Mich. Admin. Code R. 325.9207 - Substantive individual or comparative review; scheduling of reviews; procedures
Rule 207.
(1)
Projects subject to comparative review shall be designated under section 22229
of the code or the applicable certificate of need review standards. Proposed
projects that are not subject to comparative review and are not eligible for
nonsubstantive review will be subject to substantive individual review under
this subrule and not subrule (2) of this rule. The bureau will issue a proposed
decision on a certificate of need application within 120 days of the date an
application is deemed complete under
R 325.9201(3). The
appropriate regional certificate of need review agency will concurrently review
the application and submit its recommendations to the department within 90 days
of the date the department determines the application is complete and the
review period has commenced. If new or revised certificate of need review
standards applicable to a proposed project become effective before the issuance
of a final decision by the director of the department, the review and issuance
of proposed and final decisions shall be made in accordance with
R 325.9229. A review shall commence
on the date an application is deemed complete by the department. The
department, with the advice of the regional certificate of need review agency
will determine if an application filed by each applicant meets all applicable
requirements for approval under part 222 of the code.
(2) The following provisions shall apply to
projects subject to comparative review under section 22229 of the code:
(a) Within 30 days after the date that all of
the applications are deemed complete, the department shall place the timely
applications into comparative groups and shall notify the appropriate regional
certificate of need review agency and each applicant whether each comparative
group will be subject to comparative review. For comparative reviews, the
review period begins on the date in the notice under this subrule. In cases
where a final decision on a prior review of similar projects, services or
facilities in the same planning area has not yet been issued by the director,
the review period begins only after the director issues a final decision on
such prior review.
(i) For each comparative
group subject to comparative review, the notice shall also include all of the
following findings by the department:
(A) The
projections of need for the proposed facilities, beds, or services.
(B) That the total proposed facilities beds
or services in the comparative group are more than the projections of
need.
(C) That the applications,
when taken together, are mutually exclusive in that, under existing certificate
of need review standards, the approval of 1 or more of the applications will
necessarily result in the denial of other applications.
(ii) Applications that are not subject to
comparative review shall be reviewed individually in the same manner as a
project submitted under subrule (1) of this rule, with the 120-day and
concurrent 90-day review periods commencing on the date on which the department
determines that the applications are not subject to comparative review. The
review period cannot commence when a final decision on a prior review of
similar projects, services, or facilities in the same planning area has not
been issued by the director. In this case, the review period begins only after
the director issues a final decision on such prior review.
(b) If upon review under subdivision (a) of
this subrule, the department determines that an application could fall into
more than l comparative group the department shall notify the applicant. The
applicant shall notify the department that the project is amended so that the
proposed project involves only services, facilities, equipment, or beds
relative to a single comparative group or notify the department that the
project in its entirety is withdrawn. If the applicant advises the department
that it is amending the application, additional information related to the
amendment may be submitted under
R 325.9201(3). In
the absence of notification by an applicant, the original application is
subject to comparative review in the comparative group determined by the
department and the portion of the application involving the other comparative
group or groups will not be considered by the department in its review of the
application. The applicant may submit according to these rules, a separate
application for the portion of the application not being considered.
(3) This rule does not limit the
department's authority to consider all available information relevant to the
department's review of an application.
(4) The department's review shall be
conducted using the completed application and any other information the
department considers relevant to the decision and under all applicable
provisions in the certificate of need review standards and the code, including
information which becomes available or developments which occur after the date
an application is deemed complete.
(5) Before issuing a proposed decision, the
bureau shall notify an applicant of all information that the department relied
upon in conducting the department's review. If the department relies on
information other than submitted by the applicant in its application, the
bureau or department shall cite in the proposed or final decision letter, as
applicable, the information it relied upon. The department shall make all other
information available to the public upon request.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.