Section 325.9207. Substantive individual or comparative review; scheduling of reviews; procedures.

(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.

History: 1986 AACS; 1987 AACS; 1996 AACS; 2014 AACS.