Allows the health care advocate to petition the superior court for the appointment of a receiver as deemed necessary or appropriate by the court.
Summary
H6369 expands the authority of Rhode Island’s Office of Health Care Advocate by allowing the health care advocate to petition the Superior Court for the immediate appointment of a receiver over a hospital under specified conditions. Those conditions include misapplied or endangered corporate assets, mismanagement, severe financial distress, insolvency, or operation in a way that could harm patients’ health, safety, or medical care. The bill also directs the court to approve the petition when receivership would help manage the hospital, protect patients, or advance the purposes of the state’s hospital conversions law.
The bill lowers the procedural burden for seeking receivership by stating that the health care advocate does not need to prove irreparable harm or the inadequacy of legal remedies. It also authorizes the court to grant the receiver any powers available under common law, state law, or court rules. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
The bill would amend chapter 42-9.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws governing the Office of Health Care Advocate by creating a new hospital receivership provision. It would give the health care advocate a direct statutory pathway to seek court intervention in troubled hospitals and would strengthen the state’s ability to stabilize facilities facing financial collapse, mismanagement, or patient-safety risks. Hospitals, their corporate owners, patients, and potentially creditors would be affected by the expanded receivership authority, and the measure also ties into compliance with the hospital conversions act.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest generally supportive or protective intent behind the bill, with the stated purpose focused on safeguarding patients and preserving hospital operations. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or formal debate in the supplied record. The bill’s framing indicates a policy preference for earlier and more flexible court intervention when a hospital is in distress.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the health care advocate’s authority and the reduced threshold for court-ordered receivership. Hospital operators, owners, or financial stakeholders could view the bill as giving the state too much power to intervene in private hospital management, especially because it allows action without showing irreparable harm or lack of an adequate legal remedy. Supporters would likely emphasize patient safety, continuity of care, and preventing asset waste or insolvency from harming the public.