This paper examines Certificate of Need (CON) laws as a component of U.S. healthcare policy. It traces the origins of CON legislation from New York's 1964 statute through the 1974 National Health Planning and Resources Development Act, which led to near-universal state adoption. The paper identifies the populations most affected by CON requirements—particularly rural and low-income communities—and analyzes the documented problems associated with these laws, including reduced healthcare access, higher mortality rates, racial disparities, suppressed market competition, and limited technological innovation. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature and policy research, the paper concludes that CON laws have largely failed to achieve their founding objectives of broad, affordable, high-quality care.
The paper demonstrates policy analysis by juxtaposing the intended goals of CON legislation against documented outcomes. This gap analysis—contrasting what CON was designed to achieve with what research shows it actually produced—is a core technique in healthcare policy writing and helps the reader assess regulatory effectiveness objectively.
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then provides historical and definitional background on CON laws. The middle sections identify affected populations and enumerate specific policy failures organized by theme (access, cost, competition, innovation). The conclusion synthesizes these findings and gestures toward reform. The structure follows a classic policy-analysis format: context → problem identification → implications.
For the regulation of the American healthcare system, certain laws have been instituted to facilitate the delivery of healthcare services. With the notion that healthcare would be accessible to all—without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or geographic location—Certificate of Need (CON) laws have been the subject of ongoing debate. This paper highlights what CON laws are in practice, whom they have impacted, and the key concerns surrounding the distribution of their intended benefits.
A Certificate of Need (CON) is the permission that healthcare providers must obtain from state regulators before introducing a new treatment, service, or facility to the public (Mitchell, 2021). The approval process is meant to ensure that any new healthcare intervention is safe and will not harm the population's health. Expansion of facilities for a specific purpose and investment in healthcare technology must likewise be approved by lawmakers for authentication and to ensure high levels of reliability (Mitchell, 2021).
Amendments to these measures are made with the stated goal of improving the health of the country's population. Improving healthcare access and serving underserved segments remain central to these regulations, for which CON approval is required. However, recent evidence has produced contrary results.
The first state to legalize CON was New York in 1964 (Mitchell, 2021). Other states that followed included California, Maryland, and Rhode Island, along with 22 others (Mitchell, 2021). This transformation took place over roughly a decade. In order to qualify for federal funding, implementation of CON was made a requirement under the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 (Mitchell, 2021). As a result, all states adopted CON except Louisiana. It soon became evident, however, that CON was not producing considerable positive outcomes in terms of healthcare access, health policy implementation, or improvement in the quality of medical care.
Recent investigations revealed that CON created problems in the states where it was adopted. Rural segments, in particular, remained deprived of its intended benefits (Mitchell, 2021). Few hospitals operating under CON were located in rural areas, leaving those communities underserved.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many states suspended or repealed their CON requirements (State Policy Network, 2021). CON was seen as contributing to harm in rural communities and to higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Prevention strategies were undermined by the high costs associated with CON compliance, costs that rural residents could not absorb—leaving them subject to the negative health consequences of CON restrictions.
The initial objective of CON was to provide high-quality medical care at low costs, making healthcare as accessible as possible for rural and disadvantaged segments of the population. Expanded reach and government support were also central to its goals. However, the documented results present an entirely different picture: the disparity gap widened, cost controls for low-income populations did not materialize, and market power remained concentrated among those who already dominated the healthcare industry. Rising prices—even for healthcare insurance—have continued to outpace the influence of policymakers.
Lawmakers must reconsider the intersection of existing infrastructure and incoming technological capabilities in order to deliver a broader range of healthcare benefits. Poverty-stricken areas should be guaranteed adequate healthcare services at least comparable to those available to the general population. Rural and underserved communities deserve substantive reform, not regulatory frameworks that perpetuate the inequities CON laws were originally meant to address.
Botti, M. J. (2007, February 23). Competition in healthcare and certificates of need. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-healthcare-and-certificates-need
Conover, C. J., & Bailey, J. (2020). Certificate of need laws: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05563-1
Mitchell, M. D. (2021, May 21). Certificate of need laws: How they affect healthcare access, quality and cost. Mercatus Center.
Ohlhausen, M. K. (2015). Certificate of need laws: A prescription for higher costs. Antitrust, 30(1), 50–54.
Sandefur, C. (2020, February 26). Competitor's veto: State certificate of need laws violate state prohibitions on monopolies. Regulatory Transparency Project. https://regproject.org/paper/competitors-veto-state-certificate-of-need-laws-violate-state-prohibitions-on-monopolies/
State Policy Network. (2021, April 1). Certificate of need laws: Why they exist and who they hurt. https://spn.org/blog/certificate-of-need-laws/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.