Policy Analysis Certificate of Needs CON Law Policy Analysis

HEALTHCARE Healthcare: Policy Analysis- Certificate of Needs (CON) LawFor the regulation of the American healthcare system, certain laws have been instituted to facilitate the functions of healthcare convenience. With the notion that healthcare delivery would be accessible to all, without discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or location proximity, CON has been under debate for particular reasons. This paper aims to highlight what CON is in reality, whom it has impacted, and the points of concern regarding disseminating its benefits.Background (What Are CONs)A Certificate of Needs (CON) is the permission that healthcare providers need from lawmakers before introducing a new treatment or service to the population (Mitchell, 2021). It needs to be ensured that the new healthcare intervention is harmless and would not harm the populations health. The expansion of facilities for a specific purpose and investment in healthcare technology must be approved by lawmakers for authentication as well as validation for high levels of reliability (Mitchell, 2021).It is discerned that amendments to these measures are made for the better health of the countrys population. Improving healthcare access and serving the particular underserved segments remain at the heart of these alterations for which CON is required. However, recent evidence has provided contrary results.The first state where CON was legalized was New York in 1964 (Mitchell, 2021). Other states that followed the same pattern included California, Maryland, and Rhode Island, along with 22 other states (Mitchell, 2021). The transformation took place over ten years. For gaining funding, the implementation of CON was made necessary under the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act passed in 1974 (Mitchell, 2021). It resulted in all states adopting CON except Louisiana. Soon it became evident that CON was not making considerable positive outcomes regarding healthcare access, implementation of health policies, and improvement in medical aid quality.Populations Affected By CON and How They Are AffectedRecent investigations revealed that CON created problems in the states where they were accepted. Still, rural segments remained deprived of their actual fruitful consequences (Mitchell, 2021). Few hospitals were working under CON, especially those located in rural areas.During the pandemic, many states have repelled themselves from CON (State Policy Network, 2021). It was because CON was seen as causing more harm to rural people and higher mortality rates for Coronavirus. The prevention strategies were weak, with higher costs of maintaining them under CON. The rural people could not bear those costs; hence, they were always at the mercy of CON laws and their negative outcomes on their health.Identification of the ProblemThe most common result of CON is…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…revealed that more than 20 states have opted out of CON after adhering to it for a while (Conover & Bailey, 2020). After they noticed unclear results in terms of cost management, the healthcare dollar value of family income and their thresholds, GDP per capita and health outcomes, etc., certain figures did not match to present a comprehensive review. How CON could be operational and fruitful regarding new services and innovation to enhance human lives remains a question.ConclusionThe initial objective of CON was to provide high-quality medical care at low costs, making it as feasible as possible for the rural and disadvantaged segments of the population. Higher reach was also included in its aims with the incorporation of support from the government. However, the results portrayed an entirely different picture where the disparity gap was magnified with no incidence of cost-controlling for the poor. The market power remained with those who already monopolized the healthcare industry. The rise in prices, even for healthcare insurance, kept going out of the hands of policymakers. The lawmakers need to contemplate the intersection of existing and new incoming technological facilities for providing a wide range of healthcare benefits. The poverty-stricken areas should be offered open adequate serving of healthcare, at least at par with the general population, in…