Mercy's Appeal of Patient First's 3-Bed Hospital at Supreme Court

Patients First, Mercy back in court... again

by E.B. Solomont, Reporter -- St. Louis Business Journal 
Remember that three-bed hospital built last year in Washington, Mo.?

Built by physician group Patients First and hotly contested by Mercy Hospital Washington, the hospital and its builders have landed in the Supreme Court of Missouri.

The legal fighting began last fall, after Patients First sought to build the hospital without a Certificate of Need (CON) from state health planners by keeping costs under $1 million, with projected costs of $953,750. Mercy, located nearby in Washington, sought to prevent construction by filing a lawsuit.

St. Louis County Circruit Court ruled against Mercy, and Mercy subsequently appealed, but the three-bed hospital was completed in April 2011, according to briefs filed ahead of today’s arguments. The Court of Appeals in July ruled against Mercy.

For the rest of the story, go to http://www.bizjournals.com/.

High Court to Hear Arguments in Patients First Hospital Case

by emissorian.com

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in a challenge by Mercy Health Systems to prevent Patients First Health Care from building a three-bed hospital in Washington without obtaining a certificate of need.

Arguments in the case are scheduled for 9 a.m. Thursday in Jefferson City.

The case involves the validity of a Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee rule that interprets the state certificate of need statute.

The certificate of need law was passed to prevent excessive amounts of health care facilities and to reduce costs of health care.

Under the law, proposed facilities must obtain a certificate acknowledging need for the facility from the Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee (Missouri Health). The law originally required many types of facilities to obtain certificates before offering new institutional health services.

For the rest of the story, go to http://www.emissourian.com/.

 

Court Hears Arguments in Three-Bed Hospital Case

by Jason Rosenbaum, Missourian Correspondent

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the ongoing dispute between Mercy Hospitals East Communities and Patients First over a three-bed facility in Washington.It’s not known when the high court will issue a ruling in the case.

The skirmish between the two entities involves the state’s Certificate of Need program, which approves applications for hospitals and equipment that is over $1 million. In September 2010, the Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee voted 4-3 to exempt Patients First from going through with the CON process to build a three-bed hospital in Washington.

The committee decided that since the facility was under $1 million, it didn’t need to go through with the CON process. Mercy eventually sued in St. Louis County Circuit Court before the MHFRC made a decision.
St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Richard Bresnahan dismissed the case without prejudice because it was “not ripe for judicial determination.” And while Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ultimately decided the case was ready for review, it then ruled “that the New Hospital Rule is consistent with the CON Law and the MHFRC was within its authority to promulgate the rule.”

At the heart of Thursday’s proceedings was the interpretation of a state statute listing the definition for a “new institutional health service.” According to state statutes, any person “who proposes to develop or offer a new institutional health service within the state must obtain a certificate of need from the committee prior to the time such services are offered.”

For the rest of the story, go to http://www.emissourian.com/news/.

Comments

[Asics Onitsuka Tiger]

What we know or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.

[Nike Air Max]

No matter how far you may fly, never forget where you come from.Reading makes a full man, conference a ready man and writing an exact man.

[affordable health insurance]

It is lamentable when a hospital has a brush up with the law. It will be disruptive to the clinical and medical services offered.