Vermont
Vermont lawmakers look to make building health care facilities easier – VTDigger
At Rutland Regional Medical Center, administrators have long wanted to combine two different parts of the hospital: the birthing center and the Women’s and Children’s Unit.
The two units are separated by a hallway, meaning that patients are moved to a new unit shortly after giving birth — “a setup for poor patient experience,” Jonathan Reynolds, the hospital’s vice president for clinical operations, told a Vermont House committee last month.
And, because having two separate units means that the hospital must maintain two different pools of practitioners with overlapping skill sets, combining them would save an estimated $1 million in labor costs annually.
But consolidating the two units will incur an additional expense: that of obtaining a certificate of need.
Under state statute, Vermont health care institutions are required to get a certificate of need — effectively, a legal permission slip — anytime they want to build, renovate or buy facilities or obtain medical equipment that are more expensive than certain threshold amounts.
But as prices for construction and medical equipment rise, more and more projects — including the consolidation of Rutland Regional’s two units — require such certificates, tying up health care facilities and state regulators in lengthy and expensive bureaucratic processes.
“Rutland Regional is handcuffed, and we are unable to take the initiative right now to decrease the cost of health care because of the CON process,” Reynolds told lawmakers.
Now, lawmakers are seeking to relax those requirements. Last week, Vermont’s House passed a bill, H.96, that would increase the monetary thresholds needed for a certificate of need — a move that supporters say will lower health care costs and make care more accessible to state residents.
“The dollar amounts that trigger the CON process are causing extraordinary burdens to hospitals, independent providers and other essential health care entities,” Rep. Mari Cordes, D-Lincoln, the bill’s lead sponsor, said on the House floor March 11.
Certificate of need regulations, which exist in most states, are intended to reduce unnecessary health care spending and avoid duplicative medical services.
The process “is intended to protect the public, and it does so by ensuring that projects that are built have sufficient need and are appropriately priced,” Owen Foster, the chair of the Green Mountain Care Board, said in an interview.
In Vermont, certificates of need are required when a hospital or health care facility seeks to build a new facility, renovate an existing one, or purchase an expensive piece of equipment. If a project hits a certain dollar threshold, hospitals or other health facilities must apply to the Green Mountain Care Board for permission.
Currently, for hospital construction or renovation, a certificate of need is required for all projects that cost more than about $3.8 million. Approval is also needed for non-hospital construction or renovation over $1.9 million.
And certificates are also required for purchases or leases of single pieces of medical equipment that cost more than roughly $1.9 million for hospitals, or $1.3 million for non-hospitals.
Those limits increase annually by an inflationary factor. But the cost of construction and medical equipment has far outpaced those inflationary increases — something that the bill would address.
If passed, the proposed legislation would significantly raise those cost thresholds. Construction and renovation projects, both for hospitals and non-hospitals, would require a certificate of need only if costs run over $10 million. And the acquisition of new medical equipment, both by hospitals and non-hospitals, would only require certificates of need if the cost exceeded $5 million.
With little opposition, the bill has drawn support from health care entities that are often at odds with each other: advocates, regulators, and hospitals.
The certificate of need process eats up “resources, both in money and time, both for the Green Mountain Care Board and for hospitals,” Devon Green, a lobbyist for the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, said in an interview.
Reforming the process, as envisioned by H.96, would “reduce cost and burden for the board and for health care providers,” Foster, of the Green Mountain Care Board, said. “And it would increase competition, while still providing oversight” over more complex projects.
Getting a certificate of need can take months, or even, in the case of one recent construction project, over a year. And the process requires applicants to provide reams of documentation about their project’s benefits, costs, projected utilization and more. Other people, organizations or health care entities can weigh in too, and board members can pose multiple rounds of questions and attach conditions to their approval of an applicant’s project.
“In terms of the current certificate of need process right now, I think there’s a general feeling of, it can be administratively burdensome,” Green said.
That’s the case at Rutland Regional Medical Center. The consolidation of the birthing unit with the women’s and children’s unit is projected to cost between $5.5 million and $6 million — enough to require a certificate of need under current law, but not under the proposed reforms.
As it currently exists, “I would wager that the CON process would delay our start of this consolidation of two units by at least a year, if not longer,” Reynolds, the hospital vice president, said last month.
But if signed into law, he said, H. 96 “gives us the breathing room to perform these types of projects.”
Vermont
Wrong-way driver stopped on I-89, charged with DUI
BOLTON, Vt. (WCAX) – A wrong-way driver was safely stopped on Interstate 89 overnight Sunday.
Vermont State Police say just before 12:30 a.m., they stopped the car near marker 77, near Bolton.
The driver, Denise Lear, 60, of Revere, was charged with driving under the influence and gross negligent operation.
Lear is expected in court Monday.
Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.
Vermont
Women’s Lacrosse Bested in Burlington by Vermont – University at Albany Great Danes
Score: UAlbany 4, Vermont 14
Location: Virtue Field | Burlington, Vt.
Records: UAlbany (10-5, 5-1 America East) | Vermont (8-6, 4-1 America East)
Short Story: UAlbany women’s lacrosse fell to the Vermont Catamounts on Saturday afternoon.
Key Stats
- Grace Cincebox recorded a total of 14 saves with 13 goals allowed for a .565 save percentage.
- Ravan Marsell led the Great Danes with two points on one goal and one assist.
- Four different UAlbany players scored in the contest.
- Reggie Williams was the team’s leader with three ground balls.
- Delilah Mile caused a team high three turnovers.
How It Happened
- The Catamounts came out of the gates hard and heavy, scoring all three goals between both sides in the first quarter.
- Vermont would take an 8-0 lead in the second quarter before Amanda Williamson found the back of the net on a women-down goal to put the Great Danes on the board and make it 8-1.
- The Great Danes would allow one more goal in the first half to trail 9-1 after 30-minutes of play.
- Grace Cincebox would enter the half with 10 saves.
- Riley Forthofer started the Great Danes off in the second half to make it a 9-2 game, before Vermont put up three more goals to take a 12-2 lead entering the final quarter of play.
- Mya Carroll and Ravan Marsell both scored on back-to-back free-position goals to make it a 12-4 game.
- The Catamounts finished the game with two more goals to take the win 14-4.
Up Next
The Great Danes will next have a bye week and wait to see the outcome of next week’s Vermont vs UMass Lowell game to see who will host the America East Tournament.
Social Central: Stay up to date with UAlbany women’s lacrosse by following the team on Instagram (@UAlbanyWLax), Facebook (UAlbany Women’s Lacrosse), and X (@UAlbanyWLax) for all of the latest news and highlights throughout the year.
Vermont
Vermont lands two cities in America’s top 15 happiest list
Is creativity the missing key to better health?
Research suggests creative activities like art, music and crafts may benefit mental health as much as other key health habits.
Here’s another reason Vermont is the best New England state: It’s home to one of the top 5 happiest cities in the United States.
Plus, it has another within the top 15.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, doesn’t even break the top 50. Nor, does Connecticut or Rhode Island.
The personal finance website analyzed 182 of the largest cities in the country, and ranked Boston 63rd overall. Although the city is home to some of the nation’s top universities, high-ranking hospitals, and well-regarded companies, it didn’t break the top 50.
To get the rankings, WalletHub compared the cities using 29 metrics, including life-satisfaction index, depression rate, poverty rate, job security, and acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, and cities were assigned an overall happiness score.
Here’s a look at how the cities ranked.
South Burlington is No. 4 happiest city, Burlington is No. 11
South Burlington came on top for Vermont in WalletHub’s list of the happiest cities in the United States, ranking at No. 4. In scored very high for emotional and physical well-being coming in at the No. 4 spot, which made up for coming in No. 48 for community and environment. It was No. 9 for income and employment ranking. That gave it a total happiness of score of 70.15
Burlington wasn’t far behind at all, taking the No. 11 spot on the list and a happiness score of 67.54. It’s highest score was for income and employment ranking where it came second. It ranked No. 13 for community and environment and No. 21 for emotional and physical well-being.
Happiest cities in the US, per WalletHub
Here are the 25 happiest cities in the U.S., and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- Fremont, California – 74.09
- Bismarck, North Dakota – 73.11
- Scottsdale, Arizona – 71.36
- South Burlington, Vermont – 70.15
- Fargo, North Dakota – 69.36
- Overland Park, Kansas – 68.45
- Charleston, South Carolina – 68.44
- Irvine, California – 67.99
- Gilbert, Arizona – 67.96
- San Jose, California – 67.79
- Burlington, Vermont – 67.54
- Madison, Wisconsin – 66.35
- Columbia, Maryland – 66.28
- Chandler, Arizona – 65.69
- Seattle, Washington – 65.62
- Plano, Texas – 65.34
- San Francisco, California – 64.99
- Lincoln, Nebraska – 64.90
- Portland, Maine – 64.59
- Tempe, Arizona – 64.30
- San Diego, California – 64.30
- Raleigh, North Carolina – 63.47
- Peoria, Arizona – 63.38
- Durham, North Carolina – 62.84
- Huntington Beach, California – 62.80
Least happy cities in the US, per WalletHub
Here are the 25 least happy cities in the U.S., and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- Detroit, Michigan (#182 overall) – 29.55
- Memphis, Tennessee (#181 overall) – 34.39
- Shreveport, Louisiana (#180 overall) – 34.93
- Cleveland, Ohio (#179 overall) – 36.50
- Huntington, West Virginia (#178 overall) – 37.20
- Toledo, Ohio (#177 overall) – 37.21
- Augusta, Georgia (#176 overall) – 38.24
- Fort Smith, Arkansas (#175 overall) – 38.66
- Dover, Delaware (#174 overall) – 39.08
- Akron, Ohio (#173 overall) – 40.11
- Baltimore, Maryland (#172 overall) – 40.28
- Birmingham, Alabama (#171 overall) – 40.37
- Baton Rouge, Louisiana (#170 overall) – 40.47
- Columbus, Georgia (#169 overall) – 40.61
- Montgomery, Alabama (#168 overall) – 41.35
- Gulfport, Mississippi (#167 overall) – 41.65
- Charleston, West Virginia (#166 overall) – 42.18
- Jackson, Mississippi (#165 overall) – 42.60
- St. Louis, Missouri (#164 overall) – 43.53
- Knoxville, Tennessee (#163 overall) – 44.04
- Wilmington, Delaware (#162 overall) – 44.34
- Little Rock, Arkansas (#161 overall) – 44.48
- Mobile, Alabama (#160 overall) – 44.85
- New Orleans, Louisiana (#159 overall) – 45.19
- Tulsa, Oklahoma (#158 overall) – 45.33
Where New England cities ranked
Here are the 12 happiest cities in New England, and their happiness scores, according to WalletHub’s 2026 list:
- South Burlington, Vermont (#6 overall) – 70.15
- Burlington, Vermont (#11 overall) – 67.54
- Portland, Maine (#19 overall) – 64.59
- Nashua, New Hampshire (#27 overall) – 62.49
- Manchester, New Hampshire (#51 overall) – 59.10
- Boston, Massachusetts (#63 overall) – 56.88
- Warwick, Rhode Island (#66 overall) – 56.59
- New Haven, Connecticut (#95 overall) – 54.14
- Bridgeport, Connecticut (#96 overall) – 54.01
- Providence, Rhode Island (#98 overall) – 53.52
- Worcester, Massachusetts (#116 overall) – 50.12
- Lewiston, Maine (#145 overall) – 47.28
-
Minneapolis, MN1 minute agoBetween Minneapolis And Lake Superior Is The ‘Agate Capital Of The World’ With Cozy Charm And A State Park – Islands
-
Indianapolis, IN7 minutes ago1 dead after shooting on Indy’s near south side
-
Pittsburg, PA13 minutes agoGame #22: Tampa Bay Rays vs. Pittsburgh Pirates
-
Augusta, GA19 minutes agoWhat is the cheapest city in Georgia to live with a roomate?
-
Washington, D.C25 minutes ago12th Honor Flight Tallahassee returns home from successful trip to Washington D.C.
-
Cleveland, OH31 minutes agoSupercross: Results From Cleveland, OH
-
Austin, TX37 minutes agoHow Texas’ road, bridge conditions compare to other states
-
Alabama43 minutes agoAlabama edge to pattern his game after 2-time Super Bowl Champ