SB 367: Certificate of Need; health care facilities, services, and equipment dedicated exclusively to the treatment of cancer; provide for exemption

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (9)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 5, 2026

   From 1:09:19 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair, also the sponsor, said the bill would remove certificate-of-need approval requirements for facilities, equipment and services used exclusively or primarily for cancer treatment. The sponsor invited clearer wording for primarily and proposed requiring charity care equal to at least 3% of adjusted gross revenue, subject to departmental review. Neither proposal received a vote. An oncologist from University Cancer and Blood Center supported the bill, describing weeks-long waits for tests and surgery. The witness said obtaining a PET scanner after an exemption reduced scan waits to two days. Asked whether outpatient expansion would hurt hospital revenue, the witness argued it would free hospitals for more complex care. An Augusta Oncology witness said hospital opposition blocked a Georgia radiation facility, prompting expansion across the South Carolina border. The witness said patients saved $50 daily on radiation and that 3% to 5% of patients were uninsured, describing insurance assistance and free-drug arrangements. A Georgia Association of Health Plans witness supported greater competition but had no South Carolina cost data available. An Emory witness supported expansion, citing heavily used radiation equipment and unsuccessful applications. A City of Hope witness supported access and collaboration, saying no hospital had closed because of that facility to the witness's knowledge. A Georgia Hospital Association witness said members held differing views. Another witness denied opposing the bill but requested narrower language. The chair deferred further testimony and action.

2. Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, February 26, 2026

   From 0:25:35 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill had been presented at an earlier meeting and invited additional testimony. An Augusta cancer survivor said prompt access to medical care had helped them survive pancreatic cancer for nine and a half years. The witness supported the bill if it would make cancer care easier to access. A second witness, a former hospital administrator and current think-tank executive director, supported the bill and broader easing of certificate-of-need requirements. The witness argued that these requirements restrict healthcare supply and said Florida’s changes had encouraged hospital construction, outpatient capacity, investment and access. The witness also described a former hospital employer spending millions of dollars opposing a competing hospital’s approval. The sponsor asked whether increased competition after Florida’s changes had caused facilities, particularly rural hospitals, to close. The witness offered to provide specifics, recalled more collaboration and partnerships, and said some rural hospitals expanded access, but did not provide closure figures. No amendment or substitute was offered during this discussion. The committee approved a motion to recommend passage, with two members opposed and the rest in favor.

3. Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 0:44:59 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 367 would eliminate the requirement for a certificate of need when providing cancer care. No substantive questions followed. The committee unanimously included the bill in the floor-calendar package.

4. Senate floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, part 2)

   From 2:22:28 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Taken from Table)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the committee substitute would exempt facilities, services, and equipment used primarily or exclusively for cancer treatment from state approval requirements known as certificates of need. The sponsor argued those requirements delay expansion, increase legal costs, and force patients to travel. The sponsor said other regulations and requirements to treat patients unable to pay would remain. An amendment presenter sought to preserve approval requirements within 35 miles of nonprofit sole community hospitals already providing chemotherapy or radiation. That member said 10 of Georgia’s 17 sole community hospitals offered those services and described substantial community investments, including $20 million in treatment equipment at the member’s local hospital. The sponsor accepted the amendment as a compromise. Several supporters described family experiences with cancer and argued for more treatment closer to home. One member asked whether competition would hurt existing providers; the sponsor said demand exceeded capacity. An opposing member said new centers could draw insured patients away from hospitals that must serve everyone, threatening hospital finances and other essential services. That member supported the amendment but opposed the bill. The Senate adopted the amendment without objection and passed the amended substitute, 32-17.

5. House Health Committee, March 23, 2026

   From 0:20:55 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 367 would remove certificate of need approval requirements for facilities, equipment and services primarily or exclusively serving cancer patients. The sponsor described a Senate amendment preserving those requirements within 35 miles of 10 sole community hospitals. Physicians from University Cancer and Blood Center, Emory Winship, Augusta Oncology and City of Hope supported the proposal, citing delays, travel burdens and barriers to newer equipment. Asked about clinical trials, the Augusta witness said the practice refers patients elsewhere for trials and specialized therapies. Pacific Legal Foundation, Americans for Prosperity and Georgia Public Policy Foundation witnesses also supported it. A Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta physician opposed including pediatric care, warning that dispersing patients could threaten specialist staffing and access to trials requiring minimum patient volumes. Georgia Alliance of Community Hospitals witnesses opposed the bill, citing hospital finances, private equity, staffing and loss of quality and charity-care requirements. Members asked about safeguards, existing regulations and narrowing the bill to equipment. The alliance’s counsel said existing regulations would not replace all protections, proposed geographic and financial-access safeguards, and urged waiting for state advisory reviews. The counsel also said mammography is already exempt and some delays stem from insurance. The sponsor expressed willingness to require indigent care. The committee held a hearing only, with no vote.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 3, 2026 (legislative day 26), 0:35:31
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 4, 2026 (legislative day 27), 0:47:45
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 9, 2026 (legislative day 29), 0:50:24
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 10, 2026 (legislative day 30), 0:41:41

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics