{"title":"医疗保健领域的需求证明法:文献综述","authors":"Matthew D. Mitchell","doi":"10.1002/soej.12698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Certificate‐of‐Need (CON) laws limit the supply of healthcare services in about two‐thirds of U.S. states. The regulations require those who wish to open or expand their facilities to first prove that their services are needed. Once encouraged by the federal government, Congress eliminated the inducement in the 1980s and since then several states have either pared their CON programs back or eliminated them altogether. To date, there have been 128 academic assessments of CON laws and together these papers contain over 450 tests. In this paper, I review this literature, organizing the results around the most common rationales for CON laws. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming that CON laws do not achieve their purpose. Instead, the balance of evidence suggests that these regulations increase spending, reduce access to care, undermine quality, and fail to ensure care for underserved populations.","PeriodicalId":47946,"journal":{"name":"Southern Economic Journal","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Certificate‐of‐Need laws in healthcare: A comprehensive review of the literature\",\"authors\":\"Matthew D. Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/soej.12698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Certificate‐of‐Need (CON) laws limit the supply of healthcare services in about two‐thirds of U.S. states. The regulations require those who wish to open or expand their facilities to first prove that their services are needed. Once encouraged by the federal government, Congress eliminated the inducement in the 1980s and since then several states have either pared their CON programs back or eliminated them altogether. To date, there have been 128 academic assessments of CON laws and together these papers contain over 450 tests. In this paper, I review this literature, organizing the results around the most common rationales for CON laws. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming that CON laws do not achieve their purpose. Instead, the balance of evidence suggests that these regulations increase spending, reduce access to care, undermine quality, and fail to ensure care for underserved populations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern Economic Journal\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern Economic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12698\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Economic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12698","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在美国约三分之二的州,需求证明(CON)法限制了医疗服务的供应。这些法规要求那些希望开设或扩大其设施的人首先证明其服务是必需的。联邦政府曾一度鼓励这种做法,但美国国会在 20 世纪 80 年代取消了这一鼓励措施,此后,一些州要么缩减了 CON 计划,要么将其完全取消。迄今为止,学术界已对 CON 法律进行了 128 次评估,这些论文共包含 450 多项测试。在本文中,我回顾了这些文献,并围绕 CON 法律最常见的理由对结果进行了整理。积累的大量证据表明,CON 法并未实现其目的。相反,大量证据表明,这些法规增加了开支,减少了医疗服务的可及性,损害了医疗质量,并且无法确保为得不到充分服务的人群提供医疗服务。
Certificate‐of‐Need laws in healthcare: A comprehensive review of the literature
Certificate‐of‐Need (CON) laws limit the supply of healthcare services in about two‐thirds of U.S. states. The regulations require those who wish to open or expand their facilities to first prove that their services are needed. Once encouraged by the federal government, Congress eliminated the inducement in the 1980s and since then several states have either pared their CON programs back or eliminated them altogether. To date, there have been 128 academic assessments of CON laws and together these papers contain over 450 tests. In this paper, I review this literature, organizing the results around the most common rationales for CON laws. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming that CON laws do not achieve their purpose. Instead, the balance of evidence suggests that these regulations increase spending, reduce access to care, undermine quality, and fail to ensure care for underserved populations.