The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent, Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, LLC ("Hollywood Hills"), violated Florida law as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or "Agency"); and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed.AHCA demonstrated Hollywood Hills commited several Class 1 violations resulting in, or contributing to, the deaths of 9 patients and a mass casualty incident in the aftermath of a loss of A/C from Hurricane Irma. Recommend license revocation.
Whether, on balance, Certificate of Need (“CON”) application number 10395 by The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“JW”) to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Miami- Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, and/or CON application number 10394 by East Florida-DMC, Inc. (“DMC”), to build an 80- bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, satisfy the applicable criteria and should be approved.The evidence supported a need for a new hospital to be located in Doral, Miami-Dade County. On balance, East Florida-DMC better satisfied the applicable criteria and should be awarded CON 10394 to construct 80-bed hospital on its site in Doral.
Whether, on balance, Certificate of Need (“CON”) application number 10395 by The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“JW”) to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Miami- Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, and/or CON application number 10394 by East Florida-DMC, Inc. (“DMC”), to build an 80- bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, satisfy the applicable criteria and should be approved.The evidence supported a need for a new hospital to be located in Doral, Miami-Dade County. On balance, East Florida-DMC better satisfied the applicable criteria and should be awarded CON 10394 to construct 80-bed hospital on its site in Doral.
The issue in this fixed need pool challenge is whether Respondent erred in determining that there is a numeric need for one additional hospice program in service area 5A.Published need for hospice SA 5A was in error. AHCA did not use current death data per need rule. Argument that APA requires rule promulgation to adopt each new data report before using new data is contrary to AHCA's rule and practice and is wrong.
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.
