Home » Opinion » Editorials
CONned again: Raising NH health care prices
The law "promotes rational allocation of health care resources in the state," it stated. Rational allocation. By the state. Let that sink in.
The next year, Jimmy Carter was defeated in a landslide, and in the years that have followed the public and policymakers have learned a great deal about economics and price controls. Here is what some of the official U.S. government studies have found.
A 1988 Federal Trade Commission study "finds that hospital costs are not lower in states that subject a larger proportion of proposed hospital expenditures to CON review. The study thus finds no evidence that CON programs have led to the resource savings they were designed to promote but rather indicates that reliance on CON review may raise hospital costs."
In 2004, the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice revisited the CON issue. "The Agencies believe that, on balance, CON programs are not successful in containing health care costs, and that they pose serious anti-competitive risks that usually outweigh their purported economic benefits," the report concluded. "Market incumbents can too easily use CON procedures to forestall competitors from entering an incumbent's market."
(The 2004 study and several others are summarized nicely in a report issued last year by the Josiah Bartlett Center.)
Educated by such research, New Hampshire legislators voted in the last session to repeal the state's CON law. Incredibly, the state House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to reinstate the law before the positive effects of its repeal could be felt.
Why would New Hampshire, having just abolished a law that restricts the supply and increases the cost of health care services, bring it back? There are only two possible reasons. One, large hospitals, which benefit from the higher prices and reduced competition CON laws generate, have pressured politicians to revive the law. Or two, politicians don't want to give up the power CON laws give the state.
The CON law revival was part of the House budget. The Senate should strike that part and make clear that it will not find its way into any committee of conference report.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- John Stossel: Federal prosecutors are out of control - 2
- Jonah Goldberg: How offshore oil rigs are helping the environment - 1
- George Will: In Kentucky, a constitutional moment - 3
- Another View -- John H. Sununu: Voters, pick a governor who is serious about the Pledge - 4
- Charles Arlinghaus: This government 'investment' is a bad idea - 5
- Pat Buchanan: The high price of papal popularity - 0
- Kathy Sullivan: Scott Brown does not get what 'pro-choice' really means - 15
- Deroy Murdock: Scott Brown's good case for a Republican Senate - 1
- Jonah Goldberg: Rise of the Clinton Democrats (not really) - 0
READER COMMENTS: 0
- UMass Lowell polls show senate, gubernatorial races still a close call - 0
- Islanders make Boychuk's return a happy one with 3-2 win - 0
- Police say driver in Amherst fatal crash was traveling about 45 mph above limit - 0
- Manchester Crimewatch: Parolee returned to prison in 3rd protective order case - 0
- Two new tanks would sink nearly obsolete reservoir - 0
- Swanzey dog rescue seeks funds to rebuild after fire - 0
- Timberlane schools want to be better communicators - 0
- Stocks rally on better-than-expected earnings - 0
- Apple leaves door open for GT Advanced - 0
UPDATED: Flood warning issued for southern NH; leaks force visitation to be cancelled at Goffstown women's prison
Debate rule No. 1: Don't crash
Jonee Earthquake band shakes Shaskeen
Fixing Obamacare: Shaheen offers no way out
Blackwater verdict stuns NH dad
Making it up: Shameless state Senate attacks