Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 22-21-264 (2026)

Criteria for State Agency Review.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The SHPDA, pursuant to the provisions of Section 22-21-274, shall prescribe by rules and regulations the criteria and clarifying definitions for reviews covered by this article. These criteria shall include at least the following:

(1) Consistency with the appropriate State Health Facility and services plans effective at the time the application was received by the State Agency, which shall include the latest approved revisions of the following plans:

a. The most recent Alabama State Health Plan which shall include updated inventories and separate bed need methodologies for inpatient rehabilitation beds, inpatient psychiatric beds and inpatient/residential alcohol and drug abuse beds.

b. Alabama State Health Plan for services to the mentally ill.

c. Alabama State Plan for rehabilitation facilities.

d. Alabama developmental disabilities plan.

e. Alabama State alcoholism plan.

f. Such other State Plans as may from time to time be required by state or federal statute.

(2) The relationship of services reviewed to the long-range development plan (if any) of the person providing or proposing such services.

(3) The availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing such services.

(4) Determination of a substantially unmet public requirement for the proposed health care facility, service or capital expenditure that is consistent with orderly planning within the state and the community for furnishing comprehensive health care, such determination to be established on the merits of the proposal after giving appropriate consideration to:

a. Financial feasibility of the proposed change in service of facility;

b. Specific data supporting the demonstration of need for the proposed change in facility or service shall be reasonable, relevant and appropriate;

c. Evidence of evaluation and consistency of the proposed change in facility or service with the facility’s and the community’s overall health and health-related plans;

d. Evidence of consistency of the proposal with the need to meet nonpatient care objectives of the facility such as teaching and research;

e. Evidence of review of the proposed facility, service or capital expenditure when appropriate and requested by other state agencies.

f. Evidence of the locational appropriateness of the proposed facility or service such as transportation accessibility, manpower availability, local zoning environmental health, etc.;

g. Reasonable potential of the facility to meet licensure standards.

h. Reasonable consideration shall be given to medical facilities involved in medical education.

(5) Determination that the person applying is an appropriate applicant, or the most appropriate applicant in the event of duplicative applications, for providing the proposed health care facility or service, such determination to be established from the evidence as to the ability of the person, directly or indirectly, to render adequate service to the public, including affirmative evidence as to the following:

a. Professional capability of the facility proposing the capital expenditure;

b. Management capability of the facility proposing the capital expenditure;

c. Adequate manpower to enable the facility to offer the proposed service;

d. Evidence of the existence of the applicant’s long-range planning program and an ongoing planning process;

e. Evidence of existing and ongoing monitoring of utilization and the fulfilling of unmet or under met health needs in the case of expansion;

f. Evidence of communication with all planning, regulatory, utility agencies and organizations that influence the facility’s destiny.

(6) Consideration of the special needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the health service area in which the entities are located or in adjacent health service areas.

(7) The special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations.

(8) In case of a construction project, consideration shall be given to:

a. The costs and methods of the proposed construction including the costs and methods of energy provision; and

b. The probable impact of the construction project reviewed on the costs of providing health services.

(Acts 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 82, p. 1509, §6; Acts 1982, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 82-770, p. 249, §4; Acts 1990, No. 90-468, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Affinity Hosp., LLC v. Brookwood Health Servs. Inc., 143 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Affinity Hosp., LLC v. Brookwood Health Servs. Inc., 143 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “” § 22-21-264, Ala.Code 1975. “The proposed new institutional health service shall be consistent with the appropriate state health facility and services plans effective at the time the application was received by the state agency.”
Ex Parte Traylor Nursing Home, Inc., 543 So. 2d 1179 (Ala. 1988). · cites it 4× “" Ala. Code 1975, § 22-21-264. There is no dispute that the health council is a state agency organized pursuant to Ala.”
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 39 (Ala. 2016). · cites it 5× “Further, a concern for “depth of specialization” is not an enumerated factor or sub-factor, but it may be a valid consideration cited by SHPDA given that the factors enumerated in § 22-21-264 are nonexclusive. In short, neither “financial feasibility” nor a concern for “depth of…”
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “See § 22-21-260(14) and § 22-21-264. Section 22-21-263(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides the scope of SHPDA’s review: “All new institutional health services which are subject to this article and which are proposed to be offered or developed within the state shall be subject to review…”
Ace Home Health Care, LLC v. Gentiva Health Servs. Inc., 162 So. 3d 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “In its wisdom, the legislature has assigned to SHPDA and not the judiciary the task of determining whether to grant or deny CON applications, specifying in Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-264, that SHPDA is to consider (1) the proposed service’s *940 “[(Consistency with the appropriate…”
Alacare Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 27 So. 3d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Nevertheless, we conclude that, based upon a review of the entire record and the FHO’s findings with respect to the other criteria listed in §§ 22-21-264 and 22-21-126, the FHO’s error with respect to the inconsistency finding did not prejudice Alacare’s substantial rights…”
Forest Manor, Inc. v. SHPDA, 723 So. 2d 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “In addition, the ALJ found that Robertsdale was the most appropriate location for a new freestanding nursing home in Baldwin County, which the ALJ described as a "medically underserved area," and that Baldwin's application met or exceeded each of the criteria set forth in §…”
Brookwood Health Servs., Inc. v. State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 202 So. 3d 345 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “1 Brookwood next argues that Trinity failed to prove that there existed a substantially unmet public need for the project as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-264(4). Section 22-21-264(4) sets out the following factors the CONRB should “giv[e] appropriate consideration to” when…”
Encompass Health Home Health of Alabama, LLC Kindred at Home, LLC Amedisys Home Health & LHC Grp., Inc. v. State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, Madison Home Health Servs., LLC, & ProHealth Home Health, LLC (Ala. Civ. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Discussion On appeal, the Intervenors first argue that § 22-21-264(5), Ala. Code 1975, prohibits SHPDA from granting more than one application for a CON to establish a home-health agency to provide home-health services in the same batch.”
Hometown Home Health Care of Shelby Cnty., LLC v. State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 190 So. 3d 44 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “In pertinent part, § 22-21-264 provides: "The SHPDA, pursuant to the provisions of Section 22-21-274, [Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(1) — 2 cases
Ex Parte Traylor Nursing Home, Inc., 543 So. 2d 1179 (Ala. 1988). “" Ala. Code 1975, § 22-21-264. There is no dispute that the health council is a state agency organized pursuant to Ala.”
Alacare Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 27 So. 3d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Nevertheless, we conclude that, based upon a review of the entire record and the FHO’s findings with respect to the other criteria listed in §§ 22-21-264 and 22-21-126, the FHO’s error with respect to the inconsistency finding did not prejudice Alacare’s substantial rights…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(2) — 1 case
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “See § 22-21-260(14) and § 22-21-264. Section 22-21-263(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides the scope of SHPDA’s review: “All new institutional health services which are subject to this article and which are proposed to be offered or developed within the state shall be subject to review…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(3) — 1 case
Alacare Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 27 So. 3d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Nevertheless, we conclude that, based upon a review of the entire record and the FHO’s findings with respect to the other criteria listed in §§ 22-21-264 and 22-21-126, the FHO’s error with respect to the inconsistency finding did not prejudice Alacare’s substantial rights…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(4) — 6 cases
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 39 (Ala. 2016). “Further, a concern for “depth of specialization” is not an enumerated factor or sub-factor, but it may be a valid consideration cited by SHPDA given that the factors enumerated in § 22-21-264 are nonexclusive. In short, neither “financial feasibility” nor a concern for “depth of…”
Affinity Hosp., LLC v. Brookwood Health Servs. Inc., 143 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “” § 22-21-264, Ala.Code 1975. “The proposed new institutional health service shall be consistent with the appropriate state health facility and services plans effective at the time the application was received by the state agency.”
Ace Home Health Care, LLC v. Gentiva Health Servs. Inc., 162 So. 3d 931 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “In its wisdom, the legislature has assigned to SHPDA and not the judiciary the task of determining whether to grant or deny CON applications, specifying in Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-264, that SHPDA is to consider (1) the proposed service’s *940 “[(Consistency with the appropriate…”
Alacare Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 27 So. 3d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Nevertheless, we conclude that, based upon a review of the entire record and the FHO’s findings with respect to the other criteria listed in §§ 22-21-264 and 22-21-126, the FHO’s error with respect to the inconsistency finding did not prejudice Alacare’s substantial rights…”
Brookwood Health Servs., Inc. v. State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 202 So. 3d 345 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “1 Brookwood next argues that Trinity failed to prove that there existed a substantially unmet public need for the project as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-264(4). Section 22-21-264(4) sets out the following factors the CONRB should “giv[e] appropriate consideration to” when…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(4)(a) — 1 case
Forest Manor, Inc. v. SHPDA, 723 So. 2d 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). “In addition, the ALJ found that Robertsdale was the most appropriate location for a new freestanding nursing home in Baldwin County, which the ALJ described as a "medically underserved area," and that Baldwin's application met or exceeded each of the criteria set forth in §…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(4)(b) — 1 case
Alacare Home Health Servs., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, 27 So. 3d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Nevertheless, we conclude that, based upon a review of the entire record and the FHO’s findings with respect to the other criteria listed in §§ 22-21-264 and 22-21-126, the FHO’s error with respect to the inconsistency finding did not prejudice Alacare’s substantial rights…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(5) — 2 cases
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “See § 22-21-260(14) and § 22-21-264. Section 22-21-263(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides the scope of SHPDA’s review: “All new institutional health services which are subject to this article and which are proposed to be offered or developed within the state shall be subject to review…”
Encompass Health Home Health of Alabama, LLC Kindred at Home, LLC Amedisys Home Health & LHC Grp., Inc. v. State Health Plan. & Dev. Agency, Madison Home Health Servs., LLC, & ProHealth Home Health, LLC (Ala. Civ. App. 2023). “Discussion On appeal, the Intervenors first argue that § 22-21-264(5), Ala. Code 1975, prohibits SHPDA from granting more than one application for a CON to establish a home-health agency to provide home-health services in the same batch.”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(5)(d) — 1 case
HealthSouth of Alabama, LLC v. Shelby Ridge Acquisition Corp., 207 So. 3d 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “See § 22-21-260(14) and § 22-21-264. Section 22-21-263(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides the scope of SHPDA’s review: “All new institutional health services which are subject to this article and which are proposed to be offered or developed within the state shall be subject to review…”
— Ala. Code § 22-21-264(l) — 1 case
Affinity Hosp., LLC v. Brookwood Health Servs. Inc., 143 So. 3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “” § 22-21-264, Ala.Code 1975. “The proposed new institutional health service shall be consistent with the appropriate state health facility and services plans effective at the time the application was received by the state agency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.