Hospice licensure: moratorium on new licenses.
The impact of SB 664 on state laws revolves around regulating the establishment of new hospice services, addressing concerns about an oversaturation of such services in certain areas. Supporters of the bill argue that it is an essential step to ensuring quality care for terminally ill patients by avoiding a potential influx of poorly configured hospice operations that may compromise care standards. Conversely, critics express concerns that the moratorium may limit access to hospice care in under-served regions where additional services may indeed be necessary and desirable.
Senate Bill No. 664, also known as the Hospice Licensure Moratorium Act, aims to impose a moratorium on the issuance of new licenses for hospice care services in California. The bill requires that the State Department of Public Health withhold new licensing unless it can be demonstrated, through a written finding, that there is a viable need for such services in the proposed area based on the existing concentration of hospice services. This moratorium is set to last until the California State Auditor publishes a report on hospice licensure or until January 1, 2027, whichever occurs sooner. The bill also stipulates that the authority to renew existing licenses remains unaffected by this moratorium.
The sentiment surrounding this bill appears to be mixed. Advocates for patient care and public health commend the bill for its cautious approach to hospice licensure, suggesting it protects existing services while promoting the development of high-quality care models. Yet, some stakeholders, particularly from communities with growing populations, view the moratorium as a hurdle that could impede necessary expansion of services. There appears to be a fundamental tension between ensuring adequate hospice service delivery and regulating the quality of those services.
Notable points of contention include the criteria for demonstrating the need for new services, which may involve complex assessments of population health needs and existing care capacity. Some legislators and healthcare advocates argue that the restrictions could create disparities in care access, particularly affecting marginalized communities that may lack sufficient hospice options. Furthermore, there is concern that the timeline to lift the moratorium may not adequately reflect the evolving healthcare landscape, especially in response to demographic shifts amongst the state’s population.