Opinion ID: 1272842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Health Plan

Text: Appellant challenges the validity of the standards for MRI services set forth in the Plan. First, appellant argues that the CON award violates § 44-7-180(B)(2) and (3) because the Plan's standards for MRI services do not contain projections of need or standards of distribution. We disagree. [3] Section 44-7-180(B)(2) and (3) of the CON Act requires the State Health Plan, at a minimum, to include: (2) projections of need for additional health care facilities, beds, health services, and equipment; (3) standards for distribution of health care facilities, beds, specified health services, and equipment including scope of services to be provided, utilization, and occupancy rates, travel time, regionalization, other factors relating to proper placement of services, and proper planning of health care facilities; S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-180(B). The 2003 State Health Plan sets forth three standards for MRI distribution: 1) Each hospital should have at least one MRI unit available for diagnosis of emergency patients, inpatients and outpatients. 2) In order to promote cost-effectiveness, the use of shared mobile MRI units should be considered. 3) The applicant agrees in writing to provide the Department utilization data on the operation of the MRI service. Although the Plan does not give specific projections of need or standards of distribution in terms that track the exact statutory language, the Plan does not violate § 44-7-180. Clearly, the first MRI standard that each hospital should have at least one MRI unit available satisfies the statute's directive for projections of need when a hospital applies for a CON of an MRI. The second MRI standard also provides guidance for distribution and utilization of existing MRI resources. The Plan satisfies the requirements of § 44-7-180(B)(2) and (3) by unmistakably stating the need and guiding distribution for MRI units in hospitals. See Bursey v. S.C. DHEC, 369 S.C. 176, 631 S.E.2d 899(2006) (cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent). Accordingly, the Plan is not violative of the CON Act, and the Board did not exceed its statutory authority in granting the CON in light of the Plan standards. [4] Appellant also argues that the Board's order should be reversed because there is no statutory basis to treat hospitals differently from other health care facilities. We disagree. Even though there is no specific provision in the CON Act that authorizes hospitals to be treated differently vis-à-vis standards of need for MRI services, the ability of the Plan to differentiate between different types of medical providers is essential to the CON process. See S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-150 (department may adopt substantive and procedural regulations considered necessary by the department and approved by the board to carry out the department's licensure and CON duties). Furthermore, appellant's contention that first Plan standard results in hospitals being treated differently from other health care facilities is misguided. The first Plan standard only satisfies the showing of need for hospitals, while other health care facilities will have to document need separately. Nothing in the CON Act prevents such a distinction. See S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-130 (containing separate definitions for hospital and health care facility); S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-150.