The Economics of a Bed Shortage: Certificate-of-Need Regulation and Hospital Bed Utilization during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Unintended and Anticompetitive Consequences of Laws to Control Health Care Costs

This JAMA Forum discusses the effects of certificate of need laws, certificates of public advantage laws, and restrictions on physician-owned hospitals under the Affordable Care Act on hospital expansion and renovation and health care costs.

Nursing Home Certificate of Need Moratoria During the COVID-19 Pandemic Had Little Impact on Access

In over half of US states, health planning boards monitor and control the supply of health care through certificate of need (CON) laws. The COVID-19 pandemic led several states to impose moratoria on CON regulations, hoping to bolster hospital and skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds. Using a difference-in-difference research design, we leverage 2015 to 2021 cost report data from SNFs to study the association between COVID-related CON moratoria and health care supply. Counties that imposed moratoria experienced a slight decline in per-capita SNF bed count. However, once adjusted for potential differential shocks in pre-pandemic high utilization counties, we find little evidence that moratoria led to increased nursing home capacity, overall or by urbanicity. In the context of nursing homes, we conclude that CON deregulation was relatively ineffective at mitigating pandemic-era supply concerns.

Certificate of Need Laws in Health Care: Past, Present, and Future

Certificate of need (CON) laws limit the supply of health care services in about two-thirds of U.S. states. The regulations require those who wish to offer new services or expand existing services to first prove to a regulator that the care is needed. While advocates for the regulation have offered several rationales for its continuance, the balance of evidence suggests that the rules protect incumbent providers from competition at the expense of patients, payors, and would-be competitors. In this article, I review the history of CON laws in health care, summarize the large literature evaluating them, and briefly sketch options for reform.JEL Classification: I11, I18, H75.

Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Psycho-Oncological Support: A Latent Class Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Research suggests a global shortfall of psycho-oncological assessment and care during the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to delayed diagnosis of cancer. The present study is the first to explore the effect of the pandemic on the provision of psycho-oncological care, stage of cancer at first diagnosis, and duration of hospitalizations.

METHOD

Retrospective latent class analysis of 4,639 electronic patient files with all types, treatment types, and stages of cancer, 370 of which were treated during the pandemic prior to availability of vaccinations.

DISCUSSION

Latent class analysis identified four subgroups based on differences in screening for distress, provision of psycho-oncological support (consultation with a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist), administration of psychotropic medication, use of 1:1 observation, stage of cancer at first diagnosis, and duration of hospitalizations. Yet, the pandemic had no effect on subgrouping. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic had no effect on the provision of psycho-oncological support.

CONCLUSION

Results are contrary to prior research. The efficiency and quality of procedures implemented to provide psycho-oncological support during and prior to the pandemic are critically reflected.

The Effects of Certificate-of-Need Laws on the Quality of Hospital Medical Services

Certificate-of-need (CON) laws restrict entry into health services by requiring healthcare providers to seek approval from state healthcare regulators before making any major capital expenditures. An important question is whether CON laws influence the quality of medical services in CON law states. For instance, if CON laws actually lower the quality of medical services, they fail to achieve their intended effect. This paper tests the hypothesis that hospitals in states with CON laws provide lower-quality services than hospitals in states without CON laws. Our overall results suggest that CON regulations lead to lower-quality care for some quality measures and have little or no effect on other quality standards. The results remain consistent across several robustness tests.