The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") for the issuance of a final order. 1. On March 10, 2014, Greystone Hospice of District 6B, LLC, (“Greystone”) requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the preliminary denial of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10206, which it submitted to establish a hospice program in the Service District 6B, and to contest the preliminary approval of VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (“VITAS”) CON Application No. 10207, to establish a hospice program in Hospice Service Area 6B. Filed May 15, 2014 4:04 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. The request was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) where it was assigned Case No. 14-1369CON. 3. On March 13, 2014, VITAS requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the co-batched CON Application filed by Greystone to establish a hospice program in Service District 6B, (CON No. 10206), and to support the preliminary approval of its application (CON No. 10207). 4. The request was referred to DOAH where it was assigned Case No. 14-1366CON. 5. On April 4, 2014, DOAH issued an Order of Consolidation. 6. On April 18, 2014, Greystone filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It is therefore ORDERED: 7. The denial of Greystone’s CON Application No. 10206 is upheld. 8. The approval of VITAS’ CON Application No. 10207 is upheld subject to the conditions noted in the State Agency Action Report. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this /4 day of hay 2014. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Hgalth Care Administration
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. Page 2 of 3 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 [Soma Ate , 2014. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia and Purnell, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Steve@reuphlaw.com (Electronic Mail) R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Pennington, P.A. Post Office Drawer 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Trigsby@penningtonlaw.com (Electronic Mail) | James McLemore, Supervisor Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Page 3 of 3
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carol O'Donnell (O'Donnell), was at all times material hereto licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, and held license number 1498442. On May 15, 1986, O'Donnell was employed as a registered nurse at Broward General Medical Center, Broward County, Florida, on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. At or about 7:30 p.m., O'Donnell abandoned her employment, without notice or authorization, and thereby left her patients unattended. Although the period that elapsed between the time O'Donnell abandoned her position and the time her absence was discovered was apparently of short duration and there was no proof any patient suffered from her absence, her conduct constituted a departure from and failure to conform to the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Carol O'Donnell, be reprimanded, and that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon her. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-4. Addressed in paragraph 2. 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Carol O'Donnell 109 North Birch Road, #4 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lorrie Neumann Dupuis (Dupuis or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse and held license number PN 0766491 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). When the events herein occurred in 1990, respondent was known as Lorrie Neumann. She has since changed her name to Lorrie Neumann Dupuis. Counts I and II At hearing respondent admitted that the charges in Counts I and II are true. The admitted allegations which underpin these counts are briefly as follows. On July 23, 1990, respondent applied for employment with Upjohn Health Services (Upjohn). On her application, Dupuis indicated that she was a registered nurse when in fact she was a licensed practical nurse. In addition, respondent submitted to Upjohn an altered nursing license which had been changed to indicate the designation "RN" and title "Registered Professional Nurse". Finally, respondent gave Upjohn a resume indicating the designation "RN" after her name. Accordingly, it is found that respondent (a) engaged in unprofessional conduct by improperly using the name or title Registered Nurse and (b) knowingly violated a statutory provision that prohibits any person from assuming the title of registered nurse or using the abbreviation "R.N." without being so licensed. There is no evidence, and the Board has not alleged, that any unlawful practice as a registered nurse occurred as the result of the application nor that respondent was subjected to criminal prosecution for this act. Count III Respondent is charged in Count III with "making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false". This charge stems from a factual allegation that, while employed by Consolidated Staffing Services (CSS), respondent altered a time verification form by increasing the number of hours she had allegedly worked on July 26, 1990, from four to nine. Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) by CSS from April through July 1990. CSS, which is a for-profit division of St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, has agreements with various clients in the Jacksonville area to supply nurses to the clients on a supplemental staff basis. One such agreement was with the Jacksonville Naval Air Station (NAS) and called for CSS to furnish nurses to the NAS emergency room. During her tenure with CSS, respondent worked on various occasions as a LPN at the NAS emergency room. On Tuesday, July 24, 1990, Dupuis worked an eight hour shift at the NAS. Based on erroneous advice received from a CSS employee, respondent was under the impression she was to work again at the NAS on Thursday morning, July She accordingly reported to duty that day at 6:45 a.m. However, Dupuis was not actually scheduled to work that day since the emergency room already had a full complement of nurses on duty. After realizing that the emergency room had more persons on duty than was customary, the emergency room nursing manager contacted CSS and verified that respondent was not scheduled to work that day. Accordingly, around 10:45 a.m., the manager advised respondent that she must leave but that she would be paid for the four hours she had worked that morning. Just before leaving the premises, respondent filled out a CSS time verification form. The form is made up of four pages, an original and three copies, and the CSS nurse is instructed to leave one copy with the client, retain one copy for herself, and to return the original and one copy to CSS offices. On the form, respondent noted she had worked from 6:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., or a total of four hours. After she departed the NAS, respondent noted that the time sheet reflected a date of July 25 when in fact the correct date was July 26. She accordingly altered the three copies of the form still in her possession to reflect the correct date. The copy left with the NAS still carries the incorrect date of July 25. In accordance with her normal procedure, respondent accumulated her time verification forms from the week and turned them all in at one time to CSS on Sunday afternoon, July 29. She did so by placing them in an envelope and sliding the envelope under the locked doors of CSS's offices. Such a procedure was acceptable with her employer. When the envelope was opened by CSS the next day and sent to accounting for computation of pay, CSS personnel noted that on respondent's July 26 time verification form the number "4" had been altered to read "9" so that it appeared respondent had worked nine hours at the NAS. Also, the "time finished" column, which is the time Dupuis finished her stint of duty, reflected that "10:45" had been altered to read "15:45", which is the military time for 3:45 p.m. CSS then had the NAS fax its copy of the form to CSS. This form had not been altered and correctly reflected that Dupuis worked only four hours. When Dupuis would not agree to meet with CSS management to discuss the altered form, respondent was terminated from employment and the matter was turned over to the Board. Except for changing the date on the form from July 25 to July 26, respondent denied that she had altered any other numbers. She suggested at hearing that someone at CSS may have altered the copies after she turned them in on Sunday, July 29. She also suggested that the nurse manager at the NAS emergency room disliked her and may have set her up. However, these contentions are not deemed to be credible. Accordingly, it is found that respondent made a report which she knew to be false. Mitigation There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. In addition, there is no evidence that her actions endangered the public or resulted in actual damages of any nature, or that she engaged in any other similar misconduct. Finally, there are no complaints of record regarding the quality of work performed by respondent as a LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f),(h), and (l), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for thirty days. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lorrie Neumann Dupuis 4156 Piney Branch Court Jacksonville, FL 32257 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether there were deficiencies at Naples sufficient to support Agency for Health Care Administration’s (AHCA) decisions to issue Heritage Health Care & Rehab Center - Naples (Naples) a Conditional license on March 11, 1999, and continue that rating until June 7, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Background Naples is a nursing home located in Naples, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency for Health Care Administration. Each year, Naples is surveyed by AHCA to determine whether the facility should receive a Superior, Standard, or Conditional licensure rating. On March 11, 1999, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Naples. After that survey was completed, AHCA alleged that there were several deficiencies at Naples which violated various regulatory standards that are applicable to nursing homes. However, AHCA agreed that the only deficiency relevant to the DOAH hearing was its allegation that Naples violated the requirement, contained in 42 CFR Section 483.13(c), that a nursing home develop and implement policies that prohibit abuse and neglect of residents. AHCA issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag" numbered F224. AHCA is required to assign a federal "scope and severity" rating to each deficiency identified in the survey report. AHCA assigned the Tag F224 deficiency identified in the March survey report a federal scope and severity rating of "G," which is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. AHCA is also required to assign a state classification rating to each deficiency identified in the survey report. After the March 11th survey, AHCA assigned the Tag F224 deficiency a state classification rating of Class II which, under AHCA’s own rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because AHCA determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Naples after the March 11th survey, it changed Naples’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective March 11, 1999. By law, Naples was required to post the Conditional license in a conspicuous place in the facility. Naples was also required to submit a Plan of Correction (the "Plan") to AHCA. Although the plan did not admit the allegations, it did provide steps that the facility would implement to address the deficiencies cited in the survey report. The Plan also represented that all corrective action relating to the Tag F224 deficiency would be completed by April 10, 1999. AHCA returned to Naples on March 29, 1999, March 30, 1999, and April 22, 1999, and re-surveyed the facility. After each survey, AHCA determined that there were deficiencies at Naples, but stipulated prior to hearing that none of these deficiencies were justification for the issuance or the continuation of the Conditional license at issue in this case. After the April 22, 1999, survey, AHCA determined that Naples completed all corrective action with regard to the March 11, 1999, Tag F224 deficiency and complied with the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.13(c). After the June 7, 1999, survey, AHCA determined that Naples was in substantial compliance with all applicable regulations and issued Naples a Standard license effective that date. Naples filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with AHCA to challenge the findings of all of the above- cited surveys, as well as AHCA’s decision to issue Naples a Conditional license. That Petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing was conducted. At hearing, the parties were ordered to file their proposed recommended orders on or before September 15, 1999. Finding 1; Tag F224; March 11, 1999, Survey Report: An unnamed resident at Naples who had fragile skin and a history of skin tears sustained a skin tear to her arm on March 8, 1999. Naples’ staff obtained a doctor’s order for a dressing to be applied to the area and changed daily. The dressing was applied as ordered except for an isolated instance when it was not applied on March 9, 1999. On March 10th, AHCA’s surveyor observed that the dressing had not been changed on the previous day. She interviewed the nurse who had obtained the order for the dressing, and was told that the dressing had not been changed on March 9, 1999, because the nurse forgot to print out the order from the computer and place it in the Resident’s medical record. The nurse immediately changed the Resident’s dressing. The surveyor did not observe the nurse changing the dressing. Instead, she went back into the Resident’s room after the dressing was changed and observed that the area covered by the dressing was bleeding. The surveyor inferred from that observation that the old dressing had stuck to the Resident’s skin because of the failure to change the dressing on March 9th. She also inferred that the nurse who changed the old dressing had not moistened it prior to removing it so as to cause it to bleed. The surveyor did not interview the nurse to verify her suspicion that the nurse changed the dressing incorrectly. Instead, she alleged that Naples neglected the Resident because the nurse failed to change the dressing pursuant to the doctor’s order, and because she changed the dressing so as to cause the Resident to bleed. Naples does not dispute that the Resident’s dressing was not changed on the March 9th. However, the evidence was undisputed that the failure to change a dressing for one day presented no risk that the Resident’s skin tear would worsen or become infected. In fact, the skin tear did not worsen as a result of the facility’s failure to change the dressing on March 9th. AHCA’s surveyor conceded that she had no evidence that the skin tear worsened and thus failed to provide any evidence that the failure to change the dressing presented any risk of harm to the Resident. Moreover, AHCA’s surveyor erroneously concluded that the nurse who changed the dressing caused it to bleed. The nurse moistened the old dressing prior to removing it and placed a new dressing on the area; the skin tear did not bleed during that process. The evidence was clear that the old dressing would not have stuck to the skin tear even if the dressing had not been changed on March 9th because, on March 8th, she applied a triple antibiotic ointment that acted as a barrier between the gauze dressing and the Resident’s skin. Finally, the Resident’s skin was extremely fragile and, in the past, the Resident had caused her own arm to bleed by slighting bumping it. Finding 2; Tag F224; March 11, 1999, Survey Report: Resident 14 was issued a doctor’s order for a dressing to a lesion on her back. It stated that the dressing was to be changed daily. AHCA’s surveyor observed on March 10, 1999, that Resident 14 had a dressing that had not been changed since March 8, 1999, covering the lesion. The surveyor further observed that the dressing had become displaced so that the tape used to secure the wound was partially covering the wound. Despite this isolated failure to change the dressing, the surveyor cited Naples for neglecting Resident 14. Naples conceded that the Resident 14's dressing had not been changed on March 9th as ordered. However, as it did with the unnamed Resident in Finding 1, Naples demonstrated that the failure to change Resident 14’s dressing was isolated and did not present any risk that the Resident’s lesion might worsen or become infected. Naples also showed that the lesion did not, in fact, worsen. AHCA’s surveyor conceded that she had no evidence that the failure to change the dressing was repeated conduct, or that the lesion worsened, and thus failed to present any evidence that the failure to change the dressing presented any risk of harm to Resident 14. Finding 3; Tag F224; March 11, 1999, Survey Report: Resident 21 was a demented woman with a history of anxiety, aggressive behavior toward others, and attention- seeking behaviors. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on March 10th, Resident 21 was found striking her forehead with a small picture frame stating, "I’m going to kill myself, I’m tired of all this." She was not hitting herself hard enough to inflict any injury to herself, and did not damage the picture frame. Nonetheless, a nurse stopped the Resident and counseled the Resident, who then stated, "I’ll stop and go to sleep." After the nurse left the room, the Resident repeated her action. The nurse immediately returned, removed the frame, and called the Resident’s physician. The physician determined that Resident 21 was not suicidal, and ordered Ativan (a medicine given for anxiety) and a psychiatric consultation for the Resident. Twenty minutes after she was given the Ativan, Resident 21 got up and sought additional attention by pushing her wheelchair in the hallway. She was redirected to her bed by a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") and, while being put to bed, grabbed packets of air freshener and threatened to eat them. The packets were immediately removed from the Resident and taken from her room by the CNA. Twenty minutes after being put to bed by the CNA, Resident 21 arose and returned to the hallway and attempted to enter other residents’ rooms. She was redirected by staff to her room and bed, whereupon she stated to the staff that "The nurse gave me water. I’m going to kill myself." Twenty minutes after this incident, Resident 21 sought attention by playing her radio loudly, and stated, "I’m going to kill myself." Another dose of Ativan was given to her and shortly thereafter, she went to sleep. Although staff routinely checked on Resident 21, there were no further incidents. The following morning, Resident 21 was seen by her psychiatrist who determined that she was not suicidal. Instead, he concluded that Resident 21’s isolated actions during the previous night were attention-seeking behavior which did not indicate that she intended to kill herself. He ordered additional medications for her and, as a precaution, wrote an order in her record to "remove all dangerous objects from her room and monitor resident closely." When AHCA’s surveyors entered the facility on March 10, 1999, picture frames and mirrors were present in Resident 21's room. The surveyor asked the staff about the level of monitoring for the Resident, and whether the facility had a policy that defined and implemented precautions for suicidal residents. The surveyor was not satisfied and cited the facility for neglecting the Resident because it failed to remove "dangerous objects" from her room, failed to adequately monitor her, and failed to have a suicide precaution policy. The surveyor’s conclusion that Naples neglected Resident 21 was predicated on her belief that Resident 21 was suicidal. However, the Resident's psychiatrist testified unequivocally that the Resident was not suicidal. The Resident did not strike herself hard, nor with the intent to hurt herself, but was engaged in attention-seeking actions. She demonstrated no intent to commit suicide. The psychiatrist's diagnosis, and his (and her regular physician’s) decision to treat her condition with medications were effective. She exhibited no further similar behavior. AHCA’s surveyor did not interview Resident 21’s psychiatrist prior to making her allegations of neglect, and thus did not know that the psychiatrist had determined that the Resident was not suicidal. At hearing, she acknowledged that the psychiatrist’s conclusion would have presented "a whole different story." AHCA’s surveyor also erroneously concluded that the Resident was not adequately monitored. The nursing notes concerning Resident 21 contained over thirty entries between March 10th and March 12th describing observations of the Resident. These notations exceeded any applicable nursing standard, and more than met the requirements contemplated by the psychiatrist when he ordered the staff to monitor the Resident closely. The surveyor determined that the nurses’ notes reflected inadequate observation of the Resident because the notes did not reflect that the Resident was being observed every fifteen minutes, and then hourly for twenty four hours. However, the surveyor failed to offer any regulation or other source to support her contention that monitoring the Resident every fifteen minutes was the appropriate standard. To the extent that the standard was based upon the surveyor’s assumptions that Resident 21 was suicidal or because the psychiatrist ordered that level of monitoring, Naples demonstrated that those assumptions were incorrect. AHCA’s surveyor also erroneously concluded that the failure to remove picture frames and mirrors from Resident 21’s room was a violation of any doctor’s order or applicable standard of care. The requirement that dangerous objects be removed from the Resident’s room came from the order of the Resident’s psychiatrist, and he testified that he did not intend for the facility to remove all picture frames or mirrors from the Resident’s room. Instead, he only intended his order to cover objects such as knives or letter openers. He clarified this interpretation of his order to Naples’ staff during the survey. Naples is not required by any federal or state regulation to have a suicide prevention policy. Indeed, such a policy would never have an opportunity to be implemented even if it existed. If a resident at Naples is determined to be suicidal, the resident would be immediately transferred to a psychiatric hospital for observation, evaluation and treatment. Naples Policy Regarding Abuse and Neglect: Naples has a written policy that prohibits abuse and neglect of its residents. It also sets forth a process for investigating incidents of suspected abuse and neglect that includes suspending staff who might have been involved in any incident while the investigation is pending. Additionally, Naples implements policies required by federal regulations that help to assure that its residents are not neglected. It conducts background checks of employees, and only those who have no history of abuse or neglect are hired to work at Naples. Furthermore, employees are instructed and encouraged to inform the administration about any incident which might be considered abuse or neglect of a resident, and are provided with seminars which address issues of abuse and neglect of residents. Naples conducts random audits of its residents’ medical records to insure that residents are receiving their required care. These policies have been successful. Additionally, Naples demonstrated that it followed its written policy with regard to the incidents cited under Tag F224 of the March survey report. Pursuant to that policy, the facility’s Director of Nursing investigated all of the cited incidents in a timely manner and suspended one nurse pending that investigation. The Director of Nursing appropriately concluded that neglect of the residents cited in the report had not occurred and did not call any investigative agency regarding the incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a Standard rating to Naples and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 12th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Donna Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 309 Post Office Box 60127 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901-6177 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Christopher Rayborn, is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Christopher Rayborn, is by training and experience a nurse. He was first hired by Jackson Memorial Hospital (also identified in this record as Jackson Memorial Hospital Public Health Trust) in 1988. At that time Petitioner was employed into a regularly established, full-time position of nurse and was enrolled in the FRS. In 1991 the Petitioner terminated his employment at Jackson Memorial Hospital (Jackson). It is undisputed that Petitioner was entitled to participation in the FRS for the period of employment at Jackson from 1988-1991. In 1994 the Petitioner was again recruited to work at Jackson. Recruiters for Jackson attempted to fill the many vacancies in the nursing staff with permanent full-time employees. Such permanent full-time employees were eligible for benefits including retirement through the FRS. Also available were positions designated as "temporary relief/pool nurse." The "pool" nurses did not receive benefits. They did, however, receive a higher rate of pay. Regardless of the position, new employees were given forms, including the FRS participation form, to complete for Jackson. This Petitioner completed the FRS form and attended the workshop for all new Jackson employees. Had the Petitioner accepted a full-time permanent nurse position, he would have received all benefits then available to Jackson permanent employees including participation in the FRS. The Petitioner would have been subject to disciplinary rules for permanent employees and would have been required to work the shifts and hours designated by the employer. Instead, the Petitioner opted to receive a higher hourly rate of pay. By so doing, the Petitioner selected a position that was designated as a temporary relief/pool nurse that did not provide benefits. The Petitioner did not accrue paid leave and did not receive other benefits available to full-time employees. Any participation contributed for the Petitioner in the FRS for the period 1991 through 1998 was done in error. As a temporary employee he was not authorized to participate. In 1996 the Petitioner's job description was changed to "on call/pool nurse." Again, this position did not provide benefits and provided the Petitioner with a higher rate of pay than the full-time permanent nurse positions paid. As an on call/pool nurse the Petitioner worked 40 hour weeks but did not have to accept any work assignment or schedule which he did not want to work. He was entitled to decline shifts or schedules according to his personal interests. Jackson was required to continue the on call/pool nurse system due to the tremendous shortage in nurses. Had sufficient numbers accepted full-time permanent nurse positions, the use of on call/pool nurses would not have been necessary. In 1998 the Petitioner accepted a full-time permanent nurse position with Jackson. When moved into the full-time position, the Petitioner accepted a lower rate of pay and was entitled to benefits. He was not offered participation in the FRS at that time, however, because effective January 1, 1996, Jackson no longer participated in the FRS. Given the nurse staffing needs of Jackson, the use of on call/pool nurses continued uninterrupted for the period 1991 through 1998. None of the on call/pool nurses receiving the higher rate of pay were eligible for benefits from Jackson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's request for participation in the FRS for the period subsequent to 1991. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 27th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta Fulton Fox, Esquire Law Offices of Roberta Fox, P.A. Grove Plaza, Seventh Floor 2900 Southwest 28th Terrace Miami, Florida 33133 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Ron Poppell, Interim Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is hereby CLOSED . DONE AND ORDERED on this the , l <or·r- Tallahassee, Florida. day of =tf , 2010, in Thomas W. Arnold, Secrefary Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration v. North Central Florida Hospice, Inc. d/b/a Haven Hospice Final Order - Page I of 3 Filed February 25, 2010 12:11 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A 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 BYLAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW 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. Copies furnished to: Alison Ingram North Central Florida Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Haven Hospice 4200 Northwest 90th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32606 (Via U.S. Mail) Justin M. Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Kim Kellum, Chief Medicaid Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Tracie L. Hardin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Bureau of Health Quality Assurance 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Ken Yon, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Peter Williams, Inspector General Medicaid Program Integrity 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Via U.S. Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) '. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the Z,</ day of ---"- ---= y 7 ., 2010. Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should take license disciplinary action against Respondent based upon matters set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed on October 22, 1986 which alleges she violated Section 464.018(l)(f), Florida Satutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, with license number 68722-2. She was also licensed as a registered nurse, with the same license number on February 28, 1986. On February 28, 1986 Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in Arcadia, Florida. As one of her duties, she was assigned to transport a patient from Punta Gorda a Medical Center to G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, a drive of between thirty and forty minutes. When Respondent was assigned to transport the patient from Punta Gorda Medical Center, she was informed by Elaine Snider, secretary at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, that the patient required oxygen therapy during the drive to G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital. In transporting the patient, Respondent failed to provide any oxygen therapy to the patient, although she knew that this patient required oxygen therapy. Respondent testified that her supervisor, Ruby Woodbine, ordered her to use a particular van, which she had never used before, to transport this patient. The van was not equipped to provide oxygen therapy. While on the way to Punta Gorda, Respondent discovered the van was not equipped to provide oxygen therapy. However, since the request to pick up the patient was "urgent," she determined it was more important to proceed to Punta Gorda and get the patient than to turn around and return to G. Pierce Wood for a properly equipped van. Respondent's actions resulted in the patient being transported for thirty or forty minutes without oxygen, contrary to the order of the patient's attending physician. Ruby Woodbine did not "order" Respondent to take the van without oxygen. In fact, Elaine Snider had contacted the transportation department at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and arranged for the van, but had failed to specify that the van must have oxygen. Snider then informed Respondent of the van she was to take, and Respondent failed to check that van before leaving to be sure it was properly equipped. Woodbine simply agreed with Respondent that she should use the van Snider had identified. By failing to check the van for necessary equipment and by proceeding to transport the patient without oxygen therapy contrary to physician's orders, Respondent did not conform to minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice. She should have obtained a properly equipped van, arranged for portable oxygen, or refused to accept the patient until arrangements could be made for oxygen. The discontinuation of oxygen is not a proper nursing function when the patient's physician has ordered oxygen therapy. This finding is based upon the consideration of all evidence received and particularly the testimony of Deborah Frank, who was accepted as an expert in the practice of nursing, including nursing practice standards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a reprimand upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 6th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4736 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5 Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, 7. 7 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. 8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Beatty, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Sandra Ann Bacon 611 Sharon Circle Port Charlotte, Fl 33952 Judie Ritter Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 East Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Melvin Alston, is entitled to insurance coverage under the State of Florida Health Plan for services received at Miracle Hill Nursing Home.
Findings Of Fact Doris Alston, widow of Melvin Alston, is requesting payment for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. Melvin Alston died on December 31, 1985. Melvin Alston, as a retired state employee, became eligible for coverage under the State Health Plan on July 1, 1985. He was a professor and dean at Florida A&M University from 1946 until 1969, when he retired. Thereafter he became a professor at Southern Illinois University, from which he retired in 1976. Alston was admitted to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (TMRMC) in September, 1984, and was transferred to the extended care unit on September 20, 1984, because there were no available nursing home beds. On October 31, 1984, a bed became available at Goodwood Manor, a skilled nursing home facility, and Alston was admitted to Goodwood Manor from the TMRMC extended care unit. Alston remained at Goodwood Manor until August 22, 1985, when Mrs. Alston removed him and placed him at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. While at Goodwood Manor, Alston was receiving essentially custodial care. He had a routine diet and simply needed assistance with his activities of daily living, such as bathing and feeding. He was able to take his medications as they were given to him and he could leave the nursing home on a pass basis. While at Goodwood, Alston's medical orders were reviewed monthly and he was not seen daily by a physician. Alston received the same level of care at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In skilled nursing facilities, the range of services needed and provided goes from skilled through intermediate levels to custodial. Skilled care includes such services as injections or intravenous medications on a daily basis which must be administered by a nurse. Dr. C. E. Richardson became Alston's physician at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In the course of his deposition, Dr. Richardson testified that Alston received medical level care at Miracle Hill. However, Dr. Richardson stated several times that he did not know the level of care given to Alston under the definitions of the care levels available. He acknowledged that the levels of care ranged from skilled to custodial. Dr. Richardson also did not know the terms of the benefit document for the State Health Plan. Dr. Richardson only provided the medical care, which was the same no matter what level of nursing care he needed or received. According to Dr. Richardson, Alston was on a fairly routine diet, could engage in activities as tolerated, and could go out on a pass at will. One of Dr. Richardson's orders dated 11/27/85 shows that Dr. Richardson did not order a skilled level of care, but instead checked the level of care to be intermediate. Alston did not receive or need skilled nursing care at Miracle Hill. It is more appropriate to classify the level of care as custodial, as that term is defined in the State Health Plan Benefit Document. Alston's primary insurer was Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, based on coverage he had from his employment there. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois denied the claim for services at Miracle Hill because the services were custodial and were not covered by that plan. It also denied the claim because Miracle Hill's services did not fit its criteria for skilled nursing care. William Seaton is a State Benefits Analyst with the Department of Administration and his duties include assisting people who have a problem with the settlement of a claim with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, which administers the State Health Plan. After the claim was denied by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, Mr. Seaton assisted Mrs. Alston by filing a claim under the State Health Plan. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida concluded that no benefits were payable for facility charges at a nursing home and that an extended care or skilled nursing facilities would have limited coverage; however, because Alston was not transferred to Miracle Hill directly from an acute care hospital, no coverage existed. The pertinent provisions of the benefit document of the State Health Plan are as follows: I.G. "Custodial Care" means care which does not require skilled nursing care or rehabilitative services and is designed solely to assist the insured with the activities of daily living, such as: help in walking, getting in and out of bed, bathing, dressing, eating, and taking medications. * * * I.N. "Hospital", means a licensed institution engaged in providing medical care and treatment to a patient as a result of illness or accident on an inpatient/outpatient basis . . . and which fully meets all the tests set forth in ., 2., and 3. below: . . . In no event, however, shall such term include . . . an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest for care and treatment of the aged. * * * I.AH. "Skilled Nursing Care" means care which is furnished . . . to achieve the medically desired result and to insure the insured's safety. Skilled nursing care may be the rendering of direct care, when the ability to provide the service requires specialized (professional) training; or observation and assessment of the insured's medical needs; or supervision of a medical treatment plan involving multiple services where specialized health care knowledge must be applied in order to attain the desired medical results. * * * I.AI. "Skilled Nursing Facility" means a licensed institution, or a distinct part of a hospital, primarily engaged in providing to inpatients: skilled nursing care . . . or rehabilitation services . . . and other medically necessary related health services. Such care or services shall not include: the type of care which is considered custodial . . . . * * * II.E. Covered Skilled Nursing Facility Services. On or after August 1, 1984, when an insured is transferred from a hospital to a skilled nursing facility, the Plan will pay 80% of the charge for skilled nursing care . . . subject to the following: The insured must have been hospital confined for three consecutive days prior to the day of discharge before being transferred to a skilled nursing facility; Transfer to a skilled nursing facility is because the insured requires skilled care for a condition . . . which was treated in the hospital; The insured must be admitted to the skilled nursing facility immediately following discharge from the hospital; A physician must certify the need for skilled nursing care . . . and the insured must receive such care or services on a daily basis; . . . 6. Payment of services and supplies is limited to sixty (60) days of confinement per calendar year. * * * VII. No payment shall be made under the Plan for the following: * * * L. Services and supplies provided by . . . a skilled nursing facility or an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest facility for care and treatment of the aged. * * * N. any services in connection with custodial care . . . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying the request for benefits for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4674 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Melvin Alston 1 . Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5 are rejected as being subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Additionally, proposed findings of fact 3 and 5 contain argument which is rejected. 2. Proposed finding of fact 4 is irrelevant to the resolution of this matter. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Administration Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 4(2); 5(2); 6(11); 8(11); 9(12); 10(3 & 4); 11(5); 12(4); 14(5); 15(7); 19- 21(8 & 9) 23(13); and 24(13). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 16 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7, 13, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected as being irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17 and 22 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 2. Proposed finding of fact 25 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Mahorner Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 682 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrea Bateman Attorney-at-Law Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Villa, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
