DC's Black Voices
The Certificate of Need--what's the deal?
Opponents of the National Capital Medical Center are calling for the Certificate of Need process to block the initiative from happening.
Should the supporters of the NCMC be concerned about this strategy?
The CON process in the District is in place to ensure that services (hospital, stand alone outpatient, equipment and additional beds) are not duplicated in the same vicinity. Along the same lines, it ensures that new providers are not moving into an established providers backyard or trying to monopolize a service.
In some states the CON process is also done on the back end, if a hospital decides to close. This is to ensure that communities/patients aren't left without other health care options. Mind you, this didn't happen in the case of DC General.
Not every state requires the CON process. As a matter of fact, recently DC didn't use the process for 13 years. The opponents of the NCMC can legally tie up this initiative in the CON process for 5 years. This move would increase the cost commitment for the District exponentially and continue to leave a sector of the community without immediate access to a Level 1 trauma center.
So the question is can the Council members really support the NCMC and at the same time vote for the CON?
Or is this just a move to straddle the political fence on this issue?
The Certificate of Need--what's the deal?
Opponents of the National Capital Medical Center are calling for the Certificate of Need process to block the initiative from happening.
Should the supporters of the NCMC be concerned about this strategy?
The CON process in the District is in place to ensure that services (hospital, stand alone outpatient, equipment and additional beds) are not duplicated in the same vicinity. Along the same lines, it ensures that new providers are not moving into an established providers backyard or trying to monopolize a service.
In some states the CON process is also done on the back end, if a hospital decides to close. This is to ensure that communities/patients aren't left without other health care options. Mind you, this didn't happen in the case of DC General.
Not every state requires the CON process. As a matter of fact, recently DC didn't use the process for 13 years. The opponents of the NCMC can legally tie up this initiative in the CON process for 5 years. This move would increase the cost commitment for the District exponentially and continue to leave a sector of the community without immediate access to a Level 1 trauma center.
So the question is can the Council members really support the NCMC and at the same time vote for the CON?
Or is this just a move to straddle the political fence on this issue?
posted by Leo Alexander | 5:51 AM
2 Comments:
I don't understand CONs. Replication of services? I haven't read a lot about there being too much help available to people with medical needs!
In the District, the CON process is being used as an obstacle to preventing needed health care services for the poor. This wasn't its intended purpose but that's how it's being used.
Post a Comment
<< Home