euthanasia. Photo by Lolame/ Pixabay Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Parliament, has approved a bill on so-called "death with dignity" that would regulate euthanasia in cases of incurable illness and extreme suffering. The measure passed 64-29 and heads to the Senate. If enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with such legislation. The bill approved by the lower house states that euthanasia may be requested only by adults with full mental capacity who have been diagnosed with a terminal, incurable and irreversible illness that causes unbearable suffering and severely diminishes their quality of life. The measure does not allow assisted suicide. Requests must be made in writing and in person. A treating physician will evaluate the case within three days, followed by an independent second opinion within five days. If the two opinions differ, a medical board will decide within an additional five days. Additionally, the proposal would create an honorary commission to review cases, oversee compliance with the procedure and report to the Health Ministry and Parliament. Violations would be subject to penalties under the Penal Code. During debate in Congress, Health Committee chairman Luis Enrique Gallo said the bill "is about love, humanity and empathy" and about people "with very serious illnesses who are suffering," as well as a Uruguay that would be "once again a leader in rights" if the legislation advances. On the other side, "Never, never can an early death be a human solution," said Deputy Rodrigo Goñi, who called the measure a "disgraceful law." "What a paradox that in the year of the bicentennial, this Parliament is writing, I would say, the saddest page in its history," he added. Parliamentary debate in Uruguay has intensified since 2019, driven by the case of former sports official Fernando Sureda, who defended his right to die with dignity after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Polls conducted before the parliamentary debate showed strong public support for the measure. In 2020, 82% of respondents favored legalizing euthanasia, and in 2022 the polling firm Factum found 77% in support. In the Senate, the ruling Broad Front party holds a majority and is the main backer of the measure. Lawmakers are expected to pass it before the end of the year. In Latin America, the regulation of assisted dying remains largely uncharted territory, with progress driven mainly by court rulings rather than laws passed by legislatures. Colombia is the most prominent example. In 1997, the Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses, and in 2015 it established a mandatory medical protocol. In 2022, the right was expanded to include people with serious, incurable conditions that cause intense suffering. However, legislative regulation has lagged behind, and the debate over conscientious objection and effective access remains unresolved. In 2023, Ecuador legalized euthanasia after a landmark Constitutional Court ruling in favor of Paola Roldán, a patient with ALS. The country is still working on a regulatory framework to implement the decision. Elsewhere in the region, proposals are moving forward more cautiously or face strong political and religious opposition. Chile has been debating a bill on euthanasia and medically assisted dying since 2021. The measure was approved in the Chamber of Deputies, but has stalled in the Senate due to changes in government and pressure from conservative groups. In Argentina, parliamentary debate has seen several failed attempts, though public pressure is growing after high-profile cases that highlight the lack of options for terminally ill patients. Other countries, including Mexico, Peru and Costa Rica, have introduced bills or filed court petitions seeking to recognize the right to die with dignity, but without tangible results.
The Hill
21 hours ago
- The Hill
Texas Senate passes bill targeting makers of abortion-inducing drugs
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Senate Bill 6, which aims to 'protect unborn children,' passed the Texas Senate on Tuesday. SB 6 would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, mailing, transporting, delivery and prescribing of abortion-inducing pills, as well as allow private citizens in Texas to file suit against people or companies that manufacture or distribute abortion-inducing pills in the state. Abortion is already almost totally banned in Texas. The bill was filed by Sen. Brian Hughes, R-Tyler. A similar bill passed the Senate during the regular session; however, it died in the House. 'The moms are victims here,' Hughes said. 'What we will go after with SB 6 is the manufacturers and the distributors of these drugs that are making them for the purpose of illegal abortions.' In response to the bill's passage, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said protecting life was a priority of his and the Texas Senate. 'We passed SB 6 … to ensure that abortion-inducing drugs are not distributed in Texas for the purpose of obtaining an illegal abortion,' Patrick said. 'The Texas Senate will continue passing this pro-life protection each legislative session.'
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments this fall in a case about whether it should uphold or overturn Colorado's ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy. Why It Matters More than 20 states have banned conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The practice has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocates and many medical professionals who say conversion therapy does not work, lacks a scientific basis and can impose harm on minors. The nation's highest court on Tuesday announced that it will hear arguments in the case Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025. The ruling could have key implications for the legality of conversion therapy in the states that have banned the practice. It has drawn concerns within the community, as some are concerned that the conservative-leaning bench could require states to allow conversion therapy. What To Know The Supreme Court case focuses on Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado who challenged the state's law prohibiting the use of conversion therapy on minors. In a petition to the Supreme Court, her attorneys wrote that she is a "licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them." The petition raised a First Amendment argument, accusing Colorado of trying to ban "consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Proponents of the ban on conversion therapy point to statistics showing it can harm LGBTQ+ youth. A 2020 study from the Trevor Project found that minors who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to have reported suicide attempts and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to those who did not. Supporters argue that the state has the authority to regulate health care services that put minors at risk. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Canva/Getty Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, argued in a filing that Court precedent "allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech." "The Court of Appeals engaged in a straightforward application of this precedent to hold that the First Amendment allows states to regulate the professional practice of conversion therapy, like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, to protect minor patients from substandard professional care," he wrote. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek that the "Supreme Court's tea leaves seem to suggest that the Colorado law may be in peril." "That law proscribes alleged 'conversion therapy' by a professional counselor, whose sincere views are based on her Christian ideals and whose clients (adults and young people) actively seek her guidance because of their shared religious beliefs. To the Court, based on earlier cases, children are extremely vulnerable to the possible risks of such therapy and lack the maturity to accept or reject it," he said. However, the counselor argues that her First Amendment rights to "advise and assist her willing clients, who voluntarily wish to align their lives with their Christian faith, are unconstitutionally abridged by the broad state's law." "We shall see next year what the Court decides in this difficult case," Rossi said. Ryan Thoreson, a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, told Newsweek he believes Colorado has strong arguments in favor of its ban, but that he is "skeptical this Court will uphold the state's conversion therapy ban in light of its recent First Amendment rulings." "The Roberts Court has been consistently solicitous toward free speech and religious exercise claims brought by conservative litigants, even when those claims undermine longstanding laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination and harm," he said. Colorado is likely to argue that it is "well-established that states can permissibly regulate the conduct of medical professionals, and can prohibit practices that fall below a certain standard of professional care." "And they can do so even when that conduct involves some amount of speech. While the state can't prevent private citizens from voicing their opinion that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, they can prevent licensed medical professionals from trying to promote or facilitate that change as part of their practice, especially in light of a large body of evidence showing that conversion therapy is damaging to young LGBT people's mental health," Thoreson said. Chiles, meanwhile, is likely to argue the law censors her speech based on her views about sexual orientation and gender identity. Generally, if the state is censoring speech based on content, it must pass a "heavy burden" to prove a "compelling interest in limiting the speech" and that the regulation is the least speech-restrictive way of achieving its interest, Thoreson said. Colorado likely would not be the only state affected, according to Thoreson. "What the Supreme Court decides in this case could also have seismic repercussions for state regulation of medical speech more generally. A broad First Amendment right of medical providers to say or recommend whatever they like without professional or legislative oversight, even when there is clear evidence that doing so is harmful, could open the door to pseudoscience and junk science in both medical and physical health care settings," he said. Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Chiles, told Newsweek that children should not be "forced into one-size-fits-all options when they're looking for counseling help." "They deserve real support, not just state-approved talking points. Our client Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, works with her clients who voluntarily come to her with their goals to talk through what they are facing. Struggling kids deserve better than Colorado's law that pushes them toward harmful drugs and surgeries," he said. Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, told Newsweek there is a "real risk that the outcome indeed may be here that the court strikes down a ban on conversion therapy for minors." "What we know from well established science and research is that there is no amount of talk or pressure that can make a gay person not gay, or a trans person not transgender," Levi said. "It's really important that licensed therapists don't abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that research has shown puts kids at high risk of suicide attempts and self harm." Levi said it is "always hard to anticipate the scope of the court's decision," but it is possible the ruling could have "quite significant" implications for other states that have banned the practice. Do Americans Support Conversion Therapy? A majority of Americans are opposed to conversion therapy, according to a poll from Data for Progress, which surveyed 1,155 likely voters from June 6 to June 8, 2025. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they agreed conversion therapy should be banned, while only 35 percent said they should be allowed to take place. Sixty-two percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents and 49 percent of Republicans believed the practice should be banned. A December 2023 report from The Trevor Project found that there were 1,320 conversion therapy practitioners operating across the country, 605 of whom were operating under professional licenses. What Have Supreme Court Justices Said About Conversion Therapy? So far, at least one justice has signaled opposition to conversion therapy bans. After the court rejected a similar case out of Washington, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, "There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a person's sex is 'a gift from God, integral to our very being.'" Still, the court in 2023 rejected the challenge to a Washington law prohibiting conversion therapy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the law was regulating mental health care, not the speech of the provider. The court's decision to reject that challenge left that ruling in place. In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the rejection and would have heard the case. What People Are Saying Casey Pick, director of Law and Policy at The Trevor Project, told Newsweek: "The law at the heart of this case protects young people in Colorado from dangerous, discredited practices that have been proven to cause harm and increase suicide risk. This common-sense, bipartisan state law was put in place to prevent licensed mental health professionals from using these abusive practices on Colorado's youth; it really is that simple. "This law is squarely focused on ensuring that providers with government-issued licenses do not abuse the trust placed in them to subject minors to practices that have been rejected by every medical and mental health association in the country. We know that proponents of so-called conversion 'therapy' are making every attempt to impose an ideologically driven agenda. However, we remain hopeful that the justices will side with reason, evidence, and expertise, and uphold this effort by Colorado lawmakers to protect the health and safety of young people." Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Newsweek: "All who choose to live consistent with their biological sex are entitled to the help of counselors like Kaley as they work through that process. We hope the US Supreme Court will rule on the side of free speech and allow counselors like Kaley to work with her clients without the government mandating goals it prefers." Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, wrote in a statement in January: "In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado's judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we're committed to defending." What Happens Next Oral arguments are set for October 7. The court has also been asked to weigh in on another major LGBTQ+ rights case. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, has asked the court to revisit that ruling and overturn the national right to same-sex marriage. Legal experts told Newsweek that the case is a long shot, however.
