Pillar 01
Certificate of Need · FAH Position Analysis
LowFAH has no documented public position on Certificate of Need law reform.
FAH’s website does not list CON as an issue area. No FAH statements, letters, or lobbying disclosures on CON laws have been identified. This silence is strategically significant: CON laws protect incumbent hospitals — including FAH members — from new competition.
FAH’s aggressive defense of Section 6001 of the ACA, which functions as a federal CON law targeting physician-owned hospitals specifically, demonstrates that FAH supports entry barriers when they benefit its membership. The absence of a public CON position allows members to benefit from state-level protections without FAH’s name attached.
FAH opposes physician-owned hospitals on self-referral grounds while remaining silent on CON laws that achieve the same market protection through government regulation.
| Mechanism | FAH Position | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Section 6001 (federal POH ban) | Maximum lobbying intensity — actively defends | Blocks physician-owned hospital competition |
| State CON laws | No public position | Blocks all new hospital and ASC competition |
| FTC antitrust enforcement | Opposes | Reduces merger scrutiny for incumbent systems |
35 states and DC maintain Certificate of Need laws requiring government approval before new healthcare facilities can open or expand. The federal government repealed its CON mandate in 1987 after studies showed the laws increased costs and reduced competition. States kept them anyway.