O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-6-1 (2019)

Declaration of policy

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The policy of this state and the purposes of this chapter are to ensure access to quality health care services and to ensure that health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly and economical manner and are made available to all citizens and that only those

health care services found to be in the public interest shall be provided in this state. To achieve such public policy and purposes, it is essential that appropriate health planning activities be undertaken and implemented and that a system of mandatory review of new institutional health services be provided. Health care services and facilities should be provided in a manner that avoids unnecessary duplication of services, that is cost effective, that provides quality health care services, and that is compatible with the health care needs of the various areas and populations of the state.

History

Code 1981, § 31-6-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1566, § 1; Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 1-1/SB 433.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, the second occurrence of ‘‘and’’ was deleted preceding ‘‘purposes, it is essential’’ in the second sentence.

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 3-1/SB 433, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall only apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2008.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - By the statute’s plain terms, O.C.G.A. § 31-6-40(a)(7)(C) does not authorize monopolistic contracts relating to providers of new institutional health services and only requires that all such providers obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) before adding new services; thus, it did not implicate the Anti-Competitive Contracts Clause in any way as the requirement did not authorize contracts between service providers or anyone else that would encourage a monopoly. Women’s Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 302 Ga. 349, 806 S.E.2d 606 (2017). Statute serves legitimate legislative purpose. - Georgia Supreme Court held the availability of quality health care services was certainly a legitimate legislative purpose and that the government objectives with respect to Georgia’s certificate of need laws were indeed legitimate. Women’s Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 302 Ga. 349, 806 S.E.2d 606 (2017). Certificate of Need. - Reversal of the agency and denial of a Certificate of Need

(CON) was affirmed because the atypical barrier exception did not support the agency’s grant of the CON as the agency’s interpretation of the atypical barrier exception in the rule was inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, clearly erroneous, and prejudiced the substantial rights of the challenging hospitals who already provided the same services. ASMC, LLC v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 344 Ga. App. 576, 810 S.E.2d 663 (2018), cert. denied, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 610 (Ga. 2018). Cited in St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1986); HCA Health Servs., Inc. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 798, 439 S.E.2d 494 (1994); Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, Div. of Health Planning v. Gwinnett Hosp. Sys., 262 Ga. App. 879, 586 S.E.2d 762 (2003); Tanner Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Vest Newnan, LLC, 337 Ga. App. 884, 789 S.E.2d 258 (2016); Cobb Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Community Health, 825 S.E.2d 886, No. A18A2009, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 183 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 9.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Women's Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 806 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Women's Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Berry, 806 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to OCGA § 31-6-1, the purpose of the CON laws is to ensure access to quality health care services and to ensure that health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly and economical manner and are made available to all citizens and that only those health…”
Premier Health Care Investments, LLC v. Uhs of Anchor, L.P, 849 S.E.2d 441 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “” In addition, a CON issued under OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq. “shall be valid only for the defined scope, location, cost, service area, and person named in an application .”
Uhs of Anchor, L.P. v. Dep't of Cmty. Health Et Al., 830 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “22 OCGA § 31-6-1 ("The policy of this state and the purposes of this chapter are to ensure access to quality health care services and to ensure that health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly and economical manner and are made available to all citizens and…”
ASMC, LLC v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 810 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “The State Health Planning and Development Act (the Act) ( OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq. ) was created to ensure: that access is provided to quality health care services; that health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly, economical, and cost effective manner without…”
Albany Surgical, P.C. v. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 572 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “1566, § 1 (OCGA § 31-6-1). Before commencing operations with a new health care service within DHP’s jurisdiction, the provider must apply to and obtain permission through the grant of a CON unless exempted.”
Hosp. Auth. v. State Health Plan. Agency, 438 S.E.2d 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq. The public policy and purpose of this system "are to ensure that adequate health care services and facilities are developed in an orderly and economical manner and are made available to all citizens and that only those health care services found to be in…”
Dep't of Cmty. Health, Div. of Health Plan. v. Gwinnett Hosp. Sys., Inc., 586 S.E.2d 762 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Among other reasons, the Department was created “[t]o minimize duplication and maximize administrative efficiency in the state’s health care systems by removing overlapping functions and streamlining uncoordinated programs,” and “[t]o allow the state to develop a better health…”
Dept. of Cmty. Health v. Satilla Health Servs., Inc., 598 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “2d 638 ; OCGA § 31-6-1. [27] See id. [28] See Ga. Comp.”
Diversified Health Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Visiting Nurses Ass'n of Cordele, Inc., 330 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq. (former Code Ann. § 88-3301 et seq.”
Palmyra Park Hosp., Inc. v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr., 714 S.E.2d 71 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 31-6-1. HCA Health Svcs. v. Roach, 263 Ga.”
Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 31-6-1. The Association is similarly misguided in citing OCGA §§ 3-5-26 and 3-5-27 in support of its position.”
Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Emory Univ., 318 Ga. 169 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 31-6-1. To that end, the CON Act requires “new institutional health service[s]” to obtain a CON.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.