AFP-MS: After Federal Court Ruling, Lawmakers Must Reform CON Process to Expand Patient Choice and Health Care Access

Feb 2, 2026 by AFP

Jackson, Mississippi — Following a federal court decision to strike down a decades-old moratorium on new home health agencies, Americans for Prosperity-Mississippi (AFP-MS) released the following statement urging lawmakers to reform the state’s broken Certificate of Need (CON) process.

A federal judge last Wednesday ruled that the moratorium violates constitutional protections, yet the decision leaves intact the broader CON structure. The system still allows the government to decide what services Mississippians are allowed to access and where providers may operate.

AFP-MS State Director, Starla Brown, issued the following statement:

“The court’s ruling is a huge win for Mississippians, ending a policy that allowed industry insiders to make money at the expense of patients. Yet, while the court removed an unconstitutional roadblock, the same broken system was left in place. Mississippians should not be forced to drive over an hour away to receive medical care because the government won’t let providers open facilities in rural towns.

“This ruling should set alarm bells off for legislators: if they want more providers and innovation in the Magnolia State, they must modernize Mississippi’s outdated CON system. We urge lawmakers to consider meaningful CON reform that will expand patient choice and remove unnecessary barriers to care to move our state forward.”

Mississippi’s CON law requires health care providers to seek government approval before opening or expanding services. Rather than allowing local areas to react to need, the government slows innovation and investment by forcing potential investors through lengthy and costly certificate-of-need processes.

Key quotes from the federal court decision:

“The Court cannot escape the absurdity in maintaining an outright Moratorium for over forty years.” (p.34)
“It would be hard to convince any court that a moratorium imposed since the early 1980s is reasonable. This Court too remains unconvinced.” (p.35)
“While states may require moratoria from time to time under rational bases, the forty-year application of this Moratorium is irrational and, thus, unconstitutional.” (p.43)