Limits the application fees paid under the certificate of need program within the department of health to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
Summary
H5356 amends Rhode Island’s certificate of need law governing applications for new healthcare equipment and new institutional health services. The bill changes the fee structure for applications reviewed by the Department of Health, including standard applications and expedited applications, and creates a separate fee category for applications proposing new or expanded tertiary or specialty care services. Under the bill, those specialty applications would pay a $10,000 base fee plus 0.25% of capital costs, but the total fee would be capped at $25,000.
The measure also preserves the existing exemption for healthcare facilities owned and operated by the State of Rhode Island and keeps application fees nonrefundable. All fees collected under the chapter would continue to be deposited into the general fund. The bill takes effect upon passage.
Impact
This bill would directly amend § 23-15-10 of the Rhode Island General Laws, narrowing the maximum application fee that can be charged under the certificate of need program to $25,000. It affects applicants seeking approval for healthcare capital projects, including hospitals and other institutional providers, and it specifically changes the cost burden for proposals involving tertiary or specialty care services. The Department of Health would continue to administer the review process, but with a capped fee schedule that limits the amount payable for larger projects.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or reform-oriented sentiment toward the bill, with the stated purpose being to limit certificate of need application fees. The bill was introduced by a group of House members and referred to the House Health & Human Services Committee, but no recorded votes or committee transcripts are available to show formal debate or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at reducing financial barriers for applicants rather than expanding regulatory authority.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between lowering costs for healthcare providers and preserving revenue or regulatory leverage for the state’s certificate of need process. Supporters would likely view the cap as a way to make major healthcare projects more affordable and predictable, especially for specialty and tertiary care proposals. Potential critics may argue that lower fees could reduce state resources for reviewing complex applications or weaken the deterrent effect of the certificate of need system. No specific objections or named opponents appear in the provided record.