Lewis T J
Am J Law Med. 1979 Fall;5(3):215-30.
Certificate-of-need statutes give designated state agencies veto power over investment in health care facilities. Some states have sought to temper the arbitrary character of this power by expanding the opportunities for community input into the certificate-of-need process. Massachusetts, for example, has enacted a statute that allows groups of ten taxpayers to petition for a public hearing on any certificate-of-need application. Some observers question whether the benefits of taxpayer-group participation are substantial enough to compensate for the delays and abuses that the statute allegedly invites. To help resolve this question, this Comment examines historical data on Massachusetts taxpayer groups and on their activities and assesses the significance of their composition and tactics to the certificate-of-need process. Although flaws exist in the Massachusetts ten-taxpayer mechanism, in this writer's view it has succeeded partially in making the certificate-of-need process responsive to community opinion. Many groups lack the skills and qualities needed to make constructive use of the ten-taxpayer mechanism. Nevertheless, it serves a valuable purpose by creating a public forum for and by encouraging public participation in the certificate-of-need process, especially by those who might otherwise try to circumvent that process through use of special legislation, of private pressure, or of other similar means.
需求证明法规赋予指定的州机构对医疗保健设施投资的否决权。一些州试图通过扩大社区参与需求证明程序的机会来缓和这种权力的随意性。例如,马萨诸塞州颁布了一项法规,允许十名纳税人组成的团体就任何需求证明申请请求举行公开听证会。一些观察人士质疑纳税人团体参与的好处是否足够大,足以弥补该法规据称引发的延误和滥用。为了帮助解决这个问题,本评论研究了马萨诸塞州纳税人团体及其活动的历史数据,并评估了它们的组成和策略对需求证明程序的重要性。尽管马萨诸塞州的十纳税人机制存在缺陷,但在作者看来,它在使需求证明程序响应社区意见方面部分取得了成功。许多团体缺乏建设性地利用十纳税人机制所需的技能和素质。然而,它通过为需求证明程序创建一个公共论坛并鼓励公众参与,特别是鼓励那些可能 otherwise试图通过使用特别立法、私人压力或其他类似手段规避该程序的人参与,起到了有价值的作用。