The Issue The issue in this case is whether notice was accorded the patient, as contemplated by section 766.316, Florida Statutes (2012).
Findings Of Fact Ashley Lamendola first presented to Gulf Coast OB/GYN on the morning of December 16, 2011, for a prenatal visit. This visit constituted the beginning of her professional relationship with the physicians who were part of the Gulf Coast OB/GYN group, which included Dr. Calderon and Dr. Shamas.1/ Violet Lamendola, Ms. Lamendola’s mother, accompanied Ms. Lamendola to that visit. When she arrived at Gulf Coast OB/GYN, Ms. Lamendola was given information and forms to fill out by the receptionist. According to both Ms. Lamendola and her mother, the materials included a NICA brochure in Spanish and an acknowledgment of receipt of the NICA form. While reviewing the materials, Ms. Lamendola, who does not speak Spanish, noted that the NICA brochure given to her was in Spanish. She asked her mother to take the brochure back to the receptionist. When Ms. Lamendola’s mother asked the receptionist about the Spanish brochure, the receptionist told her that the office had run out of NICA brochures printed in English, but that she would obtain one from another office and give it to Ms. Lamendola at the end of her appointment. Ms. Lamendola was instructed to sign and did sign the acknowledgment form so that she could see the physician. The acknowledgment form advised that all physicians in the Gulf Coast OB/GYN, P.A., were participating physicians in the NICA program. Ms. Lamendola received a black-and-white facsimile copy of the NICA brochure on her way out of the office along with other materials relating to prenatal and infant care. The brochure, received by Ms. Lamendola from Gulf Coast OB/GYN, bears a facsimile transmission header dated December 16, 2011, at 9:47 a.m. The brochure prepared by NICA is a color brochure which contains the following text in white letters on a light-to-medium green background on the back of the brochure: Section 766.301-766.316, Florida Statutes, (“NICA Law”) provides rights and remedies for certain birth-related neurological injuries and is an exclusive remedy. This brochure is prepared in accordance with the mandate of Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. A copy of the complete statute is available free of charge to completely inform patients of their rights and limitations under the application provision of Florida law. Since 1989, numerous court cases have interpreted the NICA law, clarifying legislative intent. The above-quoted language is absent from the facsimile copy of the brochure that Ms. Lamendola received from Gulf Coast OB/GYN. Apparently because the letters in the original brochure were white, the letters did not transmit. It is noted that on the front of the brochure, white lettering that appears on the green background of the color brochure did not transmit on the copy that Ms. Lamendola received. The majority of the information contained in Ms. Lamendola’s facsimile copy of the brochure is contained in the color copy of the brochure. The facsimile copy informed Ms. Lamendola that the statutes provide an exclusive remedy and a copy of the statutes may be obtained from NICA. The facsimile outlined the rights and limitations provided in the statutes. The only things that are not contained in the original brochure are that a copy of the statutes is available free of charge, the preparation of the brochure was mandated by section 766.316, and court cases have interpreted the statutes. St. Petersburg General Hospital offers a tour of its obstetrical department to expectant mothers and their families. Ms. Lamendola’s mother called St. Petersburg General Hospital to register for a tour. The hospital employee who was scheduling the tour asked to speak to Ms. Lamendola to obtain pertinent biographical information. Ms. Lamendola provided the information to the hospital employee. The tour is an informational tour and attendance at the tour does not constitute pre-registration at St. Petersburg General Hospital for the delivery of a baby. Ms. Lamendola and her mother, along with 12 other couples, attended the tour on March 22, 2012. During the tour, Ms. Lamendola received a tour packet, which contained a document titled Preadmission and Financial Information. This document instructed Ms. Lamendola to fill out the pre-admission form and return it to the hospital. Ms. Lamendola filled out the pre- admission form, but did not return it to St. Petersburg General Hospital. Ms. Lamendola did not pre-register for admission to the hospital. On April 3, 2012, Ms. Lamendola presented to St. Petersburg General Hospital with complaints of vaginal bleeding. Ms. Lamendola was told by a hospital employee that she was already in the system and that additional information would not be necessary. Ms. Lamendola signed a “Consent to Treat” form and was treated in the labor and delivery unit of the hospital. A short time later, she was given informational materials relating to prenatal and infant care and released. She was not given a NICA brochure during the visit on April 3, 2012. It was the hospital’s policy to give a NICA brochure to a patient only when the patient was being admitted as an inpatient for delivery of her baby. Ms. Lamendola’s professional relationship with St. Petersburg General Hospital relating to her pregnancy began with her visit on April 3, 2012. At 20:19 on June 26, 2012, Ms. Lamendola presented to St. Petersburg General Hospital. She had been experiencing contractions for six hours prior to her arrival at the hospital. She had been placed on bed rest for gestational hypertension five days prior to coming to the hospital. When she arrived at the hospital, she had hypertension. Normally when a patient is 37 to 39 weeks gestation, her physician will bring the prenatal records to the hospital or the physician’s office will send the records to the hospital by facsimile transmission. When Ms. Lamendola arrived at St. Petersburg General Hospital, her prenatal records from her physicians’ office were not on file. Megan Muse, R.N., was on duty when Ms. Lamendola presented at St. Petersburg General Hospital. Because Ms. Lamendola’s records were not on file, Ms. Muse requested that Bayfront Hospital send Ms. Lamendola’s records to St. Petersburg General Hospital. The evidence did not establish how Ms. Muse knew that the prenatal records were at Bayfront Hospital. Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records, consisting of 11 pages, were sent by facsimile transmission to St. Petersburg General Hospital beginning at 21:35 on June 26, 2012. Ms. Muse recorded in her notes that Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records were received from Bayfront Hospital at 21:45 on June 26, 2012. Although Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records may have been sent to Bayfront Hospital, it was never Ms. Lamendola’s intention to deliver her baby at Bayfront Hospital. She took the informational tour offered by St. Petersburg General Hospital and went to St. Petersburg General Hospital in April 2012 when she had a problem related to her pregnancy. At 20:33, Dr. Javate admitted Ms. Lamendola to St. Petersburg General Hospital for the delivery of her infant. Ms. Lamendola was examined by Emanuel Javate, M.D., at approximately 21:35. At 22:02, Ms. Lamendola signed the hospital’s Condition of Admission form. At 22:10 the hospital gave Ms. Lamendola the brochure prepared by NICA, and Ms. Lamendola signed the acknowledgment form, acknowledging that she had received the brochure. Ms. Lamendola gave birth to Hunter Lamendola (Hunter) on June 27, 2012, at St. Petersburg General Hospital, which is a licensed Florida Hospital. At birth, Hunter weighed in excess of 2,500 grams and was a single gestation. Ashley Lamendola received obstetrical care from Guillermo Calderon, M.D. Dr. Calderon was a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302(7). Christina Shamas, M.D., provided obstetrical services in the course of labor, delivery, and resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period. Dr. Shamas was a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302(7).
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $2,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed July 12, 2011 1:26 PM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this_|_! day of Tied ,2011. DL
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this _/ any of Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) _ Suzanne Suarez Hurley, Attorney Sue G. Brody 2 Office of the General Counsel Chief Executive Officer Agency for Health Care Administration Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Electronic Mail) 701 — 6" Street South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (U.S. Mail) Jon M. Pellett, Esq. Barr, Murman & Tonelli 201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602-5865 (U.S. Mail) Elizabeth W. McArthur Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Daniel Francis Sanchez was licensed as a physician by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners having been issued license number ME0038795. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was Regional Medical Director of IMC which operated HMO offices in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency room at Metropolitan General Hospital. He was checked and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. The ambulance with EMS personnel arrived and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when taken to the emergency room and they refused to transport him again to the hospital. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to the place where Stroganow lived. She was let in by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not carry on a conversation to find out what condition he was in. She called for a Cares Unit to come and evaluate the client. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as a stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her determination on visual examination only. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit both members felt Stroganow needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady showed his income to be over the maximum for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold- Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement for Stroganow at the time because he was not ambulatory but felt he needed to be placed where he could be attended to and not left alone over the coming weekend. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, the Assistant Medical Director for IMC in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic and by EMS personnel. There were two and sometimes three doctors who treated patients at this clinic and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor, he was treated by the first doctor available. Stroganow had not specifically requested he be treated by Dr. Dayton. When the Cares team met with Dr. Dayton they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the night before but did not advise Dayton that the EMS team had refused to transport Stroganow to the hospital emergency room a second time the previous evening. Dayton telephoned the emergency room at Metropolitan General to ascertain the medical condition of Stroganow when brought in the evening before. With the information provided by the Cares team and the hospital, Dayton concluded that Stroganow should be given a medical evaluation and the quickest way for that to occur was to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency room for evaluation. When the Cares team arrived, Dayton was treating patients at the clinic. A doctor's office, or clinic, is not a desirable place to have an incontinent, incoherent, non- ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to do certain procedures frequently needed in diagnosing the illness and determining treatment needed for an acutely ill patient. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call to 911 for emergency medical assistance and it was necessary for someone to be with Stroganow with the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Dayton suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 for assistance in obtaining a medical evaluation of Stroganow. If called from the HMO office, the EMS squad would have arrived long before the Cares team could have gotten back to Stroganow. Dr. Dayton did not have admitting privileges at any hospital in Pinellas County at this time. Upon leaving the South Pasadena HMO clinic, the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute, they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus patients had an emergency situation. Respondent, Dr. Sanchez, called and advised that Dr. Dayton would take care of the problem. Later, around 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived, the Cares team called 911 from a telephone a block away from Stroganow's residence and arrived back just before the emergency squad. The EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow to an emergency room and this information was passed back to Sanchez who directed that Stroganow be taken to Lake Seminole Hospital. This was the first time either Dayton or Sanchez was aware that the EMS squad had refused to transport Stroganow to an emergency room. Although Sanchez did not have admitting privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had a contractual agreement with Lake Seminole which provided that certain staff doctors at Lake Seminole would admit patients referred to Lake Seminole by IMC. Pursuant to this contractual arrangement, Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital where he was treated for his injuries and evaluated for his future medical needs.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the Agency For Health Care Administration (“the Agency") concerning Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 10202, which was filed by East Florida Healthcare, LLC (“East Florida”), and preliminarily denied by the Agency. 1. East Florida filed Application No. 10202 seeking a CON to establish a 100-bed acute care hospital to be located in Broward County, District 10. 2. On December 10, 2013, the Agency published notice of its decision to preliminarily deny East Florida’s CON Application No. 10202. 3. On December 30, 2013, East Florida filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding contesting the Agency’s preliminary denial of its CON Application 10202, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-0126CON. 4. On December 31, 2013, South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System (“MHS”) filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding in support of the Agency’s preliminary denial of East Florida’s CON Application 10202, which too was forwarded to the DOAH and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-0120CON. Filed February 18, 2014 10:39 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 5. On January 13, 2014, MHS then filed a motion to intervene in the East Florida case, DOAH Case No. 14-0126CON, in support of the Agency’s preliminary denial of East Florida’s CON Application No. 10202. 6. On January 24, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge entered an order in the East Florida case, DOAH Case No. 14-0126CON, granting the motion to intervene and permitting MHS to intervene in the East Florida case subject to the terms of the order. 7. On January 27, 2014, MHS filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding in this case. It is therefore ORDERED: 8. The Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding filed by MHS in this case is dismissed. This Final Order does not affect the intervention of MHS granted in the East Florida case, DOAH Case No. 14-0126CON. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this / 7 day of Pela auss} , 2014. Deectete_ Elizabeth DuWek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
The Issue Whether there is need for a new hospital in AHCA Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2 (eastern Pasco County)? If so, whether AHCA should approve either CON 9975 or CON 9977?
Findings Of Fact The Applicants and Background Pasco-Pinellas Pasco-Pinellas, the applicant for CON 9975, is a joint venture between two nonprofit healthcare organizations: University Community Hospital, Inc. (UCH) and Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation (Adventist). A not-for-profit healthcare system, UCH has served the Tampa Bay area for the last 40 years. It owns and operates two hospitals in Hillsborough County and one in Pinellas County. UCH has approximately $100 million available for capital expenditures to fund the hospital proposed by CON 9975. One of its Hillsborough County facilities, University Community Hospital, is located on Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County, AHCA Health Planning District VI. Across the street from the main campus of the University of South Florida (USF) and its College of Medicine, University Community Hospital has an agreement with USF for GME. University Community Hospital at present serves the Wesley Chapel area in eastern Pasco County. The other member of the joint venture, Adventist, is a financially successful not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates 17 hospitals in the state of Florida. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's cash on hand, including investments, exceeded $3.6 billion and net revenue for 2007 was approximately $368 million. The joint venture between UCH and Adventist was formed to establish a hospital to serve the Wesley Chapel area of Pasco County and to provide other healthcare services in the county. At present, the two members of the joint venture compete to serve the Wesley Chapel area through University Community Hospital and Adventist's Florida Hospital Zephyrhills (FHZ), a 154-bed general acute care hospital in Pasco County. The collaboration of competing hospitals in seeking approval for a new hospital through Florida's CON process is unusual. But by bringing the similar missions, strength in community interests and capable leadership of UCH and Adventist together, the Pasco Pinellas joint venture poses potential healthcare benefits to eastern Pasco County. BayCare The Applicant for CON 9977, BayCare of Southeast Pasco, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation formed to develop the hospital proposed in the application. The sole member of BayCare is BayCare Health System, Inc. ("BayCare System"). BayCare System is the largest full-service community- based health care system in the Tampa Bay area. It operates 9 nonprofit hospitals and 11 ambulatory/outpatient centers in Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties. Initially organized in 1997 under a joint operating agreement between several hospitals, BayCare System's purpose has been to compete effectively in managed care operations in order to reduce the expenses of the individual organizations that are its members. In the first 5 years of operation, BayCare System saved its members a total of $90 million because of the enhanced cost efficiencies it achieved through business function consolidations and group purchasing. Its members are all not-for-profit hospitals. BayCare System's focus is on the treatment of one patient at a time. Its mission is to improve the lives of people in the community it serves, to operate effectively as a group of not-for-profit hospitals, and to provide high quality, compassionate healthcare. BayCare's application, because it provides potential for its proposal with its teaching aspects, draws significant and considerable support from USF, a national research university. USF has a College of Medicine, a College of Nursing, and a College of Public Health, collectively "USF Health." USF Health will collaborate with BayCare in the development of the hospital BayCare proposes, should it be approved and should its teaching functions come to fruition. The Agency The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency that administers the CON program pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. It will make the final decisions to approve or deny the two CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Community Community Hospital is a general acute care for profit hospital with 386 beds. It is located within the City of New Port Richey in western Pasco County, Acute Care Subdistrict 5-1. With the exception of neonatal intensive care, open heart surgery and organ transplantation, Community is a full- service community hospital. It provides OB services. It is licensed for 46 adult psychiatric beds. It offers a variety of outpatient services including outpatient surgery, endoscopy, and outpatient procedures and lab testing. Its medical staff consists of approximately 400 physicians. Community serves patients without regard to ability to pay, and does not discriminate in any manner. Accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations, it has received numerous awards and recognition for the quality of its health care services. Community's hospital facility is over 30 years old. Access to the campus from US 19, the closest major thoroughfare approximately 1.5 miles away, is gained via a two-lane street through a residential area. Land-locked but for the two-lane street, the campus is sandwiched between the residences and a high school. There are no medical office buildings ("MOB") owned by Community on the campus; less than 20 acres in size, it is completely built out. Community's Replacement Hospital Community has a replacement hospital facility currently under construction in Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2. Approximately five miles southeast of Community's New Port Richey location, the replacement facility is located at the intersection of Little Road and State Road 54. Expected to open in late 2010 at a cost in excess of $200 million, it is to be known as Medical Center of Trinity ("Trinity"). All current Community services will be offered at Trinity. At the same time, the new hospital will offer many advantages over the old facility. Trinity will initially be five stories in height, with fewer licensed beds, but constructed with the ability to expand. It will offer new medical equipment with the latest technology. Situated on 52 acres, with a new three-story MOB adjacent to the hospital, Trinity has plans to add a second MOB at some time in the future. Unlike existing Community Hospital, Trinity will have all private rooms. Its more efficient layout among service areas will improve efficiencies and patient satisfaction. Trinity's location is more accessible than Community's current location in New Port Richey. It is on State Road 54 (SR 54), a six-lane highway that runs east/west through Pasco County. The road has recently undergone major construction and expansion which was nearly complete at the time of hearing. Suncoast Parkway (a/k/a Veterans Expressway), furthermore, is an expressway toll road system that runs north/south from Hernando County through Pasco County to Tampa airport. From the intersection of Suncoast Parkway and SR 54, it takes approximately seven minutes to reach Trinity. Little Road runs north/south along the Trinity site, and north through Pasco County to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point ("Bayonet Point"). Community's poor financial performance in recent years is expected to improve after the opening of Trinity. The Proposals Although both applicants propose a new hospital in roughly the same location in Subdistrict 5-2, the two are different both in scope and approach. Pasco-Pinellas' Proposal Pasco-Pinellas proposes to build an 80-bed acute care hospital on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the area known as Wesley Chapel in eastern Pasco County. If approved and constructed, the hospital will include 36 medical/surgical beds, 8 labor/delivery/recovery/post partum beds, 12 critical care beds, and 24 progressive care beds. The project would involve 184,000 gross square feet of new construction, at a total estimated cost of $121 million. Pasco-Pinellas proposes a typical primary service area (PSA). Five and one-half zip codes comprise the PSA; Pinellas- Pasco reasonably projects 82% of its admissions will come from the PSA. Two and one-half zip codes comprise the secondary service area (SSA). The zip code that is shared by the PSA and the SSA (33559) is split roughly in half between Pasco County and Hillsborough County. The half that is in Pasco County is in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA. The five full zip codes in the PSA are 33541, 33543, 33544, 34639, and 33576. The two full zip codes in the SSA are 33549 and 33647. Pasco-Pinellas' in-migration from outside its proposed service area (the PSA and the SSA) is forecast by Pasco- Pinellas's health planner at 12%. For a community hospital in the Wesley Chapel area without tertiary services, the in- migration percentage projected by Pasco-Pinellas is reasonable. BayCare's Proposal BayCare proposes to establish a general acute care hospital with 130 beds. The application proposes that it be collaboratively developed by BayCare System and USF Health so as to provide teaching functions associated with the USF College of Medicine and other health-related university components of USF Health. Consisting of approximately 476,000 square feet of new construction at an estimated total project cost of approximately $308 million, the hospital will have 92 medical/surgical beds, 24 critical care beds, and 14 post-partum beds. Like Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, BayCare's proposed hospital will be located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County. BayCare's proposed PSA is circular. The center point of the PSA is the proposed BayCare hospital site in the Wesley Chapel area. The circumference is along a series of seven-mile radii so that the diameter of the circular PSA is 14 miles. The seven-mile radius was chosen to approximate a fifteen-minute travel time by automobile from the outer edge of the circular PSA to the hospital site. BayCare's PSA includes some part of seven zip codes. Two are Wesley Chapel zip codes: 33543 and 33544. Two are Lutz area zip codes: 33549 and 33559. Two are Land O'Lakes zip codes: 34639 and 34638, and one is a zip code in Hillsborough County: 33647. Relative to typical PSAs for most proposed hospitals, the PSA proposed by BayCare's application was described at hearing by BayCare's health planner as "small." See Tr. 1855. For calendar years 2013 and 2014, BayCare projects that 19,0976 and 20,008 patient days, respectively, will be generated from within the PSA. These projections constitute a projection of 60% of all patient days projected for the two years, a percentage substantially lower than would be generated from a typical PSA. The remaining 40% of projected patient days is roughly double what would be expected from beyond a PSA under a more typical proposal. The high number of projected patient days for patients originating outside the PSA was explained at hearing by BayCare's health planner. The involvement of the USF Physician's Group and the "teaching" nature of the proposal "pumps up and provides an additive level of in-migration that would not be experienced without the USF combination with BayCare in [the] project." Tr. 1856-7. Pasco County Hospitals There are five hospitals in Pasco County. Two in western Pasco County will continue to remain in Subdistrict 5-1 in the near future: Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, located in northwest Pasco County and Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, located in New Port Richey. Two are in eastern Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2: Pasco Regional Medical Center in east central Pasco County, and FHZ, located in southeast Pasco. The fifth is Community/Trinity. No Need for Both Hospitals None of the parties contends there is need for both hospitals. Nor would such a contention be reasonable. Indeed, the record does not demonstrate need for both a new 80-bed community hospital as proposed by Pinellas-Pasco and a new 130- bed hospital that BayCare denominates a "teaching" hospital, each with an intended location on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County in Subdistrict 5-2. The question remains: is there a need for one new hospital? If so, which of the two applications, if either, should be approved? Need for a New Hospital; Access Enhancement Among the counties in the Tampa Bay area, Pasco County has been the fastest growing in recent years. From 1990 to 2000, its population grew 22.6%. Three times higher than the state average, this represents tremendous growth for any locale. The Wesley Chapel area of south Pasco County roughly coincides with the PSAs of the two applicants. Dramatic growth over the last 20 years has marked the Wesley Chapel area's transformation from an agricultural area to a suburban community. North of Hillsborough County and its largest city, Tampa, improvements in the transportation network has made south Pasco County and in particular, the Wesley Chapel area, a bedroom community for workers commuting to Tampa. Claritas, a national demographic data service, is a generally accepted population projection source for CON applications. Claritas projects the growth in Pasco County to continue. For example, the projected population for Pasco- Pinellas' proposed PSA, which substantially overlaps with BayCare's proposed PSA, is 113,397 in 2011 and 118,505 in 2012. The Claritas projections are based on the most recent decennial U.S. Census, that is, 2000, and do not take into account data of impending population growth, such as new housing starts and new schools. Claritas, therefore, may understate projections in areas that have experienced more recent, rapid growth. The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") also provides reliable population data by county. In the year 2000, the census for the Pasco County population was 344,765. By 2030, that population is projected by BEBR to grow to 526,100 based on low projections, 681,100 based on medium projections, and 876,900 based on high projections. For the high projection rate, this would constitute a 154% increase in population. Even assuming the low growth rate, the population would increase by 53%. According to BEBR data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 4.71% per year. Another source of population data relied upon by population experts is Demographics USA. The Demographics USA data shows a substantial growth in population for Pasco County. According to Demographics USA, the population for Pasco County can be expected to grow from 343,795 in the year 2000 to 440,527 in the year 2010 and then to 504,277 by the year 2015. Based on the Demographics USA data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 3.11% per year. The Wesley Chapel area is considered to be the area of Pasco County with the most development and development potential now and in the future. Of 175 major projects actively undergoing development in Pasco County, 76 are in the Wesley Chapel area. Between 2010 and 2012, the population in the area is projected to grow by 5,000 persons per year. With the increase in the general population in the area comes an expected increase in the need for schools. Of 37 schools identified by the Pasco County School Board to be built in the near future, 19 are to be located in the Wesley Chapel area. Whether the historic growth rate of the last few decades will continue for sure is an open question with the downturn in the economy and the housing market that commenced in Pasco County in mid-2007. Absent a major recession, however, it is reasonable to expect growth in the Wesley Chapel area to continue even if not at a rate as rapid as in the recent past. Whatever the future holds for Wesley Chapel's growth rate, there is clearly a demand for inpatient general acute care services in the Wesley Chapel area. The total non-tertiary discharges from the Pasco-Pinellas service area was 15,777, excluding newborns, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2006. As a result, AHCA found the existing and growing population in the Wesley Chapel area warranted a new hospital. Along with significant growth in the Wesley Chapel area comes resulting traffic and healthcare and hospital access issues. Drive time analysis shows the average drive time from each of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA six area zip codes to the eight area hospitals in 2007 to be 46.11 minutes. The analysis shows that future drive time is expected to be lengthier, strengthening the need for a hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. In 2012, the average time increase is expected to 57.68 minutes. A Drive Time Study Report prepared by Diaz Pearson & Associates compared drive times to the proposed site for Pasco- Pinellas hospital to eight existing hospitals: UCH, Pasco Regional, FHZ, Tampa General, University Community Hospital on Dale Mabry in Tampa, St. Joseph's North, St. Joseph's in Tampa, and the site for Community's replacement hospital. The study concluded: The results of this travel study demonstrate that the vehicular travel times for access to the proposed PPHCHS Hospital [Pasco- Pinellas' Hospital] are consistently LESS for residents within the six Zip codes of the Primary Service Area for years 2007, 2011, and 2012 than for comparable trips to any of the eight area hospitals for alternate choice. Pasco-Pinellas 36, p. 27. Of particular note are the travel times from each of the six zip codes in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA to UCH, FHZ, and Tampa General. For example, a patient driving from the centroid point in zip code 33559 to UCH would take 24.28 minutes and to FHZ would take 37.97 minutes in 2007. This increases to 29.55 minutes and 50.94 minutes in 2012. Another example, the time it takes a patient to travel from zip code 33541 to Tampa General was 75.51 minutes in 2007. In 2012, the travel time is projected to increase approximately 20 minutes to 95.33 minutes. In contrast, a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area would decrease travel times significantly for patients in the six zip code areas of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA. For example, in 2007, it would only take a zip code 33559 patient 11.41 minutes to reach the proposed site for Pasco-Pinellas. This represents a time savings of 12.87 minutes compared to the average driving time to UCH and 26.56 minutes compared to the average driving time to FHZ. In 2012, the reduction in time to drive to Pasco- Pinellas' proposed hospital site instead of UCH is 18.34 minutes and for FHZ, it is 39.53 minutes. The time savings for patients from the 33541 zip code traveling to Tampa General for non- tertiary services is even greater. Using Pasco-Pinellas' site in the Wesley Chapel area would save the patient 52.67 minutes in 2007 and is projected to save 63.88 minutes in 2012. Anecdotal evidence supports the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. Dr. Niraj Patel practices obstetrics and gynecology in the Wesley Chapel area. A drive for him in good traffic is typically 20 minutes to UCH (the only hospital at which he practices because the distance between area hospitals is too great). In morning traffic during "rush" periods, the drive can exceed 40 minutes. Caught in such a drive in January of 2008, Dr. Patel missed the delivery of a patient's baby. He was required to appear before the UCH Medical Staff's credentials committee to "explain the situation . . . [because it] was the third or fourth [such] episode." Pasco-Pinellas 47, p. 11. As Dr. Patel explained in a pre- hearing deposition, "it doesn't fare well for me . . . credential and requirement wise but it doesn't fare well for the patient [who] had to be delivered by the nursing staff which [without a physician present] increases patient risk and [the chance] of complication[s]." Id. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will provide residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA or the BayCare PSA with shorter travel time to a hospital compared to the time necessary to reach one of the eight existing hospitals in the region. In 2007, residents of the six zip codes in the Pasco-Pinellas' PSA could be expected to access Pasco-Pinellas' proposed hospital in a range of 10.9 to 21.8 minutes. For the year 2012, the time can be reasonably predicted to range from 17 to 31.4 minutes. In comparison the drive times to the eight hospitals in the region for residents of Pasco-Pinellas' PSA are significantly longer. In 2007, it took a resident in zip code 34639 approximately 55 minutes to get to UCH and 73 minutes to get to St. Joseph's Tampa. By 2012, those drive times are reasonably projected to increase to 64 minutes and 83 minutes, respectively. Simply put, travel times are expected to increase as the population increases in coming years. The site of Pasco-Pinellas' hospital is approximately one mile from the site of the proposed BayCare hospital. The travel times suggested for the residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA to the proposed Pasco-Pinellas hospital can be expected to be similar to travel times to the proposed BayCare hospital. Given the proximity of the two proposed sites, either will significantly reduce travel time to hospitals for patients in the Wesley Chapel area. The existence in the Wesley Chapel area of a community hospital with an emergency room and primary inpatient services will benefit doctors, patients and their families. Heightened driving concerns among elderly patients and traffic congestion and inadequate roadways that delay Emergency Medical services support the need for a Wesley Chapel area hospital. The support is based not only on 2007 travel times but also on the reasonable expectation that travel time will be greater in the future. Existing hospitals are capable of absorbing the increased need for acute care hospital services that result from the increased growth that is reasonably projected to occur in Subdistrict 5-2. If there is to be a new hospital in the subdistrict, the Wesley Chapel area is the best location for it. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will enhance access to acute care services for residents of Subdistrict 5-2. Preliminary Agency Action; the SAAR The Agency determined that there is a need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel Area when it issued its State Agency Action Report on CONs 9975 and 9977. The Agency also determined that between the two applications, Pasco-Pinellas was superior and should therefore be approved over BayCare's. This determination was founded primarily on Pasco-Pinellas' application being more reasonable in terms of size and impacts on existing providers. The Agency maintained at hearing the position it took in it preliminary action memorialized by the SAAR. Jeffrey Gregg, Chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation received in this proceeding as an expert in health planning and CON Review explained when called to the stand to testify: The proposal by [Pasco-Pinellas] was on the smaller side and gave us more comfort [than BayCare's] . . . [W]hile we . . . agree with these applicants that there is a hospital in the future of [the Wesley Chapel area], we are more comfortable with the conservative approach, the smaller approach [of Pasco- Pinellas], particularly given that should it be necessary in the future, any hospital can add beds, acute care beds, merely by notifying us. And we were more comfortable that [Pasco-Pinellas'] approach would be able to expand access and improve services for people in this area while at the same time minimally impacting all of the competitors. Tr. 1995. As detailed below, AHCA's determination that the Pasco-Pinellas application is superior to BayCare's is supported by the record even if the basis for the determination made on the state of the record is not quite the same as the basis advanced at hearing by AHCA. Size and Cost Pasco-Pinellas proposed hospital involves about 184,000 square feet of new construction at a cost of approximately $121 million dollars. It is much smaller and less costly than BayCare's proposed hospital of 476,000 square feet of new construction for about $308 million. The Pasco-Pinellas proposal is more reasonably sized to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel area and, in turn, Subdistrict 5-2. The difference in size and cost of the two proposals, however, is a function of a major difference in approach in the applications. Pasco-Pinellas' proposal is for a typical community hospital that would start out with a bed size within a range that includes 80 beds. BayCare, on the other hand, proposes to serve not only the Wesley Chapel area and Subdistrict 5-2, but also a substantial population of patients to be drawn to the subdistrict particularly from Hillsborough County. Patients migrating to the hospital from outside the subdistrict will for the most part be the product of BayCare's affiliation with USF Health and its service to the USF College of Medicine in its proposal denominated in the application as a "teaching hospital." Need for a New Teaching Hospital "Teaching hospital" is a term defined in the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes: "Teaching hospital" means any Florida hospital officially affiliated with an accredited Florida medical school which exhibits activity in the area of graduate medical education as reflected by at least seven different graduate medical education programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the Council of Postdoctoral Training of the American Osteopathic Association and the presence of 100 or more full-time equivalent resident physicians. The Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration shall be responsible for determining which hospital meets this definition. § 408.07(45), Fla. Stat. The Agency has not determined that BayCare's proposal meets the statutory definition as directed by the statute for it to qualify as a "teaching hospital." The record indicates that the proposal is not a typical teaching hospital. For example, teaching hospitals in the United States are usually located near indigent populations to achieve the efficiency of training future practitioners with treating people who otherwise could not afford services. BayCare's proposal in a small county with a more affluent population does not serve that purpose. BayCare contends neither that it is a "statutory" teaching hospital nor that it should be determined by the Agency to meet the statutory definition of "teaching hospital." Instead it grounds its case for need in the teaching functions its proposal would fulfill for USF Health and in particular for the GME needs of the students of the USF College of Medicine and the results those teaching functions would produce. Considerable testimony was offered by BayCare at hearing with regard to GME and the needs and aspirations of the USF College of Medicine. The Dean of the College, Stephen K. Klasko, M.D., spiritedly and eloquently related a narrative of need which was supported and amplified by other witnesses including faculty members at the college. There were many elements to the narrative. Highlights include the hybrid nature of the USF College of Medicine, "acting like a research intensive medical school . . . in a community-based body" (tr. 1132)," its on-going successful striving towards becoming an academic center for world class physicians as evidenced by this year's receipt of a research grant from the National Institute for Health, "the largest . . . given to a medical school in the last four or five years," id., and the GME challenges the college faces in the Tampa Bay area such as the recent loss of its anesthesiology residency program. BayCare's opponents point out the many ways in which the proposal is not only not a statutory teaching hospital but does not fit a nationwide model for teaching hospitals. BayCare counters that its model is one of many different models for a teaching facility. Whatever the merits of the various assertions of the parties on the point, USF's need for a teaching facility will be filled at least in part by the BayCare proposal. It is not an exaggeration, moreover, to call USF's need in this regard compelling. USF's institution-specific need, however, does not fall under any of the CON review criteria. See paragraphs 167- 8, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Perhaps not unmindful of the limits of the criteria, BayCare's presented other evidence that flows from the teaching function of the BayCare proposal. Relevant to the general criterion of "need" in subsection (1) of the Statutory CON Review Criteria, the evidence relates to physician shortages. The Physician Shortage There is a shortage of physicians in the district as there is in Pasco County. The problem has statewide dimensions. The state is not doing enough to replace aging doctors in Florida with younger doctors. Nor are aging doctors providing sufficient emergency room call coverage. The physician shortage both in general and in emergency rooms in the state is likely to increase. Residents are more likely to remain and practice in the community in which they train. Residents in the Tampa Bay area, in particular, are more likely to remain in the Tampa Bay area to practice. Even 20 residents per year in training at BayCare's proposed hospital would make a difference in existing physician shortages. Should BayCare's proposed hospital be built and operated as contemplated, the teaching functions that BayCare's application proposes to offer at the hospital would serve as a step, however small, toward meeting Florida's physician shortage as well as the shortage in District V, Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2 and the Tampa Bay area. Nonetheless, there is a feature of this case that undermines BayCare's claim that the proposal will aid the physician shortage and its denomination in the application of the proposal as a "teaching hospital." The feature is present in the agreement between USF and BayCare (the "BayCare and USF Agreement) to make the BayCare proposed hospital a University Hospital. The BayCare and USF Agreement The BayCare and USF Agreement contains a section devoted to implementation and termination. The following is excerpted from the section's six separately numbered paragraphs: The Parties [the University of South Florida Board of Trustees or USF and BayCare Health System, Inc.] shall negotiate in good faith all other terms and conditions relating to the execution and implementation of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any revisions to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Hospital Corporation, the terms and conditions of the Health Affiliation Agreement, the design and layout of the University Hospital . . . [etc.] and such other documents and instruments as the Parties may find necessary or desirable to implement the terms of this Agreement. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on all such terms and conditions and all such documents required to implement the terms and provisions of this Agreement despite their good faith efforts to do so, either Party shall have the option after a period of at least twenty four months from the Effective Date or six months after the final approval of the Certificate of Need for the University Hospital is received, whichever is longer, to terminate this Agreement on the terms described in this [s]ection . . . . BayCare 2, Appendix C, BayCare and USF Agreement, Section G, p. 8. (Emphasis supplied.) For USF to terminate, the terms include payment to BayCare of $500,000 and agreement that for five years after termination it will not enter into an affiliation or other agreement with any other provider for the establishment of a university hospital in Pasco County. See id. The ability of USF to terminate the agreement is not "at will." It requires good faith efforts to have been made at implementations that fail to work. Furthermore, termination is not without consequences. But the termination provision in the agreement is consistent with the lack of a condition in BayCare's application that the BayCare proposal be a teaching hospital, "one more detail that made [AHCA officials] scratch our heads about the characterization of this hospital as a teaching hospital." Tr. 2011. It is also consistent with USF's support for "legislation that would be statewide that would allow state medical schools at some point, if they chose to, to make it easier . . . to have a hospital or research hospital on campus . . . [of which] USF would be one . . . " Tr. 1190-91. Adverse Impact Providers Outside the District Evidence was produced at hearing about the adverse impact of approval of either of the two applications on providers outside the district. Objections to the evidence were taken under advisement pending consideration of post-hearing memoranda submitted by the parties. Upon consideration of the memoranda, the objections are sustained. See paragraphs 159-66, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Providers Within the District The Pasco-Pinellas proposal will have minimal impact on Community/Trinity Medical Center. Its impact on other hospitals will be minimal with the exception of its two partner hospitals--UCH and FHZ--and of those two, only FHZ is in the District. There will be no adverse impact on Community as a result of the BayCare proposal. There is little patient flow from eastern Pasco to the western Pasco hospitals. Only about 1% of the patients in eastern Pasco travel west for services at Community, Morton Plant or Bayonet Point. It is reasonable to project that there will be no material change in Community's patient draw as a result of the new Trinity Medical Center. The projections by Community's health care and financial experts of patient days that would be lost and adverse financial impact to Community/Trinity should the BayCare proposal be approved were based on faulty assumptions. The majority of the adverse impact from BayCare's proposal, as in the case of Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, will be on UCH and FHZ. Availability of Resources Nursing and Non-Nursing Staff Pasco-Pinellas should be able to recruit and retain nursing and other staff for its hospital based on the Adventist experience at FHZ. The nursing vacancy at FHZ is 1% lower than the vacancy rate reported by the Florida Hospital Association (7.5% and 8.5%, respectively.) The turn-over rate for nurses at FHZ is 12%, significantly lower than the national rate in the 18-19% range. Recruitment of nurses has been successful at FHZ particularly in the last few years. In 2007, FHZ hired 100 nurses and reduced its use of agency nursing staff by roughly 75%. Among its different recruitment tactics have been a foreign nursing program, education and training incentives, scholarships at local colleges and specialty pay programs. Pasco-Pinellas will use many of the same recruiting techniques that have been successful at FHZ. It is reasonably anticipated that the same recruitment practices employed by FHZ will work for Pasco-Pinellas. Many members of the current nursing staff at FHZ, moreover, live in the Wesley Chapel area and have expressed an interest in working at Pasco-Pinellas. Retention programs at FHZ have been aimed at retaining better nurses. These include the magnet concept and a self- governance program with "a unit based council and nursing council so nurses . . . practicing . . . at the bedside have the opportunity to help govern the practice of nursing." Tr. 225-6. Retention programs similar to those used at FHZ will be implemented at Pasco-Pinellas. Schedule 6 in Pasco-Pinellas application reflects anticipated staffing for its new hospital. The staffing model is consistent with staffing at other Adventist facilities, specifically FHZ. The average salaries and wages are based on actual salaries inflated forward to the projected date of opening. The FTEs per adjusted occupied bed are adequate and consistent with the staffing patterns at FHZ. All necessary staffing positions are accounted for and the number of FTEs and salaries are sufficient for the hospital to operate and provide high quality of care. The registered nurse FTEs, as opposed to LPNs and lower-level nursing care, in Schedule 6 offer optimal staffing to provide high quality care and positive patient safety. The nursing salaries are adequate for the time frame in which Pasco-Pinellas will open with a one-time 5% increase and a 4% increase per year from present until opening. Schedule 6 supports the reasonable expectation that Pasco-Pinellas will be able to recruit and hire nursing staff and retain an adequate staff. The proposed staffing pattern in Schedule 6 of the Pasco-Pinellas application, which includes nursing staff, moreover, is reasonable. BayCare has a comprehensive recruitment program for recruiting and retaining nursing personnel as well. The strategies include a partnership with the nursing programs at USF and St. Petersburg College. BayCare System provides additional training to its nurses and with regard to salaries has committed to remaining competitive in the market. BayCare's recruitment and retention initiatives have been successful. In the 2008 year to date at the time of hearing, BayCare System had been able to hire more experienced nurses that it did in 2007 for the same time period. Overall, the BayCare System has a turnover rate of about 15%. The RN vacancy is 10% with a 13% turnover rate. These figures are comparable to state and national figures; in some cases they are lower. With regard to non-nursing employees or team members, BayCare System also had developed recruitment initiatives that are targeted toward those individuals. BayCare System has a positive reputation in the community as a good place to work. As an example, the three St. Joseph's hospitals (St. Joseph', Women's and Children's) and South Florida Baptist received recognition among the "Best Work Places in Health Care" for the years 2005 and 2006. The award recognizes outstanding practices related to employees. BayCare has the ability to recruit and retain the staff necessary to staff the proposed BayCare SE Pasco hospital. The staffing projections in Schedule 6 of BayCare's application, which includes nursing staff, are reasonable. Physician Support Despite the physician shortage, both applicants should be able to adequately staff their hospitals with physicians as shown by the evidence with regard to physician support for the hospitals. Florida Medical Clinic (FMC), a multi-specialty physician group practice with 85 physicians, is the primary physician group that serves the Wesley Chapel area. Thirty percent of its members are family practitioners or specialists in internal medicine. The remainder of the members cover 20 or so specialties that include both secondary and tertiary specialties. FMC has determined that it will support the Pasco- Pinellas proposal through its physicians, admissions and outpatients activity. Ninety percent or more of the clinic's patients use the UCH and FHZ facilities. FMC has a long- standing relationship with the administrators, personnel, and strategic issues of FHZ and UCH and is comfortable developing future plans for a hospital facility in Wesley Chapel with the two organizations FMC is able to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community both today and in the future. In addition, there are numerous other individual physicians who practice in the Wesley Chapel area who "predominantly support University Community Medical Center and Florida Hospital in Zephyrhills." Tr. 63. Having relationships with physicians already in a market when a hospital is being developed is advantageous to the new hospital. Among other advantages, it minimizes resources used to recruit and move new physicians into the area. In contrast to support for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, FMC has not made a commitment to BayCare as to its proposal because of lack of knowledge about the structure of the facility, its strategic plans and whether or not FMC's interests align with the BayCare proposal but it has not foreclosed such a commitment. The USF physicians group will be a source of many of the physicians who will staff the BayCare proposed hospital, a likely reason for FMC's lukewarm to non-existing support for BayCare's proposal. USF emergency physicians will staff the Emergency Department. The BayCare System has approximately 28 physicians with privileges at BayCare System facilities with offices in the Wesley Chapel area. The proposed BayCare hospital will be staffed by recruited physicians and USF faculty physicians. Other physicians from the Wesley Chapel area provided testimony of their support for the BayCare proposal. It is reasonable to anticipate that some local Wesley Chapel area physicians will join the medical staff of the proposed BayCare hospital. Despite the physician shortages in the subdistrict, District V and the Tampa Bay area, both Pasco-Pinellas and BayCare will be able to staff their hospitals adequately with physicians. Charity and Medicaid; Conditions Pasco-Pinellas committed to a number of conditions of its applications. These include a 12.6% commitment to charity and Medicaid; the establishment of funding for a clinic for the underserved, provision of educational programs for the community, and two neonatal transports and funding for local fire and rescue services. BayCare projects a 6.1% level of charity care, 2.4% higher than Pasco-Pinellas' charity care commitment. It projects 10.3% of its Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients will be attributable to Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients versus 8.9% at Pasco-Pinellas. BayCare System has a history of providing services to Medicaid and Charity Patients. In 2006, for example, as not- for-profit entities, BayCare System facilities and related entities provided a total community benefit of $135 million in uncompensated care. Approximately 50% was pure charity care. BayCare System facilities currently serve patients from the Wesley Chapel area, including, of course, Medicaid and charity patients. BayCare System facilities provide 57% of the charity care and 31% of the Medicaid in the market. St. Joseph's Children's Hospital and St. Joseph's Women's Hospital operate at approximately 50-to-60% Medicaid and un-reimbursed care. St. Joseph's Hospital currently serves approximately 20% of the patients from the Wesley Chapel area. St. Joseph's, however, provides 36% of the total charity, Medicaid, and Medicaid HMO care rendered to patients who reside in the Wesley Chapel area. Thus, the facilities within the BayCare System have a demonstrated track record of providing care without regard to a patient's resources. In light of the record, it is reasonable to expect BayCare to carry on in the same vein under the BayCare proposal. Utilization Schedule 5 relates to projected utilization after project completion. The projections in the schedule in Pasco- Pinellas' application were developed by looking at service area population, applying a use rate growth and taking a market share by individual zip code. They are based on the expectation that the hospital would be operating at approximately 70% occupancy in its third year of operation, which equates to an average census of approximately 56 patients. The assumptions contained in the schedule are reasonable. The utilization projections in Schedule 5 in Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable; they indicate that an 80- bed hospital is appropriate to meet the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area of the subdistrict. BayCare will able to achieve its projected utilization from its primary service area and from the 40% of its patients it expects to receive by way of in-migration. The population forecast and market share forecast for the primary service area are reasonable. While the support among local physicians is much stronger for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, it is likely that they will admit patients to the BayCare proposed hospital since it will be in the Wesley Chapel area, the area of the subdistrict that is most suitable for a new hospital. The 40% projected in-migration from outside of the seven mile service area is a reasonable projection. It is reasonable to expect that the bulk of these admissions will come from USF physicians located at the USF north Hillsborough campus. Projected Revenues Schedule 7A governs projected revenues. The payor mix in Schedule 7A of Pasco-Pinellas' application is based on historic admission and patient days by payor class occurring in the proposed Pasco-Pinellas service area based on the most recent available AHCA data. Gross charges and net revenues were developed based on historical data from FHZ as reported to AHCA. These figures were inflated forward using a net increase over all in revenue payments of approximately 3%. The projected revenues including net revenues in Schedule 7A of Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable and consistent with the marketplace. The payor mix in BayCare's Schedule 7A was based on an analysis of patient discharge data from the proposed primary service area plus an analysis of the experience of other BayCare System facilities in the same market. It is a reasonable payor mix. It allows for consideration of the experience of BayCare System, including the high level of charity care and Medicaid and Medicaid HMO services and at the same time reflects that the Wesley Chapel area is more affluent and younger than other areas of Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. BayCare's revenue assumptions were based on an analysis of gross and net revenue per patient day from another BayCare System facility, South Florida Baptist. Financial class specific projected patient days were applied to derive a gross and net revenue number for each of the three pro forma years for the proposed project denominated by Schedule 7A as "Projected Operating Year 1, 2 and 3" and ending "12/31/11, 12/31/12 and 12/31/13" respectively as indicated by BayCare in the application. See BayCare 2, pp. 133-135. The 2006 South Florida Baptist gross and net revenue per patient day were trended forward for each of the three projected operating years to reach the projected revenue figures in Schedule 7A. The projected revenues in Schedule 7A of the BayCare application are reasonable. Projected Income and Expenses Schedule 8A in a CON application contains projected income and expenses for the proposal. Pasco-Pinellas' application used a methodology in Schedule 8 that its expert had used in other CON cases. The methodology is consistent with methodologies of other health care experts and has been accepted in recommended and final orders in CON cases. The projections in Schedule 8 of Pasco-Pinellas' application are appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's methodology used to project income and expenses in Schedule 8A is also appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's healthcare finance expert asked BayCare financial analysts to look at his initial projections. They recommended that expenses be increased in physical therapy, radiology lab and pharmacy and that expense be reduced in plant operations. The recommendations were accepted; the projections were adjusted. Medicare GME reimbursement in year 3 of operations was assumed to be $1.7 million. If no addition Medicare GME reimbursement were received, BayCare's proposal would still show a profit of $2.8 million by year 3. It is virtually certain, moreover, that some portion of the $1.7 million included in calculation of BayCare's income projections will be realized. However valid criticism of the inclusion of the $1.7 million, BayCare's proposal remains financially feasible in the long- term. Financial Feasibility Pasco-Pinellas proved the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposal. The schedules in its application related to financial feasibility used reasonable methodologies that yielded reasonable projections. Analysis of capital costs and funding is contained in Schedules 1 through 3. Schedule 1 presents an accurate summation of total project cost. That figure, $121 million, is a reasonable and typical cost for a new 80-bed community hospital. The $149 million on Schedule 2 reflects an accurate summation of anticipated capital costs, including the hospital project and necessary capital expenditures for the first tow or three years of operation. Schedule 3 set forth the sources of funding, a combination of equity and debt financing, discussed below. Both UCH and Adventist are financially successful systems. They will have not difficulty funding the Pasco- Pinellas proposal. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's net revenue was approximately $368 million. About $100 million in funds were available to UCH at the time of hearing to contribute to development of the project. Due to the financial strength of its members, Pasco- Pinellas will easily be able to fund the project through a combination of equity and debt. The equity, $45 million, will be provided equally by Adventist and UCH, $22.5 million each. The remaining $76 million will be financed through tax-free bonds issued by Ziegler Securities. The project is immediately financially feasible. The Pasco-Pinellas project is also financially feasible in the long-term. Schedule 8 in the application, year 3, shows the project will generate a return of approximately $5.3 million in revenue over expenses, an amount that "more than meet[s] the test for financial feasibility in the long-term." Id. Based on the sources of BayCare System, BayCare has access to the financial resources to implement its proposed hospital. Funding for the hospital will come from BayCare System on the basis of 50% debt and 50% equity investment. As of early 2008, BayCare System had approximately $1.2 billion in unrestricted cash on hand. BayCare System's financial strength will allow BayCare to obtain the financing it needs for the project. Schedule 3 of the BayCare application sets forth an accurate and reasonable statement of the sources of funds necessary to develop the project. The immediate financial feasibility of BayCare's proposal is demonstrated by the evidence presented by BayCare. By year three of the pro forma, the BayCare proposal is reasonably projected to generate a net income over expenses in the amount of $4,498,637. BayCare demonstrated that the proposal's long-term financial feasibility. Costs and Construction Methods The costs and methods of the proposed construction of the Pasco-Pinellas project are reasonable. The facility is adequately sized and programmed for the services included in the Pasco-Pinellas application. All of the departments, including central storage, fall within an appropriate benchmark range for community hospitals. The 2,300 square feet per bed is reasonable as are the construction costs when compared to similar community hospitals. The proposed Pasco-Pinellas facility meets the codes for all of the services included in the application. The design of the Pasco-Pinellas facility enable expansion. The designed expansion capabilities are reasonable, logical and appropriate to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community. The drawings contained in the CON application show an efficient community hospital. The departments allow for efficient intra-department circulation and department-to- department circulation. There are adequate separation of public and staff flow corridors. All of the areas and departments as shown in the Pasco-Pinellas plans are code compliant. The layout of the patient rooms is consistent with industry standards for the design of single patient rooms. The number and size of the operating rooms are adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed community hospital not offering tertiary services. The emergency department, including the trauma room, complies with code and its layout is adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed hospital. The ambulance entrance in relation to the trauma bay allows for efficient location of patients based on acuity level. The number of treatment beds, treatment bays, including observation areas, provide adequate emergency department capacity. The Schedule 1 costs set forth in the BayCare application are reasonable. These costs include projected costs associated with necessary medical equipment. The medical equipment costs set forth in Schedule 1 are reasonable and BayCare has properly accounted for the items and costs of equipment necessary to operate the hospital. The Schedule 9 construction costs of approximately $180 million are reasonable as are the construction costs per square foot ($347 versus $325 for Pasco-Pinellas). Contingencies and escalation factors have been built into the projected costs. Facilities, Sites, Related Costs At the time the UCH and Adventist joint venture was formed, UCH had a parcel of land under contract located on State Road 54 across from the Saddlebrook Resort (the "UCH Parcel"). When it filed its application, Pasco-Pinellas hoped the UCH Parcel would serve as the site of its hospital. In fact, Pasco- Pinellas touted the location of the parcel for meeting the need of the growing population in Pasco County when it represented in the application that the UCH Parcel is the center point of the Wesley Chapel area. Close to Interstate 75, the UCH Parcel is a good location for a hospital. Pasco-Pinellas' aspiration for the use of the parcel was defeated, however, when the Pasco County denied a request to re-zone the UCH Parcel for use as a hospital. After the inability to have the UCH Parcel re-zoned, Pasco-Pinellas changed the site for the hospital to a parcel owned by FHZ (the "Pasco-Pinellas Site"). Located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, a major north-south corridor in the Wesley Chapel area, the site is 51.5 acres. The Pasco-Pinellas Site had been purchased by FHZ in 2001 with the intention of using it for a hospital. Subject to a height variance to allow a seven-story building, the site is zoned for special use as a hospital and related medical uses. The site has good visibility and access from Bruce B. Downs Boulevard as evidenced by its compliance with the State Road 581 (Bruce B. Downs Boulevard) access management plan. It meets other regulatory requirements such as the minimum spacing criteria for Pasco County. The Pasco-Pinellas Site is governed by a development order associated with the Wiregrass Ranch Development of Regional Impact (the "Wiregrass DRI DO"). The Wiregrass DRI DO "indicates that the phasing schedule assumed 100 hospital beds would be developed within the building phase." Tr. 597. As explained at hearing by Lara Daly, Pasco-Pinellas' expert in civil engineering and property site development, there are other aspects of the Wiregrass DRI DO, "like trade-off matrices" and "entitlement advancements" that indicate "entitlements are not limited on a parcel-by-parcel basis." Tr. 598. The assumption, therefore, does not necessarily restrict the number of hospital beds on the Pasco-Pinellas Site; rather it allows impacts associated with 100 hospital beds. The number of allowable beds may be increased following action taken under other provisions of the Wiregrass DRI DO. A significant portion of the Pasco-Pinellas Site is wetlands: some of low quality, some of high quality. The higher quality wetlands, referred to in the record as "a high quality category 1 wetland as defined by Pasco County," tr. 552, (the "Category 1 Wetland") are on the north and east perimeter of the site. The project is designed so as to have no impacts on the Category 1 Wetland. The only potential impact to these high quality wetlands is if there were a county-mandated road to be built in their vicinity. The lesser quality wetlands located in the interior of the site are herbaceous in nature or an open water feature that is "an older borrow pit that naturalized over time." Tr. 552-53. These lower quality wetlands constitute roughly 11.5 acres of the site. They will be impacted by the project but it is reasonable to expect that the impacts will be permitted. As Ms. Daly put it at hearing, "[a]fter reviewing, running stormwater models, looking at the proposed wetland impacts, coming up with appropriate mitigation ratios based on our experience elsewhere on the Wiregrass site, the site will accommodate all the necessary wetland and floodplain historic basin compensation . . . ." Tr. 550. The costs contained in Schedule 1 of the application were arrived assuming the use of the UCH Parcel as the site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The Pasco-Pinellas Site requires expenditures for site preparation and other expenditures, such as wetland mitigation, related to the site that were not required had the UCH Parcel been used. For example, three potential foundation systems have been suggested for the hospital because of the wetland and subsurface conditions on the Pasco-Pinellas Site had the UCH Parcel been the site. Using the most expensive of the three, however, would not cause Pasco- Pinellas to exceed the construction costs contained in Schedule 1 of the CON Application. The land acquisition costs were reasonably projected to be less for the Pinellas-Pasco Site than for the UCH Parcel as reflected in the application. All told, the estimated project cost using the Pasco-Pinellas site was not materially different from the cost projected in the application and presented the possibility of being less than the $121 million reflected in the application. Likewise, the equipment cost figure shown in Schedule 1 of the Pasco-Pinellas application is reasonable and achievable. The total of the costs for the project sited at the Pasco-Pinellas Site, despite the change of site that occurred after the filing of the application, should not exceed the total of the costs listed in the Pasco-Pinellas application. The preponderance of the evidence is that the Pasco- Pinellas Site should ultimately qualify as an appropriate, developable site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The BayCare site, north of Highway 56 and bordering I-75, (the "BayCare Site") includes two parcels of 54 and 17 acres. The 54 contiguous acres will be used for the hospital, outpatient services, and a planned medical office building. The 17 acres will be used for research space, physician office space, and academic training space necessary for the research and education function at the project. BayCare has the appropriate zoning and approvals necessary to develop the hospital. The hospital will have all private beds. It will be fully digital and will rely on electronic medical records. The BayCare Site is well suited for construction of the hospital and related buildings. The available footprint and design of the hospital, which includes shelled-in space, will readily allow for future expansion of the hospital up to 300 beds. Design of the BayCare facility is based on principles of family-centered care, flexibility to allow for change and future growth, efficiency, a quality of environment for teaching, a sustainable, green building, and patient safety. A "health building" with improved environmental quality and energy efficiency, the facility will seek LEED certification given to facilities constructed to have minimal adverse environmental impact. In keeping with the teaching function intended by the application, the facility's design includes additional work space, reading areas, sleep areas and conference rooms to facilitate teaching. Overall, the BayCare facility is twice as large as the Pasco-Pinellas facility. Size has its advantages. For example, it allows for larger treatment patient areas. But the facility is much more expensive to build. It is reasonably projected to cost more than $180 million above the costs associated with the Pasco-Pinellas facility which is more than twice as much. The high expense associated with the BayCare facility is shown by its cost per bed: in excess of $2 million-- much more than the cost per bed of the Pasco-Pinellas facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration approve CON 9975, Pasco-Pinellas' application for a new hospital in AHCA Subdistrict 5-2, and deny CON 9977, BayCare's application for a new hospital in the same subdistrict. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karin M. Byrne, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Koda & Frook, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
