Table 5.

Summary of Studies on the Effect of CON on Access

STUDY	DESIGN	STATES	YEARS	KEY FINDINGS
National Studies
Fric-Shamji and Shamji [66]	Retrospective cohort	26	2004–2005	CON has 0% effect on procedure rates, but may shift care to non-profit hospitals
Fric-Shamji and Shamji [67]	Retrospective cohort	26	2004–2005	CON has 0% effect on procedure rates
Fric-Shamji and Shamji [68]	Retrospective cohort	26	2004–2006	CON has 0% effect on procedure rates, but may shift care to teaching hospitals
Popescu [55]	Retrospective cohort	50	2000–2003	CON reduces that chance that a patient with AMI is admitted for revascularization by 18%
Ho [65]	Retrospective cohort	50	1989–2002	CON results in 19.2% fewer PCIs being performed
Ho et al. [59]	Retrospective cohort	50	1989–2002	Removing CON increases PCIs and CABGs by 0%
Short et al. [69]	Retrospective cohort	50	1989–2002	CON has 0% effect on cancer resection procedures
Ho, Ross et al. [65]	Retrospective cohort	50	1989–2002	CON increases CABGs by 0%
Case Studies
DeLia et al. [70]	Retrospective cohort	NJ	1995–2004	Removing CON decreases racial disparity in cardiac angiography by 3%
Robinson et al. [42]	Retrospective cohort	PA	1994–1999	Removing CON increases CABGs by 0%
Kolstad [39]	Retrospective cohort	PA	1994–2003	Removing CON decreases travel distance for CABG by 2.3 miles (9%)