The policy of this state and the purposes of this chapter are to ensure access to quality health care services and to ensure that health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly and economical manner and are made available to all citizens and that only those health care services found to be in the public interest shall be provided in this state. To achieve such public policy and purposes, it is essential that appropriate health planning activities be undertaken and implemented and that a system of mandatory review of new institutional health services be provided. Health care services and facilities should be provided in a manner that avoids unnecessary duplication of services, that is cost effective, that provides quality health care services, and that is compatible with the health care needs of the various areas and populations of the state.
(Code 1981, §31-6-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1566, § 1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 1-1/SB 433.)
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, the second occurrence of "and" was deleted preceding "purposes, it is essential" in the second sentence.
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 3-1/SB 433, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall only apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2008.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Constitutionality.
- By the statute's plain terms, O.C.G.A. § 31-6-40(a)(7)(C) does not authorize monopolistic contracts relating to providers of new institutional health services and only requires that all such providers obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) before adding new services; thus, it did not implicate the Anti-Competitive Contracts Clause in any way as the requirement did not authorize contracts between service providers or anyone else that would encourage a monopoly. Women's Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 302 Ga. 349, 806 S.E.2d 606 (2017).
Statute serves legitimate legislative purpose.
- Georgia Supreme Court held the availability of quality health care services was certainly a legitimate legislative purpose and that the government objectives with respect to Georgia's certificate of need laws were indeed legitimate. Women's Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 302 Ga. 349, 806 S.E.2d 606 (2017).
Certificate of Need.
- Reversal of the agency and denial of a Certificate of Need (CON) was affirmed because the atypical barrier exception did not support the agency's grant of the CON as the agency's interpretation of the atypical barrier exception in the rule was inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, clearly erroneous, and prejudiced the substantial rights of the challenging hospitals who already provided the same services. ASMC, LLC v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 344 Ga. App. 576, 810 S.E.2d 663 (2018), cert. denied, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 610 (Ga. 2018).
Cited in St. Joseph's Hosp. v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1986); HCA Health Servs., Inc. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 798, 439 S.E.2d 494 (1994); Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, Div. of Health Planning v. Gwinnett Hosp. Sys., 262 Ga. App. 879, 586 S.E.2d 762 (2003); Tanner Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Vest Newnan, LLC, 337 Ga. App. 884, 789 S.E.2d 258 (2016).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 9.