MDH Determines Proposed Rehab Hospital in Roseville Not in the Public Interest

March 7, 2024

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has determined that building a new, freestanding rehabilitation hospital in Roseville is not in the public interest based on a required review by the agency’s Health Economics Program of statutory criteria and other requirements. 

MDH’s analysis of the project found that the proposed 60-bed rehabilitation hospital would establish unneeded, costly capacity and may destabilize the existing rehabilitation care delivery system in the Twin Cities metro area. 

“As Minnesota is facing high and rising healthcare costs, it is important we ensure that any proposal truly is in the best interest of all Minnesotans,” said Minnesota Commissioner of Health Brooke Cunningham, MA, MD, PhD. “By law, there is a high bar to clear. Our analysis indicates that this project does not meet that burden and, therefore, MDH is unable to recommend that it is in the public interest.” 

Minnesota law prohibits the construction of new hospitals, expansion of bed capacity at existing hospitals, or redistribution of beds within the state, without specific authorization from the Legislature or unless a proposal meets defined statutory exceptions. Minnesota Statute, section 144.552 allows an organization seeking to obtain a hospital license, and with it an exception to the moratorium, to submit a proposal to MDH for review and assessment as to whether it is in the public interest. The final decision to grant an exception for a proposal rests with the Minnesota Legislature. 

MDH’s evaluation of the proposal included a review of materials supplied by the applicant; public reporting by hospitals to state and federal government entities on financial, utilization and services data; staffing data for inpatient rehabilitation units; hospital quality data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and hospital discharge data on diagnoses, utilization and patient demographics. MDH also considered feedback from rehabilitation care stakeholders and the public through written comments, informal interviews or conversations and a public meeting held in December 2023. 

The finding is based on the assessment of the statutory criteria for documented need, an analysis of potential financial impact on other acute care hospitals offering rehabilitation services, the ability for current hospitals to maintain staff, the extent to which the new hospital would serve nonpaying or low-income patients, and the views of affected parties. 

In addition, while it is widely acknowledged that many Minnesota hospitals are facing challenges with finding placements for patients in nursing homes or other step-down settings when they no longer need hospital care, this hospital would not ease that burden. As proposed, the hospital is designed to serve patients whose care meets strict admissions criteria and who can tolerate the intense rehabilitative services that would be provided. 

MDH’s analysis also raises concerns about whether the incentives associated with a private equity-financed for-profit hospital could contribute to destabilizing the existing market and pointed to an aggressive growth strategy by the hospital’s developer and its investment partners that resulted in the establishment of 20 facilities in 12 states just since 2021. 

Latest News

Physician/Olympian to Give Inspirational Address at Empowering Physicians Event

August 20, 2026

A physician and Olympian will give an inspirational address as part of this year's Empowering Physicians event on Friday, September 25, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art.

Minnesota Vaccination Rates Trending in Wrong Direction

August 20, 2026

Minnesota received some disturbing news this week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as data shows that for the 2025-2026 school year, vaccination rates decreased and non-medical exemptions increased.  

Appellate Court Sides with Texas Medical Association in No Suprises Act Lawsuit

August 20, 2026

On August 11, a federal appellate court sided with the Texas Medical Association (TMA) argument that the way the No Surprises Act’s qualifying payment amount (QPA) is calculated has historically favored payers in arbitration.