The Issue The central issues in these cases are: As to case no. 89-1293--whether Indian River Memorial Hospital (Indian River) meets the statutory and rule criteria for a certificate of need (CON) to operate an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve CON application number 5726. This application is opposed by Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. (Lawnwood). As to case no. 89-1294--whether Lawnwood meets the statutory and rule criteria for a CON to operate an open heart surgery program and an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and therefore, whether the Department should approve CON application number 5729. Indian River opposes the proposed approval of Lawnwood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in case no. 89-1295. St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's) opposes the proposed approval of the inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in case no. 89-1297.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Indian River is a private, not-for-profit hospital which is operated pursuant to a lease between itself and the Indian River Hospital District, a special tax district. Indian River is located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, and has 347 licensed beds of which 293 are medical-surgery beds, with 18 intensive care and critical care beds. Ad valorem tax monies support indigent care for Indian River County residents. Lawnwood is a 335 bed acute care hospital located in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. Lawnwood is owned and operated by Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). Lawnwood has an established outpatient catheterization laboratory located in a free-standing building on the hospital grounds. St. Mary's is an acute care hospital located in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. St. Mary's has an established inpatient catheterization laboratory program. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering those sections of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, which govern the review process under which applications for CONs are either granted or denied. Indian River, Lawnwood, and St. Mary's are located within the Department's District IX. The geographical boundaries for District IX encompass Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. With the exception of Martin Memorial Hospital (whose entitlement to inpatient cardiac cath is disputed by Lawnwood), all existing providers of inpatient catheterization services are located in Palm Beach County. The Applications On August 25, 1988, Indian River submitted a letter of intent to advise the Department of its plan to construct a cardiac catheterization laboratory within the hospital and to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program. The proposal set forth in that letter made reference to Indiarn River's patients who are generally routed to hospitals located in another district for cardiac cath services. The application submitted by Indian River on August 26, 1988, estimated that the capital expenditure of the project, $1,779,750, would provide for the construction of a second floor addition to the hospital which would accomodate the new laboratory. The application alleged that, in the majority of cases, residents of Indian River County in need of cardiac catheterization are sent out of district for such services. On October 13, 1988, the Department responded to Indian River's application by listing omissions from the proposal which the Department required in order to complete its review. This "omissions letter" specified that Indian River was to update its application utilizing the "new rule" for cardiac cath. The responses to the omissions were to be provided by November 14, 1988. Indian River timely responded to the omissions letter on November 9, 1988. The Department deemed Indian River's application to establish an inpatient cardiac cath laboratory complete effective November 14, 1988. On August 26, 1988, Lawnwood submitted a letter of intent to the Department to announce its intention to establish a cardiac cath and open heart surgery program. Lawnwood sought to be included in the application group for which the deadline was September 28, 1988. The timeline for this group required applications to be complete by November 14, 1988. Agency action on the applications submitted in the September, 1988 batch was scheduled for January 13, 1989. Lawnwood's application was received and reviewed by the Department. The omissions letter which outlined approximately six questions requiring further elaboration was issued on October 13, 1988. Lawnwood's omissions response was timely provided on November 14, 1988. The Department deemed Lawnwood's application for an inpatient cardiac cath laboratory and an open heart program complete effective November 14, 1988. Inpatient cardiac catheterization is not currently available in Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. As a result, potential patients residing in these counties are geographically isolated from the existing District IX providers of the same services. State Agency Action Report On January 20, 1989, the Department issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) which recommended the approval of an inpatient cardiac cath program for Lawnwood. The portion of Lawnwood's application which sought a CON for an open heart program was denied. The SAAR evaluated the applicants based upon the following criteria: Section 381.705, Florida Statutes; Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code; and the 1988 District IX Health Plan (DHP). The Health Plans Pertinent to these proceedings are the following portions of the DHP: B. In planning for the specialized services of cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgical services, District IX, in its entirety, shall be the subdistrict. * * * Priority shall be given to area facilities for specialized services which can show a commitment to, or an historical record of, service to Medicaid/Indigent, Handicapped and Underserved population groups. * * * Priority shall be given to Certificate of Need applicants who propose to have both inpatient cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services in the same facility. However, should it become evident, at any time, that there is a need for one service and not for both services, then an applicant would not be expected to have to apply for both. The State Health Plan (SHP) sets a goal of ensuring the appropriate availability of cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at a reasonable cost. In pursuit of that goal two objectives are specified: Objective 4.1.: To maintain an average of 600 cardiac catheterization procedures per laboratory in each district through 1990. * * * Objective 4.2.: To maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990. The "Old Rule" Need determination for cardiac catheterization capacity under the version of Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on April, 1988, provided for a calculation whereby the number of catheterization procedures for the projected year equaled the actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline (the batching group) multiplied by the projected population in the service area for the projected year. The projected year was the year in which the proposed cardiac cath laboratory would initiate service (not more than two years into the future). The "old rule" further provided that no additional cardiac cath laboratories would be established in a service area unless the average number of caths performed per year by the existing and approved laboratories were greated than 600. This volume level contemplated inpatient and outpatient procedures. Consequently, applications for proposed cardiac cath laboratories may not be approved if they would reduce the average volume of procedures performed below 600. The Department did not publish a fixed need pool for this batch of applicants under the "old rule." The Department's goal under the "old rule" provided that it will not normally approve applications for new cardiac catheterization laboratories unless additional need is indicated based upon the calculations explained above. The number of cardiac cath procedures performed in District IX during the relevant time period was 4765. The population during the use rate period was 1,151,929. The historic use rate is therefore 413.65 per 100,000 population. The projected population for the planning horizon is 1,259,178. The projected use for the period is 5208.6. That number divided by 600 yields a total need for the planning period of 8.68 cath laboratories for this District. Applying the Department's historical practice of rounding the number to the nearest whole number establishes a need for 9 cardiac cath laboratories. By subtracting the existing cath laboratories (Boca Raton, JFK, St. Mary's, Palm Beach Gardens, and Delray) results in a need for an additional 4 cardiac cath laboratories. Pursuant to the "old rule," both applicants in this case have established numeric need for their proposed program. The "New Rule" The need formula expressed in the "new rule" is as follows: NN=PCCPV - ACCPV - APP Where: NN is the annual net program volume need in the service planning area projected 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. Net need projections are calculated twice a year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, shall be July of the year subsequent to the following calendar year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, shall be January of the year 2 years subsequent to the following calendar year. PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catheterization program volume which equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume rate (ACCPV) per thousand adult population 15 years and over for the most recent 12 month period available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool, multiplied by the projected adult population 15 years of age and over 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. The population projections shall be based on the most recent population projections available from the Executive Office of the Governor which are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the fixed need pool publication. ACCPV equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume for the most recent 12-month period for which data are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the publication of the fixed need pool. APP is the projected program volume for approved programs. The projected program volume for each approved program shall be 300 admissions. The Department did not publish a fixed need pool for this batch under the "new rule." The projected program volume contemplates 300 admissions which relate to inpatient procedures. In addition to the formula set forth above, the "new rule" provides that the actual outmigration from one service planning area to another shall be considered in the review of a CON application. In this case, the actual number of cardiac cath procedures for District IX is understated. The actual number utilized by the Department in the evaluation of these applicants failed to consider the outmigration of patients residing in Indian River County who travelled out of the district for services. The actual number of Indian River patients who travelled out of the District for cardiac catheterization during the period was understated by at least 500. Prior to the evaluation of these applicants, neither the Department nor the applicants had data to calculate the outmigration for cardiac cath services from District IX. That it was occurring was obvious--there were no inpatient facilities in the northern counties. Further, the established referral patterns suggest that patients in the northern counties preferred the outside facilities which were geographically closer than existing programs within District IX. However, no study quantifying the number of residents receiving services elsewhere had been performed. Regardless of the net need calculated under the "new rule" formula above, the rule further provides that no additional cardiac catheterization programs shall normally be granted unless ACCPV, divided by the number of operational programs for the service planning area, is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 patient admissions. Utilizing the most conservative ACCPV (4133) divided by the number of operational programs (5) would yield an average program volume well in excess of 300. In that instance, the average volume per program would be 827. That assessment assumes a translation of "admissions" to equal "procedures." In contrast, utilizing the 600 figure set forth in the SHP, yields a program need for 7 facilities. That figure confirms that two additional cardiac catheterization programs would be appropriate and adequately supported by District use. In reaching this conclusion, the cardiac catheterization program located at Martin Memorial Hospital has not been included in the number of existing programs. The program at Martin was reportedly approved in the settlement of a prior batch CON case. As such, it may not reduce the number of facilities calculated in this case under the pertinent rule. Based upon the "new rule," both of these applicants have established numeric need for their proposed program. The number of projected procedures (4565) divided by 600 further establishes a need for 7 programs. Open Heart Need Pursuant to the Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, the need for open heart surgery programs is determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area for a projected year. That number equals the actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent multiplied by the projected population in the service area for the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service (not more than two years into the future). Based upon the open heart need formula there is no numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs in District IX. Further, the approval of an additional open heart program would reduce the average volume of existing open heart surgery facilities to below 350 open heart procedures annually. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any district unless there is a finding of numeric need coupled with a finding that the additional program will not reduce the volume of existing providers below 350. Not Normal Circumstances Reviewed There are three open heart programs currently operating in District IX (Palm Beach Gardens, Delray, and JFK). All of these programs are located within Palm Beach County which is south of Lawnwood's service area. The closest of these programs (Palm Beach Gardens) is approximately 44.3 miles from Lawnwood. Another open heart program which is located outside of District IX, Holmes Regional Medical Center (located in Brevard County to the north), is approximately 49.8 miles from Lawnwood. Not normal circumstances warranting the approval of an open heart program require a showing of financial, programmatic or geographical conditions which establish that residents of the given service area are unable to access the service. In this case, District IX must be examined and considered as a whole. It is inappropriate to "subdistrict" for purposes of reviewing not normal circumstances. While a number of the residents of the northern counties do avail themselves of services outside of District IX, the basis for that outmigration may be the physicians' established referral patterns, patient preference, or the provider's reputation in the medical community for quality care. Open heart services are available and accessible to all residents of District IX. Consequently, no persuasive not normal circumstances have been established. Ouality of Care Indian River and Lawnwood are properly accredited and have established records of providing quality care in their existing programs and departments. Lawnwood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory has operated without question to its quality of care. Since neither applicant currently provides open heart services, it is anticipated that both will operate their inpatient cardiac cath laboratories in accordance with a transfer agreement for emergency patients. Such agreement could provide for the relocation of patients to a hospital authorized to provide open heart surgery. By rule, the receiving hospital must be located within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle to the inpatient cath facility. In this case, Indian River intends to transfer emergency patients to Holmes Regional Medical Center, a hospital currently authorized to provide open heart surgery services. That hospital is within 30 minutes emergency travel time of Indian River. Lawnwood also proposes to transfer emergency patients to Holmes Regional Medical Center. In order to meet the 30 minute travel time criteria, transfer in this instance must be by helicopter. Lawnwood intends to meet this requirement by agreement with Holmes. Holmes has four pilots, two mechanics, one full-time helicopter, and one backup helicopter to provide this service. By helicopter, the travel time from Lawnwood to Holmes is within 30 minutes. Availability and Access With the addition of the programs at Indian River and Lawnwood, residents in the northern counties of District IX will have an increased access to inpatient cardiac cath. This geographic accessibility will lessen the outmigration for these services by providing more convenient, locally situated programs. It is anticipated that local programs will reduce patient anxiety incidental to the travel associated with attaining the services. Further, when considered in connection with the outpatient programs (existing at Lawnwood and planned for Indian River), a significant volume of cath procedures will be performed without requiring travel to adjacent counties/hospitals. Increased volume will improve the efficiency and skill of personnel administering the procedures. Since the service areas for Indian River and Lawnwood have not, historically, conflicted, it is anticipated that patients of each facility will access their respective hospital for the service required. Personnel Availability and Costs The staffing, training and costs of providing same proposed by Indian River and Lawnwood are reasonable and adequate to fully support inpatient cardiac cath laboratories. Both hospitals have established procedures to monitor and to provide for quality assurance in connection with the services to be performed. Additionally, both have ongoing educational training to enhance their programs. Both hospitals have a cardiologist or other appropriately credentialed physician on staff to anchor the cardiac cath team. Financial Feasibility There are sufficient procedures anticipated to be performed by these hospitals to assure a level of utilization which will provide for the financial feasibility of the inpatient cardiac cath programs. Indian River currently refers approximately 500 cardiac cath procedures to facilities outside District IX. Lawnwood has commenced an aggressive outpatient progrom. With the availability of extending that program (in Lawnwood's case) and recapturing its referrals (in Indian River's case), both of these hospitals should have no financial difficulty in establishing their inpatient programs. Effect on Competition and Costs There should be no appreciable impact on costs or competition in the health care community within District IX if these applications for cardiac cath are approved. While there will be a decline in the service utilization of other facilities outside the district when referrals cease, there is no data from which it must be concluded that such decrease will adversely affect the health care community as a whole. Further, the increased service availability within District IX should not affect competition or costs since historically these facilities do not compete for patients. Similarly, since the potential patients do not currently utilize existing and approved programs (for the most part) within District IX, the approval of these applications for inpatient cardiac cath will not adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain the personnel or patients for their programs. In the case of Lawnwood's proposal for open heart, such program would, however, detract from the existing providers. Since, on average, the existing providers are not operating at appropriate levels, the creation of an additional provider would significantly affect the existing programs' abilities to attract patients. Theoretically, the existing providers should have the first opportunity to secure outmigrating patients. This would assure that their programs develop and retain a volume to assure quality of care. Indigent Care As stated previously, Indian River is a tax-supported hospital which pledges tax revenues to provide health care for the indigent. It is anticipated that such practice will continue and that those residents of Indian River County who are unable to afford inpatient cardiac cath services will obtain indigent care according to Indian River's historical record. Lawnwood's historical record for providing indigent care (as supported by its outpatient cardiac cath data) is less than exemplary. It is anticipated that as a conditon upon the issuance of the CON, Lawnwood will be required to provide a minimum of 2 percent of the total annual visits to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 3 percent of total annual visits o medically indigent/charity care patients. Those amounts are an appropriate commitment to assist the medically needy within Lawnwood's service area. Miscellaneous Criteria The applicants did not propose the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The applicants did not predicate need for their requested service on the need for research and educational facilities. The special needs and circumstances of health maintainance organizations was not at issue. The parties stipulated as to the reasonableness of the costs and methods for construction of the proposed facilities. Both hospitals intend to construct new laboratories. The costs associated with Indian River's proposed construction are less than those proposed by Lawnwood.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final oider approving the certificate of need applications filed by Indian River Memorial Hospital and Lawnwood Regional Medical Center to establish inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories. It is further recommended that Lawnwood's application to establish an open heart surgery program be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. Appendix to Case Nos. 89-1293 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY INDIAN RIVER: Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 17, it is accepted that Indian River physicians have established referral patterns outside of District IX for inpatient and outpatient cath procedures. To the extent that Indian River's application and response to the omissions letter made reference to this phenomenon, it is accepted that such activities were properly placed at issue in these proceedings. As to the calculations expressed in paragraph 17, no formal study was performed by any party to accurately quantify the number of procedures performed outside District IX on residents of Indian River and St. Lucie Counties. It is accepted that Dr. Celano and his partner performed outpatient procedures cn approximately 200 patients. It is further accepted that another 300 procedures were performed on Indian River residents at Holmes or Florida Hospital. Consequently, the utilization rate has been significantly understated. The total volume of which is unknown except as addressed herein, paragraph 17 is rejected as speculation or unsupported by the record in this cause. The first three sentences of paragraph 18 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculation. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that referrals to other hospitals can cause patient anxiety due to waits or transfer difficulties. Otherwise rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unnecessary. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as speculation unsupported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is accepted. To the extent that the "new rule" requires consideration of inmigration and outmigration, paragraph 29 is accepted. That data became available subsequent to the finding that these applications were complete is irrelevant. Since no data quantifying outmigration/inmigration was available, the rule read as a whole must dictate whether the applicants have established numeric need. The applicants and the Department knew of the outmigration, consequently, reading the rule as a whole establishes that the existing providers are performing an ample number of procedures to guarantee their continued success and that an additional two programs are warranted. See response to paragraph 29 above regarding paragraph 30. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument--see response to paragraph 29 and findings reached in paragraphs related to "new rule." Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument, comment or unnecessary. Paragraphs 33 through 41 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 42 through 80, except as noted by findings of fact related to the applicants and the assessment of their proposals, such paragraphs are unnecessary (need for two programs has been established), argument, irrelevant (as to allegations regarding Lawnwood's open heart proposal), or contrary to the weight of competent evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY LAWNWOOD: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that currently Indian River does not have an outpatient cardiac cath program; however, regardless of the outcome of this proceeding, Indian River will establish an outpatient facility. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is unnecessary since it does not provide a fact related to the conclusions reached in this order. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to the "old rule," paragraphs 12 through 15 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In theory, Lawnwood's proposed findings correctly state how the "old rule" should be applied. The actual numbers differ slightly with the findings reached in the recommended order. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to the "new rule," paragraphs 16 through 20 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In theory, Lawnwood's proposed findings correctly state how the "new rule" should be applied. The actual numbers and conclusions differ slightly with the findings reached in the recommended order. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Except as accepted in the findings of fact related to open heart need, paragraphs 22 and 23 are rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 28 are accepted. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the weight of competent evidence, irrelevant (an out of district provider would not have standing to oppose the request), or argument. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it states Martin's inpatient cath program located in Martin County has improved accessibility; however, that program did not exist when these applications were filed and evaluated by the Department otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence related to open heart. Open heart facilities are available and accessible for District IX residents. Transfers to open heart facilities under emergency circumstances after cardiac cath procedures would be the exception and not the rule. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are rejected as irrelevant to the issue of open heart. While outmigration is to be considered in determining need for cardiac cath under the "new rule," such outmigration does not establish inaccessibility for open heart services. Paragraphs 35 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, contrary to the appropriate rule application, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 42 (deleting open heart) through 44 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 45, the program located at Martin has not been considered in the evaluation of these applicants since approval for that program occurred after this batch closed. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 50 and 51 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 52 is accepted. Paragraph 53 is accepted. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 55 is accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 57 through 61 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62 is accepted. Paragraphs 63 through 80 are accepted. Paragraph 81 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 82 through 85 (related only to cardiac oath) are accepted. Related to the allegations foil open heart, such paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 86 through 90 are accepted. Paragraphs 90 through 96 are accepted only as to representations of facility and staffing it is agreed Lawnwood will have. Otherwise, assumption that volume of surgical cases will exist is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 97 through 105 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 106, it is accepted that the term emergency vehicle includes helicopter; otherwise, rejected as a conclusion of law. Paragraph 107 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 108 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The conclusion reached in paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 5 is accepted. The conclusion reached in paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as to the conclusion reached regarding the cardiac cath program as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to the conclusion reached regarding the open heart program, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 10 through 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 15 through 16 are accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or multiple facts. Paragraphs 24 through 25 are accepted. Paragraph 26 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are accepted. Paragraph 29 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 30 is rejected as repetitive or argument. The second sentence of paragraph 31 is accepted; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 39 is accepted. With the substitution of the word "maintenance," paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraphs 42 through 47, with the exception of the conclusion that only one cath program is needed (that conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence), are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY ST. MARY'S: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 2 are accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the record. The first two sentences of paragraph 3 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 4 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument. It is accepted that Lawnwood does not have a significant history in connection with the outpatient cath facility. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 through 18 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence or recitation of testimony. The first sentence of paragraph 19 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted. The balance is rejected as argument or conclusion of law. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 29 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 30 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 33 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraph 35 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 36 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraphs 38 and 39 are accepted. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Radey Jeffrey L. Frehn Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas 101 North Monroe Street Suite 1000, Monroe Park Tower Post Office Box 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Watkins Patricia A. Renovitch Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Ft. Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaint contrary to Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact (Stipulated) The Respondent is and was at all times material to the allegations a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0050839 issued by the state. The Respondent was a board certified internist and board certified cardiologist practicing with Diagnostic Cardiology Associates at St. Vincent's Medical Center (St. Vincent's) at the time of the events which gave rise to these allegations. On or about June 25, 1988, W.V., referred to in the complaint as Patient #1, was admitted to St. Augustine General Hospital in St. Augustine, Florida. W.V. was a 68 year old male with a history of heart problems including four bypasses performed in 1977, a pacemaker implantation in 1979, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and prior prostate surgery. W.V. was determined to have had an acute myocardial infarction for which he was treated at St. Augustine General Hospital for five days. As W.V.'s condition improved, he was encouraged to walk at St. Augustine where he complained of chest pain and weakness. A echocardiogram showed segmental wall motion disturbance involving the posterior wall of the heart. A second electrocardiogram was performed which showed ventricular pacemaker rhythm and ST-T wave changes. On this basis, given his history and myocardial infarction, he was referred for a cardiac catheterization to St. Vincent's where his earlier heart surgeries had been performed. The patient was monitored during his hospitalization in St. Augustine, and did not show any signs of arrhythmias. On June 30, 1988, W.V. was transferred to St. Vincent's and received through the Emergency Room, where he was interviewed by the Respondent. After giving the Respondent a brief outline of his problems, W.V. was placed on a general medical floor for the evening, and scheduled for cardiac catheterization the following day. Cardiac catheterization and its risks were explained to W.V., who signed the patient consent forms authorizing the procedure. On the morning of July 1, 1988, after examining the patient and finding no changes, the Respondent performed on W.V. a cardiac catheterization, which verified the recent acute myocardial infarction, the blockage of two of the bypasses, damage to the heart muscle serving the lungs, and high vascular resistance with severe pulmonary hypertension. The patient tolerated the procedure well and showed no signs of arrhythmias during or after the procedure. The test results indicated that he could not benefit from surgery or angioplasty. W.V.'s primary health threat was from congestive heart failure, a condition likened to drowning in one's own fluids. (Tx-129, line 1.) A patient suffering from congestive heart failure will call for assistance from the nursing staff, as one of the expert's phrased it, "he would have been crawling out the door on his hands and knees calling for the nurse." (See Dr. Gilmore, Tx-130, line 8.) Conversely, heart failure alone would not have caused the patient to have chest pains, unless the patient developed elevated pressures to the point where pulmonary hypotension caused chest pain. However, the chest pain in such a case is not caused by clogged arteries or an impending heart attack, but by build up of fluid in the lungs which causes the heart to work harder to pump the blood through the lungs. (Dr. Campbell, Tx- 107, line 16.) The Respondent's post-catheterization order initially directed that W.V. be moved to a monitored bed following the procedure. The purpose of monitoring a patient is to observe, document and ultimately treat cardiac rhythm disturbances. (Dr. Gilmore, Tx-117,line 6.) Approximately 75 percent of post- catheterization patients were placed on telemetric monitoring (monitoring or telemetry hereafter). Monitored beds existed on 3 East (eight monitored beds), 5 East (eight monitored beds), Coronary Care Unit (eight monitored beds), Intensive Care Unit (12 monitored beds), and open heart unit which, although monitored, would not take catheterization patients. Notwithstanding the number of monitored beds, the critical piece of equipment is the monitor because each room on a monitoring unit was set up to receive telemetry. The monitor is a small radio transmitter that relays information from leads attached to the patient to receivers in each room. The monitors are removed by patients upon discharge, thrown into the laundry, and into the trash. They also require repair. As a result, the actual number of monitors varied from the planned number of monitored beds. Upon completion of the catheterization, the catheterization nurse would advise the nurse in charge of placing patients that the cardiac catheterization patient was ready for admission to the hospital, and whether the doctor had ordered a monitored or unmonitored bed. If the doctor had ordered a monitored bed and one was not available, the placement nurse would ask the admitting physician whether the patient being admitted really needed monitoring given the critical number of monitored beds available and the necessity to poll the treating physicians of all the monitored patients to see if any could be taken off monitoring. Inferentially, the Respondent considered the status of his other patients who were being monitored. If the physician deemed the patient's need for monitoring critical, then the placement nurse would poll the physicians of all other monitored patients, and request that they reassess the needs of their patients on monitoring. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 26) The unit which normally received post-catheterization patients, 5 East, had eight monitored beds and eight unmonitored beds which were used as "stepdown" beds for patients taken off monitoring so that the monitors could be changed, but the patient retained in the same bed. Not only were all the monitored beds occupied on 5 East, the post-catheterization unit, but that unit had almost a full census. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 20 - Page 26) The hospital's procedures required cardiac catheterization patients to remain in the catheterization laboratory until a monitored bed was available if the doctor stated that the patient was to go to a monitored bed. The catheterization patient would be held in the catheterization laboratory where there was a shortage of nursing care until a bed was found. Contrary to the experts' testimony which presumed the authority of the Respondent to place the patient in a monitored bed, it was the placement nurse who placed the patient once the doctor ordered a monitored bed post-catheterization. No evidence was received regarding her authority to place patients requiring monitoring in the ICU or CICU. Typically, doctors reassessed their patients' need for monitoring during morning rounds, and those that were stable were removed from monitoring so the monitor became available for a more critical patient. (See Libsky deposition, Page 24, line 20) W.V. catheterization was completed at approximately 11:00 a.m., following morning rounds when a maximum number of monitors should have been available; however, no evidence was received when a monitor would have been available. Testimony revealed that the wait could be as long as two hours for a monitored bed. During that time, under hospital protocols, W.V. would have remained in the catheterization lab. Contrary to facts assumed by the Petitioner's experts, the Respondent's options for placing the patient were: to place the patient in an unmonitored bed on the cardiac floor, or to retain the patient in a monitored bed in the holding area where he would be monitored by the cardiac catheterization nurse until the patient placement nurse found a monitored bed. The Respondent did not retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area because the nurses could not adequately monitor W.V. and perform their other duties. The Respondent did not place W.V. in the Cardiac Care Unit or the regular Intensive Care Unit to obtain monitoring because it was not his function to place the patient. The only way he could have placed W.V. in CICU or ICU would have been to change W.V.'s status to justify the overall intensive care of the patient. However, this would have been unsupportable if questioned given the patient's condition which was stable upon admission six days after the myocardial infarction, and remained stable after the procedure. See Dr. Edwards Depostion, Page 41, line 19 et seq. Staffing levels on 5 East at the time of W.V.'s hospitalization were one nurse to four or five patients. There were five nurses, a charge nurse, and nursing assistant, and 22 beds on the unit. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 72, line 15.) The Hospital's Standing Order 01-009 provided that "The critical care nurse, in consultation with the charge nurse, may initiate the following (list of nursing interventions) and notify the physician as soon as possible in the event of an acute deterioration [of] patient status and in the absence of a physician." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 112, line 4) The Hospital Standing Order 01-017 provided "Any changes in the patient's condition will be called to the attention of the attending physician and appropriate consulting physicians. The emergency standing orders may be initiated by the nursing staff, but the physician must be informed of their use." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 113, line 10) The Respondent placed the patient on 5 East, the cardiac care floor, in an unmonitored bed at approximately 11:50 a.m., as indicated by the notation on the patient's chart "nonmonitored," which indicated a change from the initial orders. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 34, line 7 and Page 35, line 7 et seq.) There was no order that W.V. should not be resuscitated. The Respondent's standing orders called for the patient's vital signs, together with shortness of breath and chest pain, to be monitored every 15 minutes for four hours. This was done until 3:15 p.m., when the monitoring was reduced to every 30 minutes. The Respondent advised the cardiac catheterization nurse, Mary Cavin, who accompanied the patient to the floor, of his findings, to include evidence of a recent myocardial infarction, and the patient's response to the procedure. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 19-20) Ms. Cavin identified her handwriting on the charts describing the Respondent's findings. However, these notes do not mention the recent myocardial infarction. The referenced notes were not sufficiently identified to check in the patient's charts. W.V. was taken to 5 East by Mary Cavin. Ms. Cavin had worked in this area at St. Vincent's for three years. Cardiac catheterization nurses were described by one of the experts as being among the best trained nurses in the profession, who because they work with the medical staff continuously during the procedures, are aware of the physician's findings and the patient's status. They pass this information along to the floor nurses when they transport the patients back to the floor. Ms. Cavin did not remember specifically W.V., but testified in her deposition regarding her normal practice when delivering a patient. She advised the staff on 5 East how the patient did during the catheterization, and what the findings had been. However, as stated above, in Cavin's notes she did not mention the recent myocardial infarction, and it is unclear whether she mentioned this to the staff of 5 East. The record is unclear to whom Ms. Cavin reported W.V.'s condition; however, Ms. Burnsed received a report on W.V. when she came on duty from Carolyn Johnson, the nurse who had cared for W.V. on the preceding shift. Ms. Burnsed was advised by Ms. Johnson that W.V. was stable post-catheterization, that he had previous open heart surgery, and that one of his grafts was blocked, but "had good collateral circulation to that." Further, Johnson advised Burnsed that W.V.'s vital signs were good, and he had no problems. Johnson did not mention the recent myocardial infarction suffered by W.V. Although Ms. Burnsed could not specifically remember her actions, her general course of action was to do a complete assessment upon starting the shift, make sure her patients were all right and having no problems, and orient them about the call light and calling her. Her physical assessment of W.V. revealed an apical heart rate of 72, respiration 18, and blood pressure of 100/70. W.V.'s vital signs were monitored by the staff of 5 East every 15 minutes as ordered by the Respondent until 3:15 p.m., when this was reduced to every 30 minutes. At 5:00 p.m., the Respondent saw W.V., who had no complaints and was stable. Ms. Burnsed found W.V. up going to the bathroom at 5:30 p.m., and got him back into bed explaining that it was important that he stay in bed because of his incision for at least 24 hours. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V.'s incision, and found that it was not bleeding at that time. At 7:00 p.m., Ms. Burnsed administered Lasix to W.V., and W.V. asked for and was provided sleeping medication at 9:00 p.m., at which time, Ms. Burnsed took W.V.'s vital signs which were essentially unchanged and stable. At 9:20 p.m. the patient's charts reflect that he was complaining of mild shortness of breath (SOB), and pains in his chest. Pursuant to the Respondent's orders, Ms. Burnsed administered nitroglycerin, 150 grains times one, after checking his blood pressure to insure it was within limits for the administration of nitroglycerine, and oxygen via nasal cannula, two liters, pursuant to emergency orders. This relieved the patient's symptoms. Ms. Burnsed did not report to the Respondent that W.V. had suffered mild shortness of breath and chest pain because the nitroglycerin and oxygen relieved his symptoms. The decision to notify or not to notify the treating physician was described as a nursing judgment based upon the nurse's assessment of the patient's condition after being medicated and placed upon oxygen. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 56, line 8 et seq.) Ms. Burnsed did not consider the patient's condition to have deteriorated given his response to the medication, and did not notify the Respondent. Subsequent to administering the nitroglycerin and oxygen, Ms. Burnsed spoke with W.V.'s wife on the telephone. It is intimated in the depositions that Mrs. W.V. called to advise that her husband had called complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains and an inability to get anyone to assist him; however, no evidence was submitted regarding the content of the conversation between Ms. Burnsed and Mrs. W.V. Five to ten minutes after speaking with W.V.'s wife, Ms. Burnsed returned to W.V.'s room, where she found him resting in bed without complaint. W.V. stated that he wanted to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed did not remember checking his vital signs on this second visit, and it is most probable that she did not because he was trying to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V. at 10:10 p.m., and found he was not breathing, had no pulse, and was unresponsive. The Cardiac Resuscitation Team was called, and responded. Despite their efforts, W.V. was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m. Although a partial autopsy was performed which confirmed the findings of the catheterization and the diagnosis of a recent myocardial infarction, the cause of death was not precisely determined. It was assumed by the experts that W.V. did not die of congestive heart failure because he would have complained more. Therefore, the experts concluded that his death was relatively sudden, most probably brought on by an arrhythmia or perhaps a stroke. There was a suggestion that the Respondent did not put W.V. on a monitor because he had a pacemaker. While patients with pacemakers are at no less risk of developing arrhythmias than patients without pacemakers, there was no evidence that this was a consideration of Respondent in placing the patient on a cardiac floor following cardiac catheterization. It was general practice to place cardiac catheterization patients who exhibited signs of cardiac pathology on telemetry for 24 hours following the procedure. The initial orders of the Respondent were consistent with this practice. Testimony was received from the Petitioner's experts was that the Respondent's care was substandard because he did not place the patient on monitoring as they would have done by placing the patient in the emergency room, or the intensive care unit, or the cardiac intensive care unit to obtain telemetry monitoring, or retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area pending the availability of a monitored bed. Their assumptions regarding the doctor's authority were inconsistent with the procedure for placing patients at St. Vincent's which was the function of the placement nurse. The Petitioner's experts also testified that placing a patient on telemetry notified the nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The Respondent's witnesses were more credible in stating that placing a patient on telemetry was not the way to indicate to nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The testimony of Respondent's witnesses that intensive care personnel were not as well trained as personnel on the cardiac floor to deal with cardiac emergencies is not credible. Both groups of personnel, if not equally versed in cardiac care, are sufficiently skilled in steps to be taken in the event of a cardiac emergency that there would be no appreciable difference in the care provided. Placing the patient in the regular intensive care unit or the cardiac intensive care unit would have required changing the patient's medical status be changed, and there was no change in the patient's condition which would have warranted the change. The patient was extremely ill upon admission, and his prognosis was very poor. W.V. was going to die because of his cardiac condition and chronic pulmonary congestion unless he had a stroke. His condition was irreversible in the opinions of the various experts; however, he would have been released the day following the catherization and treated medically for his problems. The Petitioner's experts opined that the Respondent's decision not to place W.V. in a monitored bed was substandard care because they felt that there was an ethical duty to monitor the patient in the absence of orders directing that efforts not be made to resuscitate notwithstanding the dismal chances for success. Their opinion assumed the Respondent could direct the placement of the patient in a monitored bed on a specific unit within a relatively short period of time because of all the monitored beds in the hospital. The Respondent's experts opined that the decision not to monitor W.V. was within the acceptable standards of medical care by physicians under similar circumstances, i.e., retain the patient in the catherization laboratory where nursing care would have been inadequate pending availability of a monitored bed for up to two hours. Their opinion considered the circumstances at St. Vincent's, and is deemed more credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1-3 Paragraph 1-3. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 3. Paragraph 6 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 While true, this finding is unnecessary to a consideration of the issues. Paragraph 8 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 37. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 38,39. Paragraph 13 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 14 If arrythmias were undetected, they would have been irrelevant to consideration of the patient's condition. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 18 Contrary to more credible evidence; See Parag 48. Paragraph 19 Rejected at Paragraph 43. Paragraph 20 Rejected at Paragraph 40. Paragraph 21 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraph 12. Paragraph 22 Accurately states the expert's credentials, but is not relevant to consideration of the issues. Paragraph 23 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraphs 42 and 47. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 9,12,47-49. Paragraph 25 Rejected at Paragraph 16. Paragraph 26 See comments to Paragraph 22. Paragraph 27 See comments to Paragraph 23. Paragraph 28 While the may have been a national standard of care, there was not a national set of circumstances which impact the issue of whether the Respondent adhered to the appropriate standard of care. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 47. Paragraph 30 Subsumed in Paragraph 24. Paragraph 31 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 4,5. Paragraph 2,3 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 6,4. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 6 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence; See Paragraphs 12-14. Paragraph 7-10 Subsumed in Paragraphs 17-19. Paragraph 11 Accurate; however, the patient was stable upon admission. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 13 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 14 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 25-28. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 17 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 18 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 19 Paragraph 37. Paragraph 20 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 21 Paragraph 38,48. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael J. Obringer, Esq. Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, et al One Enterprise Center 225 Water St., Ste. 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5147 Marm Harris, M.D. Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC), is a 897-bed private, not-for-profit, general acute care hospital located at 1324 Lakeland Hills Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. It is considered a major regional referral hospital and provides a wide range of tertiary services, including open heart surgery. The facility is located in District 6 and is one of six facilities in the district having an existing open heart surgery program. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, also known as the Certificate of Need (CON) law. On September 26, 1988 intervenor, Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. (WHH), filed with HRS an application for a CON seeking authority to establish an open heart surgery program at its facility in Winter Haven, Florida. After reviewing the application, on February 3, 1989, HRS published notice of its intent to issue the requested CON. If approved, this program would be in competition with similar programs operated by LRMC and intervenor, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority d/b/a Tampa General Hospital (TGH). Those two parties have initiated formal proceedings in Case Nos. 89-1286 and 89-1287 to contest the proposed grant of authority. Intervenor, Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice), has a pending application for authority to establish an open heart surgery program in a separate administrative proceeding and has intervened in opposition to LRMC's rule challenge. It is noted that LRMC, WHH and TGH are located in District 6 while Venice is located in an adjoining, but separate, district. All parties have standing in this proceeding. In order for HRS to grant a certificate of need, it is necessary for an applicant to satisfy all relevant rule and statutory criteria. In this vein, the agency has promulgated Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (1987), which contains certain criteria pertaining to open heart surgery programs. That rule provides in relevant part as follows: (f)2. Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for open heart surgery programs in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub-paragraphs 8. and 11., below, are met. * * * 11.a. There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: (1) the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year, (Emphasis added) * * * The requirements of this rule, which are unambiguous, and other pertinent statutory and rule criteria, are to be applied by HRS to all applicants, including WHH, during the CON review process. Although the rule itself is not being challenged by LRMC, subparagraph 11.a. of the rule is at the heart of this controversy. Petitioner and TGH contend that the clear language of the rule requires that, absent the existence of not normal circumstances, HRS may not award a CON unless each existing and approved open heart surgery program in the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 procedures per year. Because there are now six approved and existing open heart surgery programs in the district, petitioner argues that the rule mandates that, before a new program can be authorized, each of the six programs must meet the required level of 350 procedures per year. They contend further that the particular policy applied by HRS to WHH's application is not apparent on the face of rule 10-5.011(1)(f)2. and thus it constitutes an unpromulgated rule. In preliminarily approving WHH's application, HRS admits that it used a so-called averaging policy which it agrees may be described in the following manner: HRS has formulated and is applying in reviews of Certificate of Need ("CON") applications for new open heart surgery services a policy of general applicability that is uniformly and consistently applied, which calls for the averaging of the utilization of existing and approved adult open heart surgery programs in the applicable service area, and which deems subparagraph 11.a.(I) of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code, to be met if the average utilization of all such existing and approved programs in that service area is at least 350 cases (the "Averaging Policy"). Pursuant to its Averaging Policy, HRS will approve a CON application for a new adult open heart surgery program under Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code, even if each existing and approved program in the proposed service area is not operating at a minimum of 350 adult cases per year, and even if no "not normal" circumstances are presented in the application or found to exist in the State agency Action Report. Stated another way, HRS deemed subparagraph 11.a. to have been met in WHH's case because, after dividing the total number of procedures performed district wide by the number of existing and approved programs, there were an average number of procedures in excess of 350 for each program in the district. It used this averaging process even though two programs were not operational at the time the review process took place, and only two (LRMC and TGH) of the six programs had actually performed more than 350 procedures during the specified time period being measured. 1/ Thus, the averaging policy used by HRS allows approval of a CON application for open heart surgery even if only some programs in a district, rather than each, have the required 350 case volume. The averaging technique has not been reduced to writing in a memorandum, manual or agency policy directive, and it has not been formally adopted as a rule. In this regard, HRS, but not WHH and Venice, has admitted that the policy is indeed a rule. The results of applying that "rule" are contained in the state agency action report issued by HRS and made a part of this record. HRS has consistently and uniformly applied this averaging technique in every open heart surgery case except one since the rule was adopted in substantially its present form on February 14, 1983. 2/ It has been applied without discretion by those HRS personnel who have the responsibility of administering the CON law and regulations. The proponents of the averaging policy argued first that the language in subparagraph 11.a. authorized its use. However, nothing in the language of the existing rule expressly refers to an averaging process. They also contended that when other provisions within the rule are read, the use of the policy becomes apparent. More particularly, they pointed to subsection (7) of the rule which requires that the provision of open heart surgery be consistent with the state health plan. That plan provides in part that one of its objectives is to maintain an average volume of 350 procedures at all programs in the state. However, the state health plan is not mentioned in subparagraph 11.a., subsection (7) does not track or mirror the averaging technique, and the same subsection does not alert the user of the rule to the fact that an averaging process will be applied.
The Issue The issue presented by the instant case is whether Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services at Pembroke Pines General Hospital should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at hearing and matters officially recognized, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and its Parent Corporation Petitioner is a for-profit Florida corporation formed on February 1, 1985, by Encino, California-based Nu-Med Hospitals, Inc. (NM), of which it is a wholly-owned subsidiary. NM provides various administrative services to Petitioner. In return for these services, Petitioner pays NM an annual fee. The fee in 1987 was approximately $1.8 million. In 1988, it was about $952,000. NM has also advanced loans to Petitioner. One such loan was in the amount of approximately $31.4 million at an interest rate of 15.6%, the same interest rate that NM had to pay to obtain the money which was the subject of the loan. Although interest rates have declined, the loan has not been refinanced. The failure to refinance has added substantially to Petitioner's costs. Furthermore, there is a significantly greater cash flow from Petitioner to NM than would be the case had the loan been refinanced. The total pre-tax cash flow from Petitioner to NM, including the amount attributable to the "excess interest" of the aforementioned loan, was $7,900,000 (or roughly 40% of NM's equity investment in Petitioner) in fiscal year 1987 and $4,387,000 (or roughly 23% of NM's equity investment in Petitioner) in fiscal year 1988. In addition to providing administrative services and making loans to Petitioner, NM has also invested more than $17 million over the past four years in Petitioner. Petitioner had an after-tax profit of $852,300 in fiscal year 1987. In fiscal year 1988, it had an after-tax loss of $346,600. Preliminary figures reveal that Petitioner suffered an after-tax loss of slightly more than $1 3l0 in fiscal year 1989. Pembroke Pines General Hospital. Petitioner owns and operates Pembroke Pines General Hospital (PPGH). PPGH is an acute- care hospital with a licensed capacity of 301 beds. It is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The hospital's bed complement includes 24 intensive care beds (12 coronary beds and 12 surgical beds) 2/ and 32 telemetry beds. Its telemetry unit will be expanded to 48 beds in the near future. In July, 1988, PPGH instituted an eleven bed obstetrical unit. Prior to the acquisition of the hospital in 1985, NM conducted a due diligence study to seek information about the hospital and became aware of the extent of the services provided by the hospital. According to 1987 actual data collected by the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB), PPGH earned a 7.1% return on tangible equity and ranked 7th in this category of the 18 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; PPGH had a cash flow to total debt ratio of .112% and ranked 9th in this category of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; and its total margin percent was 2.6% and it ranked 8th in this category of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information. According to 1988 actual data collected by the HCCB, in terms of gross revenue per adjusted admission, PPGH ranked 8th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 and 3rd of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information; and in terms of net revenue per adjusted revenue, PPGH ranked 7th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 and 5th of the 20 hospitals in Broward County reporting such information. PPGH is located in Respondent's District x, the boundaries of which mirror those of Broward County. It is situated in the southwest quadrant of the county on the corner of Sheridan Street and University Drive. In the area surrounding the hospital is a large concentration of physicians' offices, including one housing a five-member group which limits its practice exclusively to cardiology and is the largest such group in Broward County. The group provides total cardiovascular care to its patients, including echocardiography and nuclear, invasive and clinical cardiology services. It has an active patient case load of 5,000 to 6,000. Of the members of the group, only Dr. Joseph Horgan and Dr. Barry Schiff practice invasive cardiology. Their practice is not confined to invasive cardiology, however. They are also clinical cardiologists. Both are board-certified in internal medicine, as well as cardiology. The Horgan-Schiff group accounts for 15 to 35 patients a day at PPGH, which has an active cardiology service, notwithstanding that it does not offer open heart surgery. The group provides on-site coverage at PPGH from 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 or 8:00 P.M. during the weekday. At other hours members of the group are on call and are able to quickly respond to emergencies at the hospital. Approximately 25 to 30 physicians in the area surrounding the hospital refer their patients who need cardiac catheterizations exclusively to the group. PPGH's primary service area, as defined by Petitioner, is bounded on the north by State load 84, on the south by the Broward County/Dade County line, on the east by the Florida Turnpike, and on the west by the eastern boundary of the conservation area. Included in this area are the cities of Pembroke Pines, Miramar, Davie and Cooper City. Most of Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients reside in PPGH's primary service area. While PPGH is not the only acute-care hospital that serves the residents of this area, it is the only hospital that is located within the area's geographic boundaries. Intervenor PPGH's primary service area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Broward Hospital District (SBHD). SBHD is an independent taxing district which encompasses roughly the southern third of Broward County. It was created in 1947 by a special act of the Legislature to provide quality health care services to the residents of the district regardless of their ability to pay. Hollywood Memorial Hospital SBHD operates several facilities in the district, including a 24-hour walk-in medical center in Pembroke Pines, a freestanding ambulatory surgical center, an oncology center and a radiation therapy center. Its flagship, however, is Hollywood Memorial Hospital (Memorial), a public acute-care hospital that has grown from a 100-bed facility to a 737-bed facility offering a wide variety of health care services. Memorial is located six or seven miles east of PPGH outside of PPGH's primary service area. It is the closest hospital to PPGH. Many of the physicians who have privileges at PPGH also have privileges at Memorial. For instance, 13 of the 16 clinical cardiologists on the medical staff of PPGH, including Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, are also on the medical staff of Memorial. The Horgan-Schiff group is responsible for 10 to 30 patients at Memorial on any given day. Charity Care, Medicaid and Medicare Memorial is the major provider of charity care to residents of the SBHD. In fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, it provided $16,928,000, $22,728,000, and $22,258,000, respectively, in gross indigent charity care 3/ and $6,153 000, $13,739,000, and $7,587,000, respectively, in net unfunded (by tax revenues) indigent charity care. For fiscal year 199(), Memorial projects that it will provide $24,442,000 in gross indigent charity care, of which $14,211,000 will be funded by tax reVenues. A sizeable portion of the hospital's indigent charity care is funded by its operating revenues. During fiscal year 1989, the hospital earned slightly less than $3 million from its operations. Total revenues over expenses that year, however, exceeded $12 million, more than $8 million of which was attributable to returns on its investments. For fiscal year 1988, the hospital's total revenues over expenses was almost $14 million. In calendar year 1986, PPGH furnished 1.1% of the indigent charity care provided in Broward County. It ranked in the top 50% of hospitals in the county in this regard. Memorial ranked 2nd in the county, providing 22.8% of the county's indigent charity care during the calendar year. In calendar year 1987, PPGH provided $596,295 in indigent charity care. This constituted 1.29% of its gross patient revenues. In comparison, during this same period, Memorial provided $18,248,517, or 9.79% of its gross patient revenues, in indigent charity care. In terms of indigent charity care provided during calendar year 1987 as a percentage of gross patient revenue, PPGH ranked 5th of the 12 hospitals reporting in the county and 118th of the 209 hospitals reporting in the state. Memorial, on the other hand, ranked 3rd in the count, behind two other public hospitals, and 19th in the state In calendar year 1988, PPGH ranked 16th of the 30 hospitals in HCCB Group 5 in this category. Of the 20 hospitals reporting in the county, PPGH ranked 10th and Memorial ranked 2nd. Both Memorial and PPGH participate in the Medicaid program. As participants in the program, they are reimbursed for the services they provide to Medicaid patients, but generally not in the amount private pay patients are charged for the same services. The difference between what they receive from Medicaid and what they would have received from a private pay patient is referred to as a "Medicaid deduction." In calendar year 1988, PPGH's "Medicaid deductions" represented .76% of its gross patient revenues. In this category, it ranked 26th of the 30 hospitals in its HCCB group and 8th of the 20 hospitals in Broward County. Memorial, whose Medicaid deductions were 5.29% of its gross patient revenues, ranked 2nd in the county. Based on PPGH's operating budget for calendar year 1989, it ranks 192nd of the approximately 230 acute-care hospitals in the state in the amount of "Medicaid deductions" as a percentage of gross patient revenues. A further comparative review of calendar year 1989 operating budgets reveals that of the 22 hospitals in its HCCB group in calendar year 1989, PPGH ranks last in Medicaid days as a percentage of total patient days. During the third quarter of calendar year 1988, 1.3% of PPGH's gross patient revenues and 5.4% of Memorial's gross patient revenues were attributable to Medicaid patients. PPGH's 1.3% was the 8th highest and Memorial's 5.4% was the third highest of Broward County's 20 hospitals. Pursuant to a contractual arrangement with Respondent, PPGH provides medical services to patients at South Florida State Hospital, a mental health facility operated by the state. In return for the provision of these services;, PPGH is reimbursed at rates comparable to those that apply to Medicaid patients. South Florida State Hospital patients constitute approximately 2 to 5% of PPGH's Average Daily Census. Unlike Memorial, PPGH does not receive any tax revenues to help defray its expenses. PPGH has offered to serve indigent patients who live in the SBHD if the SBHD will reimburse it the same rate the SBHD reimburses Memorial for such services. The SBHD, however, has refused the offer. In terms of Medicare utilization, 1988 HCCB actual data reflects that PPGH ranked 13th of the 30 hospitals in its group and 11th of the 20 hospitals reporting in Broward County. District X Population and Demographics The Executive Office of the Governor, in a report prepared June 22, 1988, estimated that on January 1, 1988, the adult population (15 years of age and over) of Broward County was 1,001,822, and projected that it would increase to 1,047,900 on January 1, 1991. PPGH's primary service area in southwest Broward County has experienced rapid and sustained population growth in recent years. It is the site of several significant retirement communities, including a Century Village development which is expected to have 17,000 residents at build-out. Nonetheless, the population of this area is younger than that of Broward County as a whole. Approximately, 23% of the total population in southwest Broward County is over 55 years of age. While this is two percentage points higher than the national average, it is considerably lower than the countywide figure. Individuals aged 45 to 74 constitute 33.5% of the County's total population, but only 29.7% of the total population of southwest Broward County. The leading cause of death in Broward County is heart disease, a disease to which individuals become more susceptible as they age. Average Daily Census, Occupancy Rates, and Market Scare Notwithstanding the substantial population growth in Broward County, there is now, and has been since at least 1983, a large number of excess hospital beds in District X. The occupancy rates of Broward County hospitals, excluding PPGH, were as follows for calendar years 1983 through 1988: 1983- 65.4%; 1984- 61.3%; 1985- 57.1%; 1986- 55.5%; 1987- 56.2%; and 1988- 52.6%. PPGH, which had a capacity of 301 licensed beds throughout the period, had even lower occupancy rates. During the period, its Average Daily Census (ADC) and, consequently, its occupancy rate declined each year as follows: 4/ Calendar ADC Occupancy Rate 42.5% 37.9% 37.2% 34.1% 32.9% 30.9% Year 1983 127.9 1984 114 1985 111.8 1986 102.6 1987 98.9 1988 93 Based upon statistics for the first six months of calendar year 1989, however, it appears that the hospital's ADC for the entire calendar year will not further decline, but rather will increase to 100.6. 5/ Calendar Year ADC 1983 570.7 1984 533.7 1985 513.6 1986 538.7 1987 552.6 1988 560.5 During calendar years 1983 through 1988, Memorial's occupancy rates far exceeded those of PPGF, as reflected below: Occupancy Rate 78.6% 72.5% 69.7% 73.1% 75.0% 76.1% Based upon statistics for the first six months of calendar year 1989, it appears that for the entire calendar year Memorial's ADC will be 526.5 and its occupancy rate will be 71.3%. Memorial's occupancy rates have been higher than PPGH's due, at least in part, to the fact that Memorial has been able to offer heavily used specialized services not available at PPGH, including neonatal, rehabilitative, and short-term psychiatric care. Furthermore, while PPGH and Memorial both have pharmacy, 6/ physical therapy, nuclear medicine, and cardiac rehabilitation programs, the regular hours of operation of these programs are longer at Memorial. Based upon their ADCs, PPGH's and Memorial's share of the total Broward County market for calendar years 1983 through 1988 was as follows: 7/ Year PPGH 1983 3.6% 1984 3.1% 1985 3.3% 1986 3.1% 1987 3.0% 1988 2.8% Calendar Memorial 16.2% 14.7% 15.1% 16.2% 16.9% 17.2% January, 1988, through June, 1988, discharge data reveals that during that period PPGH and Memorial were responsible for 19.2% and 61.8%, respectively, of the total number of patients from PPGH's primary service area who were discharged from PPGH and District X hospitals with existing or approved inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Although the ADC for PPGH's total bed complement declined from 1983 to 1988, the number of emergency room visits and emergency room admissions at PPGH increased 18.2% and 31.6%, respectively, during that period. The percentage increases are even greater if only the latter four years of this five-year period are considered. In terms of the average number of critical care beds occupied on a daily basis PPGH has experienced an increase of 28.9% from 1983 to 1988 and an increase of 35.4% from 1984 to 1988. Data reflecting PPGH's performance during the first five and six months of calendar year 1989 indicate that the increase in the number of emergency room visits, emergency room admissions and critical care beds occupied on a daily basis at PPGH has continued. Cardiac Catheterization As accurately described by Respondent in its rules a cardiac catheterization is a medical procedure requiring the passage of a catheter into one or more cardiac chambers of the left and right heart, with or without coronary arteriograms, for the purpose of diagnosing congenital or acquired cardiovascular diseases, or for determining measurement of blood pressure flow. Cardiac catheterization also includes the selective catheterization of the coronary ostia with injection of contrast medium into the coronary arteries. The flow of contrast medium through the coronary arteries may be recorded on x-ray film. The x-ray picture, or angiogram, that is produced can provide information quite helpful to the patient's physician. If it reveals a clot or other blockage restricting the flow of blood to the heart, a balloon-tipped catheter may be used to dilate or open the affected artery. Such a procedure is referred to as a coronary angioplasty. In contrast to cardiac catheterization, which is a diagnostic tool, coronary angioplasty is a therapeutic procedure. A high percentage of patients who receive a coronary angioplasty require open heart surgery immediately following the procedure. Cardiac catheterizations are generally, but not always, elective procedures which need not be performed immediately. There are occasions, however, where a patient is in the throes of a heart attack and requires an emergency coronary angioplasty to restore the flow of blood to the heart to minimize damage to the heart muscle. Under these circumstances, an emergency diagnostic cardiac catheterization, which can be completed in as little as five to six minutes, must also be performed so that the cardiologist will know precisely where in the arterial tree the blockage is located. Respondent permits health care providers to perform such emergency inpatient procedures regardless of whether they possess a certificate of need. Cardiac catheterizations are performed in equipped laboratories and, in the absence of complications, are usually completed within 60 minutes. They may be done on an inpatient or outpatient basis, depending on the condition of the patient. The equipment used is the same, however, whether the procedure is performed on an inpatient or on an outpatient. Recent technological advancements have made it possible to perform more procedures on an outpatient basis than previously. Smaller-sized catheters can now be used. As a result, the entry wound typically heals faster and there are fewer vascular complications. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff were among the first invasive cardiologists in South Florida to employ these smaller- sized catheters. Physicians performing cardiac catheterizations are assisted by technicians and nurses who have specialized skills and training. These technicians and nurses are, at times, in short supply. Competition amongst hospitals to recruit and retain these support staff members is therefore sometimes keen. The majority of cardiac catheterizations are performed on individuals 45 to 74 years of age. 39 There has been no showing that there are any alternative diagnostic procedures which are preferable to cardiac catheterization. District X Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization Programs Broward County is not divided into cardiac catheterization subdistricts. The following seven facilities in Broward County, each of which is within two hours travel time of 90% of the county's population, provide inpatient cardiac: catheterization services pursuant to certificates of need granted by Respondent: Broward General Hospital; Florida Medical Center; Holy Cross Hospital; Memorial; North Broward Regional Medical Center: North Ridge Hospital; and Plantation General Hospital. Broward General, North Broward, and Plantation General each have one cardiac catheterization laboratory. Memorial also has one laboratory, but has plans to construct another pursuant to a "major renovation certificate of need" granted several years ago. It is unclear, however, as to when construction will begin. North Ridge has two laboratories. Florida Medical and Holy Cross each have two laboratories as well, plus one backup laboratory. The average hospital charge and the average length of stay per inpatient admission to these inpatient cardiac catheterization programs during calendar years 1986 and 1987 and the first nine months of calendar year 1988 were as follows: Calendar Average Average Stay 3.71 days 3.27 days 3.43 days 2.98 days 3.70 days 3.00 days Year Charge 1986 (All $4,365.14 Patients) 4936 (Excluding $3,932.44 Medicaid and Medicare) 1987 (All $4,359.92 Patients) 1987 (Excluding $4,041.80 Medicare and Medicaid) 1988 (All $5,054.17 Patients) 1988 (Excluding $4,393.60 Medicare and Medicaid) Cardiac catheterizations are also performed on an outpatient basis at these seven existing facilities. The number of cardiac catheterizations performed in Broward County increased almost 60% from 1985 to 1987, an increase that can be attributed to the aging of the county's population and the advances in cardiac catheterization technology. During the period from April, 1987, through March, 1988, there was a total of 9,289 cardiac catheterization admissions, both inpatient and outpatient, at these facilities, an amount substantially less than their combined capacity. During the period from July, 1987, through June 1988, they also collectively operated well below their combined capacity, handling a total of 9,236 inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterization admissions Each of the existing laboratories in Broward County can handle at least 1,000 to 1,200 cardiac catheterizations a year during their normal hours of operation with their regular staff. 8/ These laboratories appear to be operating efficiently and to be available to all segments of the county's adult population requiring routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization services. Furthermore, there is no indication that the quality of care offered at these laboratories is in any way lacking. In addition to these seven existing programs, Respondent has also granted certificates of need authorizing routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterizations to be performed at two other health care facilities: Imperial Point Hospital and Humana Bennett Hospital. Humana Bennett's primary service area overlaps PPGH's service area. It takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes by car to get to Humana Bennett from PPGH under normal driving conditions. The programs at Imperial Point and Humana Bennett are not yet operational. If their laboratories have hours of operation and staffing levels comparable to those of the laboratories in the county that are currently in operation, these laboratories will also each have the capacity to handle at least 1,000 to 1,200 cardiac catheterizations annually. The same can be said for Memorial's proposed second laboratory. Memorial's Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization Program Since 1981, Memorial's inpatient cardiac catheterization program has been open only to those cardiologists who devote their entire practice to performing cardiac catheterizations. It is closed to cardiologists, like Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, who are not full-time invasive cardiologists. While it has its disadvantages, closing the program in this manner is a policy decision that, on balance, tends to enhance, rather than compromise, the program's efficiency as well the quality of care received by the program's patients. Other cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County are "closed" like Memorial's laboratory. The majority of the county's cardiac catheterization laboratories, however, including those at Broward General, Florida Medical, North Broward Regional and Plantation General, have laboratories that are open to any qualified invasive cardiologist. In addition, the laboratories at Humana Bennett and Imperial Point will be "open" when they become operational. In 1984, Dr. Horgan applied for privileges at Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory. Following a hearing before the SBHD's Board of Commissioners, final action was taken by the board to deny Dr. Horgan's application. Dr. Horgan appealed the board's decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The board's decision was affirmed by the appellate court. Thereafter, in early 1987, at the request of the administrator of Memorial, Dr. Horgan, as well as his partner Dr. Schiff, discussed with Memorial representatives the possibility of their performing cardiac catheterizations at Memorial. Although approval of such an arrangement was initially given by the hospital, it was later withdrawn after members of the hospital's cardiology department complained about the arrangement. At present, three full-time invasive cardiologists, Dr. Mario Sperber and his partners Dr. Barry Alter and Dr. Michael Mareke have privileges to perform cardiac catheterizations at Memorial. They charge $1-500 for a routine/diagnostic left and right heart catheterization. Included in this charge is a fee of $191 that is passed on to the radiologist who assists in the interpretation of the angiogram. Because it has an open heart surgery program, Memorial is also authorized to perform routine/non-emergency angioplasties. These angioplasties are performed in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory. The total number of procedures done in this laboratory during fiscal year 1988 was 1,635, seven of which were performed on Medicaid patients and 176 of which were performed on an outpatient basis. The total number of procedures, including angioplasties, done in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory during fiscal year 1989 increased slightly to 1,650. The number of those procedures performed on an outpatient basis, however, almost doubled. The ratio of routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterizations to routine/diagnostic outpatient cardiac cathetrizations performed at Memorial has decreased from about 6 to 1 to approximately 4 to A further decrease is likely in view of the technological improvements that have been made. During calendar year 1988, 1,238 routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, 234 angioplasties, and 512 open heart surgeries were performed at Memorial. During the first six months of calendar year 1989, there ware 680 routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations, 168 angioplasties, and 241 open heart surgeries done at Memorial. Approximately 23% of the total number of inpatient procedures performed in Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory during the first six months of calendar year 1988 were done on patients who resided in PPGH's primary service area. From fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1989, the revenues over direct expenses of Memorial's cardiac catheterization laboratory increased slightly. PPGH's Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory In addition to the previously mentioned cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County, there is also a 695-square foot cardiac catheterization laboratory located inside the operating room suite at PPGH. Cardiac catheterizations are performed at this laboratory, however, exclusively on an outpatient basis. It is the only such outpatient laboratory in Broward County and it was the first of its kind in South Florida. The laboratory at PPGH is leased to a Florida limited partnership, University Heart Institute, Ltd (Partnership) which operates the outpatient cardiac catheterization program at the hospital. 10/ The leasing of a department of a hospital is not an uncommon practice in Broward County. Petitioner provides the space needed to operate the outpatient cardiac catheterization program at PPGH, as well as other support services, pursuant to a management agreement with the Partnership. In return for the space and services it provides, Petitioner receives a nominal sum of $1.00 a month from the Partnership. The management agreement has a termination provision which permits Petitioner to terminate the agreement if, at any time after the first twelve months, "the Partnership has a negative cash flow over a period of six or more calendar months." Petitioner is a 50% general partner of the Partnership. Accordingly, pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, Petitioner must reflect: the financial activities of the Partnership on its balance sheet as though they were its own. The other general partner in the venture is University Hospital, Inc., (UHI), a corporation controlled by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff and their partner, Dr. Dweck. Petitioner and UHI have equal control over the Partnership. There are also about 20 limited partners, all of whom are physicians. The profits and losses of the Partnership are divided as follows: 50% to Petitioner; 25% to UHI; and 25% to the limited partners. During the first year of operation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, the Partnership earned a profit of approximately $100,000. PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory began operation on April 29, 1988, after the area of the hospital in which it is located received less than $50,000 worth of renovation work. Two-hundred and forty-eight outpatients received cardiac catheterizations at the laboratory in the first twelve months of its operation. During the thirteenth month of its operation, cardiac catheterizations were done on an additional 22 outpatients. Of the 270 outpatients who received cardiac catheterizations during the first thirteen months of the laboratory's operation, only one was a Medicaid patient. The overwhelming majority of outpatients who have received cardiac catheterizations at PPGH's laboratory have been from southwest Broward County and have been referred to the laboratory by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff. Dr. Joseph S. Horgan, M.D., P.A., and Dr. Barry H. Schiff, M.D., P.A., are the exclusive providers of cardiac catheterization services at PPGH's laboratory pursuant to a professional services agreement they entered into with the Partnership. Under the agreement, only "physicians that are associated with, employed or otherwise engaged under contract with" these two Florida corporations run by Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff, respectively, may use the laboratory. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff therefore have the sole authority to determine who may perform cardiac catheterizations at PPGH's laboratory. They also serve as co-medical directors of the laboratory and, in these capacities, are responsible for the development and implementation of all policies pertinent to the operation of the laboratory. To date, only Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have performed cardiac catheterizations at the laboratory. A third invasive cardiologist, however, will soon join Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff in providing such services at the hospital. The hospital's laboratory will be closed to all other invasive cardiologists. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff charge $950 for a routine/diagnostic right or left heart catheterization and $1,175 for a routine/diagnostic right and left heart catheterization. These charges are consistent with the provision of the professional services agreement with the Partnership which requires that their fees "be competitive with the usual and customary fees charged in the community for similar services." Under the agreement, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are entitled to keep the fees they receive for the professional services they render. Most of Drs. Horgan's and Schiff's patients receive a right and left heart catheterization. As a result, they average 1.8 procedures per patient and their average charge per patient is $1,100. Unlike the invasive cardiologists who practice at Memorial's laboratory, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff do not utilize radiologists to assist them in interpreting the angiograms they produce. Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have proven to be highly competent and skilled invasive cardiologists and they offer high quality care to the outpatients they catheterize at PPGH's laboratory. There have been no moralities at the laboratory and only a few outpatients have experienced complications after being catheterized. Furthermore, approximately 91% of the catheterizations performed at the laboratory reveal some abnormality. This high rate of abnormal catheterizations suggests that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are exercising sound judgment in referring outpatients to the laboratory, as opposed to making these referrals without justification. In the professional services agreement with the Partnership, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have agreed "not to provide outpatient cardiac catheterization and peripheral vascular procedure services within Broward or Dade Counties, Florida for a two (2) year period after the commencement of the term of this Agreement [at any facility other than PPGH] except that [they) shall continue to provide such services at Plantation General Hospital, Florida Medical Center, University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital and Cedars Medical Center of Miami." Most of the cardiac catheterizations that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff perform are done on an outpatient basis. They do cardiac catheterizations on an inpatient basis only if the patient's medical condition warrants. They perform these inpatient cardiac catheterizations at Florida Medical and Plantation General. Between May 1, 1988, and April 30, 1989, they performed inpatient cardiac catheterizations on about 125 to 150 patients in these two facilities. Florida Medical and Plantation General are each within a half hour driving time of PPGH. Florida Medical offers open heart surgery and routine/non-emergency angioplasty. Plantation General has received preliminary approval from Respondent to provide open heart surgery services. Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients receive good care at Florida Medical and Plantation General. In addition to performing these inpatient cardiac catheterizations at Florida Medical and Plantation-General, during the one year period ending April 30, 1989, they also referred approximately 160 patients to Memorial for cardiac catheterization services. If Petitioner had the certificate of need that it is seeking in the instant case, none of these referrals would have been made. When they are performing cardiac: catheterizations at PPGH, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff are assisted by a highly qualified and well-trained support staff consisting of a catheterization technician and three Registered Nurse's, one of whom is the staff director. All four staff members are employees of Petitioner, not the Partnership. Their combined annual salaries total about $119,000. Collectively, they receive approximately another $36,000 from Petitioner in fringe benefits. The Partnership reimburses Petitioner for monies expended “0 compensate these staff members for the work they perform in PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory. These staff members, however, do not work full-time in the laboratory. They are also assigned to other-areas of the hospital, most notably the intensive care unit. The majority of cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward and Dade Counties have support staffs similar in size to the support staff assigned to PPGH's laboratory. The equipment in PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased by the Partnership from Dr. Horgan at Dr. Horgan's cost. Dr. Horgan paid approximately $250,000 for the equipment when he purchased it from EWA Industries, Inc., shortly before the opening of the laboratory. A portion of the money Dr. Horgan used to pay for the equipment came from a loan he received from Petitioner. At the time of its original purchase, the equipment was, for the most part, newly reconditioned. The equipment is not "state-of-the-art." It lacks certain features that are available on other equipment, such as digital/computer analysis capability. These features, however, are of relatively insignificant value. Despite lacking these features, the equipment in PPGH's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is more than adequate, as evidenced by the high quality of Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's angiograms. Furthermore, although the equipment is made of parts manufactured by different manufacturers, obtaining parts for repair is not a major problem. They are readily available from EWA, which is based in Miami. In addition, there are two distributors and service centers located in Broward County from whom replacement parts may be obtained. Although PPGH has the medical and support staff and the equipment, as well as the ancillary services, necessary to provide routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization services to inpatients at the hospital, it has not been authorized to do so by Respondent. PPGH's inability to offer these inpatient services places it at a competitive disadvantage relative to those facilities in the county that are authorized to provide these services. For instance, it makes it more difficult for PPGH to compete for contracts with health maintenance organizations and other third party payers. More significantly, PPGH's competitors offering inpatient cardiac catheterization services are able to capture patient revenues that would otherwise be received by PPGH if it were able to provide such services. PPGH's situation, however, is not unique. The majority of hospitals in Broward County are not authorized to offer inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Moreover, even though its competitive position would be enhanced if it were able to offer such services, its inability to do so does net threaten its survival as a health care facility in the Broward County market. If an inpatient at PPGH needs a routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterization that, because of the patient's unstable medical condition, cannot be performed on an outpatient basis, the patient must be transferred to another facility that is authorized to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services. During fiscal year 1988, PPGH transferred 106 such patients to other facilities to receive inpatient cardiac catheterizations. Even if PPGH had been able to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services to these patients, some of them would have had to have been ultimately transferred to another facility in any event to receive routine/non- emergency angioplasty or open heart surgery. Patients transferred from PPGH to another facility to receive cardiac catheterizations on an inpatient basis are generally transported by ambulance. A round-trip ambulance ride from PPGH typically costs between $500 and $700. In addition to increasing these patients' costs, such transfers may also cause them to experience additional stress. Clearly, in hindsight, it can be said that these transferred patients would have been better off if they had been initially admitted to a facility with inpatient cardiac catheterization capability instead of PPGH. Unfortunately, however, it is often difficult to determine at the time of admission whether a patient will need cardiac catheterization services. Furthermore, there are occasions where a patient arrives at PPGH's emergency room in such a medically unstable condition that he must wait at the hospital until his condition improves before he can be transported to another facility. It is not uncommon for Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's patients who need to be transferred from PPGH to receive an inpatient cardiac catheterization to have to wait two or three days before there is an opening in the cardiac catheterization laboratory schedule at Florida Medical or Plantation General that is convenient to them and their physician. During this time, these patients remain at PPGH, thus increasing the length of their stay there and they undergo expensive diagnostic testing designed to provide information that may be useful in managing these patients until they are able to be transferred and catheterized. While such scheduling problems have been experienced in the past, the situation should improve when the laboratories at Imperial Point and Humana Bennett become operational. Furthermore, there has been no Chowing that the patients who had to wait two or three or more days to be transferred from PPGH to Florida Medical or Plantation General could not have received such services at another existing provided, such as Memorial, had they so desired. Patients of Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff have died at PPGH while waiting to be transferred to another facility to receive an inpatient cardiac catheterization. A significant number of these patients could have survived had they received an emergency cardiac catheterization and angioplasty. Although the necessary equipment and staff were available at PPGH to perform these procedures, these procedures were nonetheless not performed. Because these were emergency situations where the 34 patients' lives were threatened, PPGH's lack of a certificate of need did not preclude Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff from performing these procedures at PPGH. Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Need Approximately five months after the first outpatient cardiac catheterization procedure was performed at PPGH, Petitioner submitted an application for a certificate of need to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization services at the facility. Petitioner proposes to use, in providing these services, the same laboratory, equipment and staff it now uses for its outpatient program. The application estimates that the total cost of the project will be only $10,000, which represents "the legal and consulting fees associated with the Certificate of Need Application." There will be no financing, refinancing, professional services, construction or equipment costs, according to the application. In estimating the total cost of the project, Petitioner does not include the costs that were incurred to commence operation of PPGH's outpatient cardiac catheterization program, notwithstanding that these costs were incurred in contemplation of the filing of the instant application. 11/ The application also contains an estimate of revenues and expenses for the first two years of operation of the proposed project. The estimate includes projected revenues and expenses attributable to both the inpatient and outpatient operations of the laboratory. Petitioner projects in its application that 532 patients (320 inpatients and 212 outpatients) will visit PPGH's cardiac catheterization laboratory the first year it is able to offer inpatient services 12/ and that 592 patients (355 inpatients and 237 outpatients) will visit the laboratory the following year. Given Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's track record 13/ and reputation and the financial interest they have in the successful operation of the laboratory, 14/ it is not unreasonable to believe that they will attract these projected numbers of patients to the laboratory. Moreover, they, along with the third invasive cardiologist who will soon join them, should easily b able to handle such patient case loads at the laboratory during reasonable hours of operation with the laboratory's existing support staff and equipment. In projecting the gross revenues that will be generated by the inpatients who visit the laboratory, Petitioner assumes that these inpatients will be charged an average of $4,935 per patient the first year and $5,176 per patient the second year. These charges are consistent with the average charges of existing providers in the county. With respect to outpatients, Petitioner assumes that they will be charged on the average $2,300 per patient the first year and $2,415 per patient the second year. These charges are consistent with the laboratory's current average charge per outpatient. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner's projections in its application regarding gross revenues are reasonable. Of the patients that will visit the laboratory during the first two years of the inpatient program, Petitioner projects in its application that 2% will be Medicaid recipients and 3% will receive charity or free care. In view of PPGH's past performance in these areas, it appears unlikely that these percentages will be realized.15/ Accordingly, Petitioner's projections in its application regarding the deductions from gross revenues for Medicaid contractual allowances and charity care are unreasonably high. The projections made by Petitioner regarding direct and indirect expenses, in the aggregate, are not unreasonably low, notwithstanding that the application's statement of projected revenues does not make specific reference to certain expense items relating to inpatient care, such as nursing care and food supply costs. If anything, Petitioner has overestimated total expenses.16/ Providing only outpatient services, which generate less net income per patient than do inpatient services, the laboratory at PPGH returned a profit of approximately $100,000 in its first year of operation. The profitability of the laboratory will likely increase, as Petitioner projects, if it is able to offer inpatient, in addition to outpatient, services. In both the short-term and the long-term, Petitioner' proposal to provide such services is financially feasible. As evidenced by the attachments to Petitioner's application, as supplemented in response to Respondent's October 13, 1988, omissions letter, PPGH has transfer agreements with St. Francis Hospital and Florida Medical, both of which are within thirty minutes driving time of PPGH and have open heart surgery capability. Potential Impact of Granting the Application While Petitioner will benefit if its application is granted, the same cannot be said for existing providers of 16 For example, Petitioner allocates the entire salary of each of the four support staff members to the cardiac catheterization laboratory, even though these employees also work in other parts of the hospital. 38 inpatient cardiac catheterization services in Broward County. They will have to contend with another effective competitor seeking a share of the already highly competitive Broward County inpatient cardiac catheterization market. Collectively, the existing facilities will lose inpatient cardiac catheterization patients and net revenues they otherwise would have had if the laboratory at PPGH did not offer inpatient services.17/ Memorial will be among those `facilities suffering the greatest such losses. While it is difficult to predict the precise extent of these losses, they no doubt will be significant and therefore adversely impact Memorial's ability to provide charity care. At the very least, Memorial will lose to PPGH the inpatient cardiac catheterization patients that Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff now refer to Memorial's laboratory and the net revenues these patients generate. As previously mentioned, Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff referred 160 patients to Memorial's laboratory during the year ending April 30, 1989.96. Routine/non-emergency angioplasties and open heart surgery will not be performed at PPGH if Petitioner's application is granted. Accordingly, Memorial will not lose to PPGH any patients requiring these services as a result of the granting of the application. Although patients at PPGH who require routine/diagnostic inpatient cardiac catheterization services will not have to be transferred to another facility to receive inpatient cardiac catheterizations if the application is granted, it will still be necessary to transfer patients needing routine/non-emergency angioplasty and open heart surgery. With the advent of an inpatient cardiac catheterization program at PPGH, the hospital will attract, in far greater numbers than it does presently, individuals who require, not only inpatient cardiac catheterization services, but also routine/non emergency angioplasty or open heart surgery and who therefore must be transferred to another facility. Therefore, there likely will be more, rather than fewer, total transfers of patients than there would be if PPGH did not offer inpatient cardiac catheterization services.18/ Although cardiac catheterization support staff are generally difficult to recruit and retain, the granting of the instant application will not make it any more difficult for existing providers in Broward County to attract and keep such staff members inasmuch as Petitioner already has a support staff assigned to its cardiac catheterization laboratory at PPGH and it does not intend to expand its staff if it is given authorization to provide services at the laboratory on an inpatient basis. Regardless of whether Petitioner's application is granted, the adult population of Broward County requiring inpatient cardiac catheterization services will be able to receive such services from existing and approved providers in the county, which have the collective capacity to meet the population's demand for these services. It is more efficient to make greater use of the current collective capacity of these providers than to add to the county's overall capacity to serve cardiac catheterization inpatients. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that PPGH will provide quality of care appreciably different from that offered by any existing or approved inpatient cardiac catheterization provider. Even if Petitioner's application is denied, patients of Dr. Horgan and Dr. Schiff who live in the area surrounding PPGH will still be able to receive routine/diagnostic cardiac catheterizations from these two invasive cardiologists, albeit at a facility that is slightly further from their homes and Dr. Horgan's and Dr. Schiff's offices than is PPGH. If an inpatient cardiac catheterization program is established at PPGH, the program's charges will be comparable to those of its competitors. They will neither be excessive, nor unusually low, in relation to those of other programs. Accordingly, approval of the program will have no significant impact on costs and patient charges. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.O11(1) Respondent has adopted procedures governing its review of applications, such as Petitioner's, for certificates of need authorizing the establishment of an inpatient cardiac catheterization program. These procedures are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e).41 Respondent published notice in the April 22, 1988, edition of Florida Administrative Weekly of the amendments it proposed to make to the rule as it existed at that time. (The version of the rule that Respondent sought to amend Bill be referred to hereinafter as the "old rule.") These proposed rule amendments were the subject of rule challenge petitions filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The petitions were voluntarily dismissed after the challengers and Respondent negotiated a settlement, pursuant to which Respondent made certain modifications to the proposed amendments to Rule 10- 5011(1)(e). Among the modifications was the addition of the following language relating to the intent of the rule: It is the intent of the department to allocate the projected growth in the number of cardiac catheterization admissions to new providers regardless of the ability of existing providers to absorb the projected need. In addition, the prefatory language of the provision relating to need determination was modified to read as follows: In order to assure patient safety and staff efficiency, to foster competition among providers, and to achieve maximum economic use of existing resources, the following criteria shall be considered in the approval of Certificate of Need applications for new adult cardiac catheterization programs. The minimum annual projected net program volume need for the establishment of a new adult cardiac catheterization program shall be at or exceed 300 admissions for the service planning area. Applicants shall demonstrate that they will be able to reach an annual program volume of 300 admissions within 2 years after the program becomes operational. Notice of these changes and the other modifications that were made to the April 22, 1988, proposed rule amendments was published in the July 29, 1988, edition of Florida Administrative Weekly. Eleven days earlier, these proposed rule amendments, as modified, (hereinafter referred to as the "new rule") had been filed with the Secretary of State. In August 1988, the new rule was challenged on the ground that Respondent had not complied with the procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in making changes to the proposed rule amendments originally published on April 22, 1988.19/ The hearing officer assigned to these cases treated the rule challenge petitions as having been filed pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, rather than Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding that the new rule had been filed with the Secretary of State more than 20 days prior to the filing of any of these petitions. Following a hearing on the matter, the hearing officer, on June 29, 1989, entered a final order holding that "the amendments to paragraph 2 (h), paragraph 3(c) III, and paragraph 6(a) and the amendment regarding the definition of `inpatient visit' are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, because they were adopted without adhering to the proper procedures for adoption delineated in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes." On or about July 27, 1989, Respondent appealed the hearing officer's final order to the First District Court of Appeal. The appeal is still pending. Since August, 1988, Respondent has been applying the new rule in evaluating inpatient cardiac catheterization certificate of need applications. It applied the new rule in making its preliminary determination to deny Petitioner's application, which was in the first batching cycle after the effective date of the new rule.20/ Although the packet of application materials Respondent sent to Petitioner did not contain any express indication that the new rule would be applied in evaluating its application, Petitioner conceded in its completed application that it had "been informed [through other means) by [Respondent) that the [new rule would] likely be used in evaluating this CON application." In view of this advisement, Petitioner addressed in its application the various provisions of the new rule as they related to its application. The State Health Plan Issues relating to cardiac catheterization are discussed in the 1985-1987 State Health Plan. Among such issues is that of minimum case loads. Regarding this issue, the plan contains the following discussion: Up until 1977 the literature showed a consensus on the need for minimum case loads. Since 1977, expert opinion has become more divided on the issue with many provider representatives advocating that the standards now reflected in federal and many state laws are no longer necessary and justifiable. However, a general opinion among the medical profession is that a certain minimum number case load is essential to assure quality results. A number of complications can occur in catheterization programs if all personnel are not experienced and active. Studies may have to be repeated because inadequate data were received. This could result in unnecessary exposure of patients to radiation and hazards caused by the injection of of engaged contrast materials and the manipulation catheters. The established federal and state minimum standards of 300 procedures annually for adult and 150 for pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratories are believed to be adequate to maintain the expertise of the professional team in this highly specialized service. The plan also addresses the "concern surrounding. . . the physical proximity and the relationship between the [cardiac catheterization] diagnostic facility and a cardiovascular surgical program." It notes that the "Inter-society Commission on Heart Disease Resources (ISCHDR) stresses the need for a very close relationship between the two services;" "national health planning guidelines support this emphasis through a recommendation that no new cardiac catheterization unit be opened in any facility not providing open heart surgery;" and the "Florida rule requires that cardiac catheterization laboratories where coronary angioplasty (e.g., plastic surgery upon blood vessels) is performed must be located in health care facilities which also provide open heart surgery." One of the goals of the State Health Plan is to ensure the appropriate availability of cardiac: catheterization services at a reasonable cost. An objective of the plan is to "maintain an average of 600 cardiac catheterization procedures per laboratory in each district through 1990." The project proposed by Petitioner in the instant case conforms with this goal and objective to the extent that the services offered at PPGH will be competitively priced and that it is likely that the laboratory at PPGH will average at least 600 procedures annually. Local Health Plan The 1988 District X Comprehensive Health Plan contains the following analysis and recommendation with respect to the provision of cardiac catheterization services in Broward County: AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY The hospitals offering cardiac catheterization services are well located throughout the County for geographic accessibility. Financial barriers continue to raise questions about accessibility of these services to the poor. QUALITY All of the facilities offering cardiac catheterizations in Broward County are providing in excess of the minimum number of procedures recommended.21/ RECOMMENDATION 1 Applicants for Certificate of Need approval should document either their intention and/or experience in meeting or exceeding the standards promulgated by the appropriate national accreditation body and by HRS. RECOMMENDATION 2 Applicants proposing to initiate or expand cardiac catheterization must make those services available to all segments of the population regardless of the ability to pay. RECOMMENDATION 3 Outpatient cardiac catheterization services should continue to be regulated under the Certificate of Need program. Petitioner has demonstrated that the inpatient cardiac catheterization program it proposes to establish at PPGH will meet or exceed the accreditation standards referred to in Recommendation 1 of the plan. Petitioner's stated policy is to make the services of PPGH available to all segments of the population regardless of their ability to pay. Petitioner's past performance in the area of indigent care suggests, however, that Petitioner may not be firmly committed to implementing this policy. The suggestion is also made in the plan that "[a)11 else being equal applications to establish new cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County in facilities with existing open heart surgical capability will receive priority - when being considered for certificates of need."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization program at Pembroke Pines General Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. Administrative Hearings Parkway 32399-1550 of the Administrative Hearings January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk Division of this 12th day of
Findings Of Fact North Broward, Plantation, and Cypress are each existing acute care hospitals located in Broward County, Florida. Each has submitted CON applications to establish cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery facilities to HRS. There are presently five existing cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery units available in Broward County. As indicated above, each of these applicants was denied a CON by HRS, which now takes the position that two of the three applications should be granted. Stipulations of the parties and evidence of record in this proceeding affirmatively establish that North Broward, Plantation, and Cypress each meet applicable statutory and rule criteria to entitle them to the issuance of the requested CON. By promulgating Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, HRS has established a need formula for calculating and predicting the gross and net need for cardiac catheterization laboratories two years into the future in each of the 11 department service districts through the State. The rule uses a two-year planning horizon, and each of the parties to this proceeding has conceded that 1986 is the appropriate year to consider need for the services proposed in these applications. In applying the formula, the number of catheterization procedures projected to be delivered in Broward County in 1986 is derived by multiplying the 1981 use rate in the service area by the projected population in that service area in 1986. This figure is then divided by 600 to project the total number of catheterization laboratories needed in 1986, which presumes a minimum of 600 procedures per laboratory as a threshold requirement. Broward County comprises all of HRS District X. In applying the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(15), the 1981 use rate for Broward County is determined by dividing the total number of procedures performed in that year into the 1981 district population. This step produces a 1981 use rate of 3.37 cardiac catheterization procedures per 1,000 population. When this use rate is divided into the 1986 projected population of District X, 4,013 procedures are projected for 1986. When divided by the required 600 average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories, the total number of laboratories needed in 1986 is 6.68. Since, as indicated above, there are five existing laboratories in District X, the net need in 1986 is 1.68 laboratories. HRS department policy is to round the number of laboratories to 2.0, thereby demonstrating a need for an additional two laboratories in District X in 1986. However, as conceded by HRS, a strict application of the need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(15) ". . . has not proven to be accurate in Broward County." In fact, need projections for cardiac catheterization laboratories for 1985 were, in fact, exceeded in 1982, because the utilization of cardiac catheterization services had increased faster than the population in Broward County. In 1981 there were 3,546 cardiac catheterization procedures performed in Broward County. By 1982, that figure had increased to 4,311, and, in 1983, 4,840 procedures were performed. When 1982 actual data is substituted for 1981 data in the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(15), a gross need of 7.96 laboratories, and a net need of 2.96 laboratories is shown. As indicated above this figure would be increased to 3.0 under existing HRS policy. Utilizing actual 1983 data, Rule 10-5.11(15) shows a gross need of 8.71 laboratories and a net need of 3.71 laboratories in 1986. The primary factors which appear to have contributed to a higher utilization rate in Broward than contemplated by Rule 10-5.11(15) are increased physician awareness of the potentialities of cardiac catheterization as a diagnostic tool, and a comparatively large elderly and middle age population requiring these services. There is no competent evidence of record to establish that the higher utilization rates experienced in Broward County can be attributed to out-of-county residents. While it is true that historical use data is extremely valuable as a planning tool, credible expert testimony of record in this proceeding establishes that actual use rates are a more accurate predictor of need, especially in a situation where, as here, a definitive trend exists markedly exceeding that shown by historical data. It is, therefore, specifically concluded that evidence of record in this proceeding shows, at a minimum, a need for three additional cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County in 1986. As a result, issues between the parties concerning appropriate batching and a comparison of the merits of the applications is unnecessary. North Broward, Plantation, and Cypress each applied for a CON to establish open heart surgery capabilities. However, both Plantation and Cypress have conceded that no need has been established for Broward County for 1986 when the requirements of Rule 10-5.11(16) are applied. North Broward, while conceding that the requirement of that rule that existing and approved open heart surgery programs operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year, contends that its application should be granted as an exception because members of its staff who would perform that service presently utilize several hospitals in the Broward County area for open heart surgery. North Broward contends that if its cardiac catheterization laboratory is approved, these physicians would be in a position to perform these services at North Broward, rather than having to transfer patients to other facilities. Even if this were true, however, there is no showing on this record that the other requirements of Rule 10-5.11(16) have been met. For example, there has been no showing that the establishment of an open heart surgical suite at North Broward would increase geographic or economic accessibility to that service, what effect the establishment of such a service would have existing programs, and no financial analysis to demonstrate what effect, if any, the granting of North Broward's application would have on patient costs or total expenditures for open heart surgery. In fact, the record in this cause affirmatively establishes that no need exists in Broward County in 1986 for the establishment of additional heart surgery facilities.
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need application (CON 9239) of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") to establish an open heart surgery program at its hospital facility in Hillsborough County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 6 District 6 is one of eleven health service planning districts in Florida set up by the "Health Facility and Services Development Act," Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. See Section 408.031, Florida Statutes. The district is comprised of five counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, and Highlands. Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Of the five counties, three have providers of adult open heart surgery services: Hillsborough with three providers, Manatee with two, and Polk with one. There are in District 6 at present, therefore, a total of six existing providers. Existing Providers Hillsborough County The three providers of open heart surgery services ("OHS") in Hillsborough County are Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital ("Tampa General"), St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Joseph's"), and University Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital ("UCH"). For the most part, Interstate 75 runs in a northerly and southerly direction dividing Hillsborough County roughly in half. If the interstate is considered to be a line dividing the eastern half of the county from the western, all three existing providers are in the western half of the county within the incorporated area of the county's major population center, the City of Tampa. Tampa General Opened approximately a century ago, Tampa General has been at its present location in the City of Tampa on Davis Island at the north end of Tampa Bay since 1927. The mission of Tampa General is three-fold. First, it provides a range of care (from simple to complex) for the west central region of the state. Second, it supports both the teaching and research activities of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it serves as the "health care safety net" for the people of Hillsborough County. Evidence of its status as the safety net for those its serves is its Case Mix Index for Medicare patients: 2.01. At such a level, "the case mix at Tampa General is one of the highest in the nation in Medicare population." (Tr. 2452). In keeping with its mission of being the county's health care safety net, Tampa General is a full-service acute care hospital. It also provides services unique to the county and the Tampa Bay area: a Level I trauma center, a regional burn center and adult solid organ transplant programs. Tampa General is licensed for 877 beds. Of these, 723 are for acute care, 31 are designated skilled nursing beds, 59 are comprehensive rehabilitation beds, 22 are psychiatry beds, and 42 are neonatal intensive care beds (18 Level II and 24 Level III). Of the 723 acute care beds, 160 are set aside for cardiac care, although they may be occupied from time-to-time by non-cardiac care patients. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. It has an affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. It offers 13 residency programs, serving approximately 200 medical residents. Tampa General offers diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization services in four laboratories dedicated to such services. It has four operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. The range of open heart surgery services provided by Tampa General includes heart transplants. Care of the open heart patient immediately after surgery is in a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit of 18 beds. Following stay in the intensive care unit, the patient is cared for in either a 10-bed intermediate care unit or a 30- bed telemetry unit. Tampa General's full-service open heart surgery program provides high quality of care. St. Joseph's Founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, St. Joseph's is an acute care hospital located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in an "inner city kind of area" (Tr. 1586) of the City of Tampa near the geographic center of Hillsborough County. On the hospital campus sit three separate buildings: the main hospital, consisting of 559 beds; across the street, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, a 197-bed facility dedicated to the care of women; and, opened in 1998, Tampa Children's Hospital, a 120-bed free-standing facility that offers pediatric services and Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care services. In addition to the women's and pediatric facilities, and consistent with the full-service nature of the hospital, St. Joseph's provides behavioral health and oncology services, and most pertinent to this proceeding, open heart surgery and related cardiovascular services. Designated as a Level 2 trauma center, St. Joseph's has a large and active emergency department. There were 90,211 visits to the Emergency Room in 1999, alone. Of the patients admitted annually, fifty-five percent are admitted through the Emergency Room. The formal mission of St. Joseph's organization is to take care of and improve the health of the community it serves. Another aspect of the mission passed down from its religious founders is to take care of the "marginalized, . . . the people that in many senses cannot take care of themselves, [those to whom] society has . . . closed [its] eyes . . .". (Tr. 1584). In keeping with its mission, it is St. Joseph's policy to provide care to anyone who seeks its hospital services without regard to ability to pay. In 1999, the hospital provided $33 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. In total, St. Joseph's provided $121 million in unfunded care during the same year. Not surprisingly, St. Joseph's is also a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The only hospital in the district that provides both adult and pediatric open heart surgery services, St. Joseph's has three dedicated OHS surgical suites, a 14-bed unit dedicated to cardiovascular intensive care for its adult OHS patients, a 12-bed coronary care unit and 86 progressive care beds, all with telemetry capability. St. Joseph's provides high quality of care in its OHS. UCH University Community Hospital, Inc., is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It operates two hospital facilities: the main hospital ("UCH") a 431-bed hospital on Fletcher Avenue in north Tampa, and a second 120-bed hospital in Carrollwood. UCH is accredited by the JCAHO "with commendation," the highest rating available. It provides patient care regardless of ability to pay. UCH's cardiac surgery program is called the "Pepin Heart & Vascular Institute," after Art Pepin, "a 14-year heart transplant recipient [and] . . . the oldest heart transplant recipient in the nation alive today." (Tr. 2841). A Temple Terrace resident, Mr. Pepin also helped to fund the start of the institute. Its service area for tertiary services, including OHS, includes all of Hillsborough County, and extends into south Pasco County and Polk County. The Pepin Institute has excellent facilities and equipment. It has three dedicated OHS operating suites, three fully-equipped "state-of-the-art" cardiac catheterization laboratories equipped with special PTCA or angioplasty devices, and several cardiology care units specifically for OHS/PTCA services. Immediately following surgery, OHS patients go to a dedicated 8-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. From there patients proceed to a dedicated 20-bed progressive care unit ("PCU"), comprised of all private rooms. There is also a 24-bed PCU dedicated to PTCA patients. There is another 22-bed interventional unit that serves as an overflow unit for patients receiving PTCA or cardiac catheterization. UCH has a 22-bed medical cardiology unit for chest pain observation, congestive heart failure, and other cardiac disorders. Staffing these units requires about 110 experienced, full-time employees. UCH has a special "chest pain" Emergency Room with specially-trained cardiac nurses and defined protocols for the treatment of chest pain and heart attacks. UCH offers a free van service for its UCH patients and their families that operates around the clock. As in the case of the other two existing providers of OHS services in Hillsborough Counties, UCH provides a full range of cardiovascular services at high quality. Manatee County The two existing providers of adult open heart surgery services in Manatee County are Manatee Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Blake Medical Center, Inc. Neither are parties in this proceeding. Although Manatee Memorial filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to overturn the preliminary decision of the Agency, the petition was withdrawn before the case reached hearing. Polk County The existing provider of adult open heart surgery services in Polk County is Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lakeland"). Licensed for 851 beds, Lakeland is a large, not-for- profit, tertiary regional hospital. In 1999, Lakeland admitted approximately 30,000 patients. In fiscal 1999, there were about 105,000 visits to Lakeland's Emergency Room. Lakeland provides a wide range of acute care services, including OHS and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. It draws its OHS patients from the Lakeland urban area, the rest of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County (particularly from Plant City), and some of the surrounding counties. Lakeland has a high quality OHS program that provides high quality of care to its patients. It has two dedicated OHS surgical suites and a third surgical suite equipped and ready for OHS procedures on an as-needed basis. Its volume for the last few years has been relatively flat. Lakeland offers interventional radiology services, a trauma center, a high-risk obstetrics service, oncology, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, radiation therapy, alcohol and chemical dependency, and behavioral sciences services. Lakeland treats all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and provides a substantial amount of charity care, amounting in fiscal year 1999 to $20 million. The Applicant Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") is a 255-bed hospital located in Brandon, Florida, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County east of Interstate 75. Included among Brandon's 255 beds are 218 acute care beds, 15 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds, 14 tertiary Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") beds, and 8 tertiary Level III NICU beds. Brandon offers a wide array of medical specialties and services to its patients including cardiology; internal medicine; critical care medicine; family practice; nephrology; pulmonary medicine; oncology/hematology; infectious disease; neurology; psychiatry; endocrinology; gastroenterology; physical medicine; rehabilitation; radiation oncology; pathology; respiratory therapy; and anesthesiology. Brandon operates a mature cardiology program which includes inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, electrocardiography, stress testing, and echocardiography. The Brandon medical staff includes 22 Board-certified cardiologists who practice both interventional and invasive cardiology. Board certification is a prerequisite to maintaining cardiology staff privileges at Brandon. Brandon's inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization program was initiated in 1989 and has performed in excess of 800 inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures per year since 1996. Brandon's daily census has increased from 159 to 187 for the period 1997 to 1999 commensurate with the burgeoning population growth in Brandon's primary service area. Brandon's Emergency Room is the third busiest in Hillsborough County and has more visits than Tampa General's Emergency Room. From 1997- 1999, Brandon's Emergency Room visits increased from 43,000 to 53,000 per year and at the time of hearing were expected to increase an additional 5-6 percent during the year 2000. Brandon has also recently expanded many services to accommodate the growing health care needs of the Brandon community. For example, Brandon doubled the square footage of its Emergency Room and added 17 treatment rooms. It has also implemented an outpatient diagnostic and rehabilitation center, increased the number of labor, delivery and recovery suites, and created a high-risk ante-partum observation unit. Brandon was recently approved for 5 additional tertiary Level II NICU beds and 3 additional tertiary Level III NICU beds which increased Brandon's Level II/III NICU bed complement to 22 beds. Brandon is a Level 5 hospital within HCA's internal ranking system, which is the company's highest facility level in terms of service, revenue, and patient service area population. Brandon has been ranked as one of the Nation's top 100 hospitals by HCIA/Mercer, Inc., based on Brandon's clinical and financial performance. The Proposal On September 15, 1999, Brandon submitted to AHCA CON Application 9239, its third application for an open heart surgery program in the past few years. (CON 9085 and 9169, the two earlier applications, were both denied.) The second of the three, CON 9169, sought approval on the basis of the same two "not normal" circumstances alleged by Brandon to justify approval in this proceeding. CON 9239 addresses the Agency's January 2002 planning horizon. Brandon proposes to construct two dedicated cardiovascular operating rooms ("CV-OR"), a six-bed dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"), a pump room and sterile prep room all located in close proximity on Brandon's first floor. The costs, methods of construction, and design of Brandon's proposed CV-OR, CVICU, pump room, and sterile prep room are reasonable. As a condition of CON approval, Brandon will contribute $100,000 per year for five years to the Hillsborough County Health Care Program for use in providing health care to the homeless, indigent, and other needy residents of Hillsborough County. The administration at Brandon is committed to establishing an adult open heart surgery program. The proposal is supported by the medical and nursing staff. It is also supported by the Brandon community. The Brandon Community in East Hillsborough County Brandon, Florida, is a large unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, east of Interstate 75. The Brandon area is one of the fastest growing in the state. In the last ten years alone, the area's population has increased from approximately 90,000 to 160,000. An incorporated Brandon municipality (depending on the boundaries of the incorporation) has the potential to be the eighth largest city in Florida. The Brandon community's population is projected to further increase by at least 50,000 over the next five to ten years. Brandon Regional Hospital's primary service area not only encompasses the Brandon community, but further extends throughout Hillsborough County to a populous of nearly 285,000 persons. The population of Brandon's primary service area is projected to increase to 309,000 by the year 2004, of which approximately 32,000 are anticipated to be over the age of 65, making Brandon's population "young" relative to much of the rest of the State. The community of Brandon has attracted several new large housing developments which are likely to accelerate its projected growth. According to the Hillsborough County City- County Planning Commission, six of the eleven largest subdivisions of single-family homes permitted in 1998 are located nearby. For example, the infrastructure is in place for an 8,000-acre housing development east of Brandon which consists of 7,500 homes and is projected to bring in 30,000 people over the next 5-10 years. Two other large housing developments will bring an additional 5,000-10,000 persons to the Brandon area. The community of Brandon is also an attractive area for relocating businesses. Recent additions to the Brandon area include, among others, CitiGroup Corporation, Atlantic Lucent Technologies, Household Finance, Ford Motor Credit, and Progressive Insurance. CitiGroup Corporation alone supplemented the area's population with approximately 5,000 persons. The community of Brandon has experienced growth in the development of health care facilities with 5 new assisted living facilities and one additional assisted living facility under construction. The average age of the residents of these facilities is much higher than of the Brandon area as a whole. Existing Providers' Distance from Brandon's PSA Brandon's primary service area ("PSA") is comprised of 12 zip code areas "in and around Brandon, essentially eastern Hillsborough County." (Tr. 1071). Using the center of each zip code in Brandon's primary service area as the location for each resident of the zip code area, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of 15 miles from Tampa General, 16.4 miles from St. Joseph's, 17.3 miles from UCH and 24.6 miles from Lakeland Regional Medical Center. In contrast, they are only 7.7 miles from Brandon Regional Hospital. Using the same methodology, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of more than 40 miles from Blake Medical Center (44.9 miles) and Manatee Memorial (41 miles). Numeric Need Publication Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Open Heart Surgery Program Rule" or the "Rule") specifies a methodology for determining numeric need for new open heart surgery programs in health planning districts. The methodology is set forth in section (7) of the Rule. Part of the methodology is a formula. See subsection (b) of Section (7) of the Rule. Using the formula, the Agency calculated numeric need in the District for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. The calculation yielded a result of 3.27 additional programs needed to serve the District by January 1, 2002. But calculation of numeric need under the formula is not all that is entailed in the complete methodology for determining numeric need. Numeric need is also determined by taking other factors into consideration. The Agency is to determine net need based on the formula "[p]rovided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7) (c) do not apply." Rule 59C-1.033(b), Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (7)(a) states, "[a] new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district" if the following condition (among others) exists: 2. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Both Blake Medical Center and Manatee Memorial Hospital in Manatee County were operational and performed less that 350 adult open heart surgery operations in the qualifying time periods described by subparagraph (7)(a)2., of the Rule. (Blake reported 221 open heart admissions for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1999; Manatee Memorial for the same period reported 319). Because of the sub-350 volume of the two providers, the Rule's methodology yielded a numeric need of "0" new open heart surgery programs in District 6 for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. In other words, the numeric need of 3.27 determined by calculation pursuant to the formula prior to consideration of the programs described in (7)(a)2.1, was "zeroed out" by operation of the Rule. Accordingly, a numeric need of zero for the district in the applicable planning horizon was published on behalf of the Agency in the January 29, 1999, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. No Impact on Manatee County Providers In 1998, only one resident of Brandon's PSA received an open heart surgery procedure in Manatee County. For the same period only two residents from Brandon's PSA received an angioplasty procedure in Manatee County. These three residents received the services at Manatee Memorial. Of the two Manatee County programs, Manatee Memorial consistently has a higher volume of open heart surgery cases and according to the latest data available at the time of hearing has "hit the mark" (Tr. 1546) of 350 procedures annually. Very few residents from other District 6 counties receive cardiac services in Manatee County. Similarly, very few Manatee county residents migrate from Manatee County to another District 6 hospital to receive cardiac services. In 1998, only 19 of a total 1,209 combined open heart and angioplasty procedures performed at either Blake or Manatee Memorial originated in the other District 6 counties and only two were from the Brandon area. Among the 6,739 Manatee County residents discharged from a Florida hospital in calendar year 1998 following any cardiovascular procedure (MDC-5), only 58(0.9 percent) utilized one of the other providers in District 6, and none were discharged from Brandon. Among the 643 open heart surgeries performed on Manatee County residents in 1998, only 17 cases were seen at one of the District 6 open heart programs outside of Manatee County. There is, therefore, practically no patient exchange between Manatee County and the remainder of the District. In sum, there is virtually no cardiac patient overlap between Manatee County and Brandon's primary service area. The development of an open heart surgery program at Brandon will have no appreciable or meaningful impact on the Manatee County providers. CON 9169 In CON 9169, Brandon applied for an open heart surgery program on the basis of special circumstances due to no impact on low volume providers in Manatee County. The application was denied by AHCA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") on CON 9169, dated June 17, 1999, in a section of the SAAR denominated "Special Circumstances," found the application to demonstrate "that a program at Brandon would not impact the two Manatee hospitals . . .". (UCH Ex. No. 6, p. 5). The "Special Circumstances" section of the SAAR on CON 9169, however, does not conclude that the lack of impact constitutes special circumstances. In follow-up to the finding of the application's demonstration of no impact to the Manatee County, the SAAR turned to impact on the non-Manatee County providers in District The SAAR on CON 9169 states, "it is apparent that a new program in Brandon would impact existing providers [those in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] in the absence of significant open heart surgery growth." Id. In reference to Brandon's argument in support of special circumstances based on the lack of impact to the Manatee County providers, the CON 9169 SAAR states: [T]he applicant notes the open heart need formula should be applied to District 6 excluding Manatee County, which would result in the need for several programs. This argument ignores the provision of the rule that specifies that the need cannot exceed one. (UCH No. 6, p. 7). The Special Circumstances Section of the SAAR on CON 9169 does not deal directly with whether lack of impact to the Manatee County providers is a special circumstance justifying one additional program. Instead, the Agency disposes of Brandon's argument in the "Summary" section of the SAAR. There AHCA found Brandon's special circumstances argument to fail because "no impact on low volume providers" is not among those special circumstances traditionally or previously recognized in case law and by the Agency: To demonstrate need under special circumstances, the applicant should demonstrate one or more of the following reasons: access problems to open heart surgery; capacity limits of existing providers; denial of access based on payment source or lack thereof; patients are seeking care outside the district for service; improvement of care to underserved population groups; and/or cost savings to the consumer. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of these reasons. (UCH No. 6, p. 29). Following reference to the Agency's publication of zero need in District 6, moreover, the SAAR reiterated that [t]he implementation of another program in Hillsborough County is expected to significantly [a]ffect existing programs, in particular Tampa General Hospital, an important indigent care provider. (Id.) Typical "not normal circumstances" that support approval of a new program were described at hearing by one health planner as consisting of a significant "gap" in the current health care delivery system of that service. Typical Not Normal Circumstances Just as in CON 9169, none of the typical "not normal" circumstances" recognized in case law and with which the Agency has previous experience are present in this case. The six existing OHS programs in District 6 have unused capacity, are available, and are adequate to meet the projected OHS demand in District 6, in Hillsborough County ("County"), and in Brandon's proposed primary service area ("PSA"). All three County OHS providers are less than 17 miles from Brandon. There are, therefore, no major service geographic gaps in the availability of OHS services. Existing providers in District 6 have unused capacity to meet OHS projected demand in January 2002. OHS volume for District 6 will increase by only 179 surgeries. This is modest growth, and can easily be absorbed by the existing providers. In fact, existing OHS providers have previously handled more volume than what is projected for 2002. In 1995, 3,313 OHS procedures were generated at the six OHS programs. Yet, only 3,245 procedures are projected for 2002. The demand in 1995 was greater than what is projected for 2002. Neither population growth nor demographic characteristics of Brandon's PSA demonstrate that existing programs cannot meet demand. The greatest users of OHS services are the elderly. In 1999, the percentage in District 6 was similar to the Florida average; 18.25 percent for District 6, 18.38 percent for the state. The elderly percentage in Hillsborough County was less: 13.21 percent. The elderly component in Brandon's PSA was less still: 10.44 percent. In 2004, about 18.5 percent of Florida and District 6 residents are projected to be elderly. In contrast, only 10.5 percent of PSA residents are expected to be elderly. Brandon's PSA is "one of the younger defined population segments that you could find in the State of Florida" (Tr. 2892) and likely to remain so. Brandon's PSA will experience limited growth in OHS volume. Between 1999 - 2002, OHS volume will grow by only 36. The annual growth thereafter is only 13 surgeries. This is "very modest" growth and is among the "lowest numbers" of incremental growth in the State. Existing OHS providers can easily absorb this minimal growth. Brandon's PSA, is not an underserved area . . . there is excellent access to existing providers and . . . the market in this service area is already quite competitive. There is not a single competitor that dominates. In fact, the four existing providers [in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] compete quite vigorously. (Tr. 2897). Existing OHS programs in District 6 provide very good quality of care. The surgeons at the programs are excellent. Dr. Gandhi, testifying in support of Brandon's application, testified that he was very comfortable in referring his patients for OHS services to St. Joseph and Tampa General, having, in fact, been comfortable with his father having had OHS at Tampa General. Likewise, Dr. Vijay and his group, also supporters of the Brandon application, split time between Bayonet Point and Tampa General. Dr. Vijay is very proud to be associated with the OHS program at Tampa General. Lakeland also operates a high quality OHS program. In its application, Brandon did not challenge the quality of care at the existing OHS programs in District 6. Nor did Brandon at hearing advance as reasons for supporting its application, capacity constraints, inability of existing providers to absorb incremental growth in OHS volume or failure of existing providers to meet the needs of the residents of Brandon's primary service area. The Agency, in its preliminary decision on the application, agreed that typical "not normal" circumstances in this case are not present. Included among these circumstances are those related to lack of "geographic access." The Agency's OHS Rule includes a geographic access standard of two hours. It is undisputed that all District 6 residents have access to OHS services at multiple OHS providers in the District and outside the District within two hours. The travel time from Brandon to UCH or Tampa General, moreover, is usually less than 30 minutes anytime during the day, including peak travel time. Travel time from Brandon to St. Joseph's is about 30 minutes. There are times, however, when travel time exceeds 30 minutes. There have been incidents when traffic congestion has prevented emergency transport of Brandon patients suffering myocardial infarcts from reaching nearby open heart surgery providers within the 30 minutes by ground ambulance. Delays in travel are not a problem in most OHS cases. In the great majority, procedures are elective and scheduled in advance. OHS procedures are routinely scheduled days, if not weeks, after determining that the procedure is necessary. This high percentage of elective procedures is attributed to better management of patients, better technology, and improved stabilizing medications. The advent of drugs such as thrombolytic therapy, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and anti-platelet medications have vastly improved stabilization of patients who present at Emergency Rooms with myocardial infarctions. In its application, Brandon did not raise outmigration as a not-normal circumstance to support its proposal and with good reason. Hillsborough County residents generally do not leave District 6 for OHS. In fact, over 96 percent of County residents receive OHS services at a District 6 provider. Lack of out-migration shows two significant facts: (a) existing OHS programs are perceived to be reasonably accessible; and (2) County residents are satisfied with the quality of OHS services they receive in the County. This 96 percent retention rate is even more impressive considering there are many OHS programs and options available to County residents within a two-hour travel time. In contrast, there are two low-volume OHS providers in Manatee County, one of them being Blake. Unlike Hillsborough County residents, only 78 percent of Manatee County residents remain in District 6 for OHS services. Such outmigration shows that these residents prefer to bypass closer programs, and travel further distances, to receive OHS services at high-volume facility in District 8, which they regard as offering a higher quality of service. In its Application, Brandon does not raise economic access as a "not normal" circumstance. In fact, Brandon concedes that the demand for OHS services by Medicaid and indigent patients is very limited because Brandon's PSA is an affluent area. Brandon does not "condition" its application on serving a specific number or percentage of Medicaid or indigent patients. There are no financial barriers to accessing OHS services in District 6. All OHS providers in Hillsborough County and LRMC provide services to Medicaid and indigent patients, as needed. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve service or care to Medicaid or indigent patient populations. Tampa General is the "safety net" provider for health care services to all County residents. Tampa General is an OHS provider geographically accessible to Brandon's PSA. Tampa General actively services the PSA now for OHS. Brandon did not demonstrate cost savings to the patient population of its PSA if it were approved. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve cost savings to the patient population. Brandon based its OHS and PTCA charges on the average charge for PSA residents who are serviced at the existing OHS providers. While that approach is acceptable, Brandon does not propose a charge structure which is uniquely advantageous for patients. Restated, patients would not financially benefit if Brandon were approved. Tertiary Service Open Heart Surgery is defined as a tertiary service by rule. A "tertiary health service" is defined in Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: health service, which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost- effectiveness of such service. As a tertiary service, OHS is necessarily a referral service. Most hospitals, lacking OHS capability, transfer their patients to providers of the service. One might expect providers of open heart surgery in Florida in light of OHS' status as a tertiary service to be limited to regional centers of excellence. The reality of the six hospitals that provide open heart surgery services in District 6 defies this health-planning expectation. While each of the six provides OHS services of high quality, they are not "regional" centers since all are in the same health planning district. Rather than each being a regional center, the six together comprise more localized providers that are dispersed throughout a region, quite the opposite of a center for an entire region. Brandon's Allegations of Special Circumstances. Brandon presents two special circumstances for approval of its application. The first is that consideration of the low-volume Manatee County providers should not operate to "zero out" the numeric need calculated by the formula. The second relates to transfers and occasional problems with transfers for Brandon patients in need of emergency open heart services. "Time is Muscle" Lack of blood flow to the heart during a myocardial infarction ("MI") results in loss of myocardium (heart muscle). The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more myocardium is lost. The more myocardium lost, the more likely the patient will die or, should the patient survive, suffer severe reduction in quality of life. The key to good patient outcome when a patient is experiencing an acute MI is prompt evaluation and rapid treatment upon presentation at the hospital. Restoration of blood flow to the heart (revascularization) is the goal of the treating physician once it is recognized that a patient is suffering an MI. If revascularization is not commenced within 2 hours of the onset of an acute MI, an MI patient's potential for recovery is greatly diminished. The need for prompt revascularization for a patient suffering an MI is summed up in the phrase "time is muscle," a phrase accepted as a maxim by cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Recent advances in modern medicine and technology have improved the ability to stabilize and treat patients with acute MIs and other cardiac traumas. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from an MI are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and stent placement; and, 3) open heart surgery. Because of the advancement of the effectiveness of thrombolytics, thrombolytic therapy has become the standard of care for treating MIs. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, thrombolytic medication begins working within minutes to dissolve the clot causing the acute MI and therefore halt the damage done by an MI to myocardium. The protocols to administer thrombolysis are similar among hospitals. If a patient presents with chest pain and the E.R. physician identifies evidence of an active heart attack, thrombolysis is normally administered. If the E.R. physician is uncertain, a cardiologist is quickly contacted to evaluate the patient. Achieving good outcomes in cases of myocardial infarctions requires prompt consultation with the patient, competent clinical assessment, and quick administration of appropriate treatment. The ability to timely evaluate patient conditions for MI, and timely administer thrombolytic therapy, is measured and evaluated nationally by the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. The National Registry makes the measurement according to a standard known as "door-to-needle" time. This standard measures the time between the patient's presentation at the E.R. and the time the patient is initially administered thrombolytic medication by injection intravenously. Patients often begin to respond to thrombolysis within 10-15 minutes. Consistent with the maxim, "time is muscle," the shorter the door-to-needle time, the better the chance of the patient's successful recovery. The effectiveness of thrombolysis continues to increase. For example, the advent of a drug called Reapro blocks platelet activity, and has increased the efficacy rate of thrombolysis to at least 85 percent. As one would expect, then, thrombolytic therapy is the primary method of revascularization available to patients at Brandon. Due to the lack of open heart surgery backup, moreover, Brandon is precluded by Agency rule from offering angioplasty in all but the most extreme cases: those in which it is determined that a patient will not survive a transfer. While Brandon has protocols, authority, and equipment to perform angioplasty when a patient is not expected to survive a transfer, physicians are reluctant to perform angioplasty without open heart backup because of complications that can develop that require open heart surgery. Angioplasty, therefore, is not usually a treatment modality available to the MI patient at Brandon. Although the care of choice for MI treatment, thrombolytics are not always effective. To the knowledge of the cardiologists who testified in this proceeding, there is not published data on the percentage of patients for whom thrombolytics are not effective. But from the cardiologists who offered their opinions on the percentage in the proceeding, it can be safely found that the percentage is at least 10 percent. Thrombolytics are not ordered for these patients because they are inappropriate in the patients' individual cases. Among the contraindications for thrombolytics are bleeding disorders, recent surgery, high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the patients ineligible for thrombolytics, a subset, approximately half, are also ineligible for angioplasty. The other half are eligible for angioplasty. Under the most conservative projections, then at least 1 in 20 patients suffering an MI would benefit from timely angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery back-up is required in all but the rarest of cases. In 1997, 351 people presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. In 1998, the number of MIs increased to 427. In 1999, 428 patients presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. At least 120 (10 percent) of the total 1206 MI patients presenting to Brandon's Emergency Room from 1997 to 1999 would have been ineligible for thrombolytics as a means of revascularization. Of these, half would have been ineligible for angioplasty while the other half would have been eligible. Sixty, therefore, is the minimum number of patients from 1997 to 1999 who would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon using the most conservative estimate. Transfers of Emergency Patients Those patients who presented at Brandon's Emergency Room with acute MI and who could not be stabilized with thrombolytic therapy had to be transferred to one of the nearby providers of open heart surgery. In 1998, Brandon transferred an additional 190 patients who did not receive a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon for either angioplasty or open heart surgery. For the first 9 months of 1999, 114 such transfers were made. Thus, in 1998 alone, Brandon transferred a total of 516 cardiac patients to existing providers for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery, more than any other provider in the District. In 1999, Brandon made 497 such transfers. Not all of these were emergency transfers, of course. But in the three years between 1997 and 1999 at least 60 patients were in need of emergency transfers who would benefit from angioplasty with open heart backup. Of those Brandon patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery, all must be transferred to existing providers either by ambulance or by helicopter. Ambulance transfer is accomplished through ambulances maintained by the Hillsborough County Fire Department. Due to the cardiac patient's acuity level, ambulance transfer of such patients necessitates the use of ambulances equipped with Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS) in order to monitor the patient's heart functions and to treat the patient should the patient's condition deteriorate. Hillsborough County operates 18 ambulances. All have ALS capability. Patients with less serious medical problems are sometimes transported by private ambulances equipped with Basic Life Support Systems (BLS) that lack the equipment to appropriately care for the cardiac patient. But, private ambulances are not an option to transport critically ill cardiac patients because they are only equipped with BLS capability. Private ambulances, moreover, do not make interfacility transports of cardiac patients between Hillsborough County hospitals. There are many demands on the ambulance transfer system in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County's 18 ALS ambulances cover in excess of 960 square miles. Of these 18 ambulances, only three routinely operate within the Brandon area. Hillsborough County ambulances respond to 911 calls before requests for interfacility transfers of cardiac patients and are extremely busy responding to automobile accidents, especially when it rains. As a result, Hillsborough County ambulances are not always available on a timely basis when needed to perform an interfacility transfer of a cardiac patient. At times, due to inordinate delay caused by traffic congestion, inter-facility ambulance transport, even if the ambulance is appropriately equipped, is not an option for cardiac patients urgently in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. It has happened, for example, that an ambulance has appeared at the hospital 8 hours after a request for transport. Some cardiac surgeons will not utilize ground transport as a means of transporting urgent open heart and angioplasty cases. Expeditious helicopter transport in Hillsborough County is available as an alternative to ground transport. But, it too, from time-to-time, is problematic for patients in urgent need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. Tampa General operates two helicopters through AeroMed, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County. AeroMed's two helicopters are not exclusively devoted to cardiac patients. They are also utilized for the transfer of emergency medical and trauma patients, further taxing the availability of AeroMed helicopters to transfer patients in need of immediate open heart surgery or angioplasty. BayCare operates the only other helicopter transport service serving Hillsborough County. BayCare maintains several helicopters, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County at St. Joseph's. BayCare helicopters are not equipped with intra-aortic balloon pump capability, thereby limiting their use in transporting the more complicated cardiac patients. Helicopter transport is not only a traumatic experience for the patient, but time consuming. Once a request has been made by Brandon to transport a patient in need of urgent intervention, it routinely takes two and a half hours, with instances of up to four hours, to effectuate a helicopter transfer. At the patient's beside, AeroMed personnel must remove the patient's existing monitors, IVS, and drips, and refit the patient with AeroMed's equipment in preparation for flight. In more complicated cases requiring the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, the patient's balloon pump placed at Brandon must be removed and substituted with the balloon pump utilized by AeroMed. Further delays may be experienced at the receiving facility. The national average of the time from presentation to commencement of the procedure is reported to be two hours. In most instances at UCH, it is probably 90 minutes although "[t]here are of course instances where it would be much faster . . .". (Tr. 3212). On the other hand, there are additional delays from time-to-time. "[P]erhaps the longest circumstance would be when all the labs are full . . . or . . . even worse . . . if all the staff has just left for the day and they are almost home, to then turn them around and bring them all back." (Id.) Specific Cases Involving Transfers Delays in the transfer process were detailed at hearing by Brandon cardiologists with regard to specific Brandon patients. In cases in which "time is muscle," delay is critical except for one subset of such cases: that in which, no matter what procedure is available and no matter how timely that procedure can be provided, the patient cannot be saved. Craig Randall Martin, M.D., Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, and an expert in cardiology, wrote to AHCA in support of the application by detailing two "examples of patients who were in an extreme situation that required emergent, immediate intervention . . . [intervention that could not be provided] at Brandon Hospital." (Tr. 408). One of these concerned a man in his early sixties who was a patient at Brandon the night and morning of October 13 and 14, 1998. It represents one of the rare cases in which an emergency angioplasty was performed at Brandon even though the hospital does not have open heart backup. The patient had presented to the Emergency Room at approximately 11:00 p.m., on October 13 with complaints of chest pain. Although the patient had a history of prior infarctions, PTCA procedures, and onset diabetes, was obese, a smoker and had suffered a stroke, initial evaluation, including EKG and blood tests, did not reveal an MI. The patient was observed and treated for what was probably angina. With the subsiding of the chest pain, he was appropriately admitted at 2:30 a.m. to a non- intensive cardiac telemetry bed in the hospital. At 3:00 a.m., he was observed to be stable. A few hours or so later, the patient developed severe chest pain. The telemetry unit indicated a very slow heart rate. Transferred to the intensive care unit, his blood pressure was observed to be very low. Aware of the seriousness of the patient's condition, hospital personnel called Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin arrived on the scene and determined the patient to be in cardiogenic shock, an extreme situation. In such a state, a patient has a survival rate of 15 to 20 percent, unless revascularization occurs promptly. If revascularization is timely, the survival rate doubles to 40 percent. Coincident with the cardiogenic shock, the patient was suffering a complete heart block with a number of blood clots in the right coronary artery. The patient's condition, to say the least, was grave. Dr. Martin described the action taken at Brandon: . . . I immediately called in the cardiac catheterization team and moved the patient to the catheterization laboratory. * * * Somewhere around 7:30 in the morning, I put a temporary pacemaker in, performed a diagnostic catheterization that showed that one of his arteries was completely clotted. He, even with the pacemaker giving him an adequate heart rate, and even with the use of intravenous medication for his blood pressure, . . . was still in cardiogenic shock. * * * And I placed an intra-aortic balloon pump . . ., a special pump that fits in the aorta and pumps in synchrony with the heart and supports the blood pressure and circulation of the muscle. That still did not alleviate the situation . . . an excellent indication to do a salvage angioplasty on this patient. I performed the angioplasty. It was not completely successful. The patient had a respiratory arrest. He required intubation, required to be put on a ventilator for support. And it became apparent to me that I did not have the means to save this patient at [Brandon]. I put a call to the . . . cardiac surgeon of choice . . . . [Because the surgeon was on vacation], [h]is associate [who happened to be in the operating room at UCH] called me back immediately . . . and said ["]Yes, I'll take your patient. Send him to me immediately, I will postpone my current case in order to take care of your patient.["] At that point, we called for helicopter transport, and there were great delays in obtaining [the] transport. The patient was finally transferred to University Community Hospital, had surgery, was unsuccessful and died later that afternoon. (Tr. 409-412). By great delays in the transport, Dr. Martin referred to inability to obtain prompt helicopter transport. University Community Hospital, the receiving hospital, was not able to find a helicopter. Dr. Martin, therefore, requested Tampa General (a third hospital uninvolved from the point of being either the transferring or the receiving hospital) to send one of its two helicopters to transfer the patient from Brandon to UCH. Dr. Martin described Tampa General's response: They balked. And I did not know they balked until an hour later. And I promptly called them back, got that person on the telephone, we had a heated discussion. And after that person checked with their supervisor, the helicopter was finally sent. There was at least an hour-and-a-half delay in obtaining a helicopter transport on this patient that particular morning that was unnecessary. And that is critical when you have a patient in this condition. (Tr. 413, emphasis supplied.) In the case of this patient, however, the delay in the transport from Brandon to the UCH cardiovascular surgery table, in all likelihood, was not critical to outcome. During the emergency angioplasty procedure at Brandon, some of the clot causing the infarction was dislodged. It moved so as to create a "no-flow state down the right coronary artery. In other words, . . ., it cut off[] the microcirculation . . . [so that] there is no place for the blood . . . to get out of the artery. And that's a devastating, deadly problem." (Tr. 2721). This "embolization, an unfortunate happenstance [at times] with angioplasty", id., probably sealed the patient's fate, that is, death. It is very likely that the patient with or without surgery, timely or not, would not have survived cardiogenic shock, complete heart block, and the circumstance of no circulation in the right coronary artery that occurred during the angioplasty procedure. Adithy Kumar Gandhi, M.D., is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. Employed by the Brandon Cardiology Group, a three-member group in Brandon, Dr. Gandhi was accepted as an expert in the field of cardiology in this proceeding. Dr. Gandhi testified about two patients in whose cases delays occurred in transferring them to St. Joseph’s. He also testified about a third case in which it took two hours to transfer the patient by helicopter to Tampa General. The first case involves an elderly woman. She had multiple-risk factors for coronary disease including a family history of cardiac disease and a personal history of “chest pain.” (Tr. 2299). The patient presented at Brandon’s Emergency Room on March 17, 1999 at around 2:30 p.m. Seen by the E.R. physician about 30 minutes later, she was placed in a monitored telemetry bed. She was determined to be stable. During the next two days, despite family and personal history pointing to a potentially serious situation, the patient refused to submit to cardiac catheterization at Brandon as recommended by Dr. Gandhi. She maintained her refusal despite results from a stress test that showed abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Finally, on March 20, after a meeting with family members and Dr. Gandhi, the patient consented to the cath procedure. The procedure was scheduled for March 22. During the procedure, it was discovered that a major artery of the heart was 80 percent blocked. This condition is known as the “widow-maker,” because the prognosis for the patient is so poor. Dr. Gandhi determined that “the patient needed open heart surgery and . . . to be transferred immediately to a tertiary hospital.” (Tr. 2305-6). He described that action he took to obtain an immediate transfer as follows: I talked to the surgeon up at St. Joseph’s and I informed him I have had difficulties transferring patients to St. Joseph’s the same day. [I asked him to] do me a favor and transfer the patient out of Brandon Hospital as soon as possible by helicopter. The surgeon promised me that he would take care of that. (Tr. 2261). The assurance, however, failed. The patient was not transferred that day. That night, while still at Brandon, complications developed for the patient. The complications demanded that an intra-aortic balloon pump be inserted in order to increase the blood flow to the heart. After Dr. Gandhi’s partner inserted the pump, he, too, contacted the surgeon at St. Joseph’s to arrange an immediate transfer for open heart surgery. But the patient was not transferred until early the next morning. Dr. Gandhi’s frustration at the delay for this critically ill patient in need of immediate open heart surgery is evident from the following testimony: So the patient had approximately 18 hours of delay of getting to the hospital with bypass capabilities even though the surgeon knew that she had a widow-maker, he had promised me that he would make those transfer arrangements, even though St. Joseph’s Hospital knew that the patient needed to be transferred, even though I was promised that the patient would be at a tertiary hospital for bypass capabilities. (Tr. 2262). Rod Randall, M.D., is a cardiologist whose practice is primarily at St. Joseph’s. He had active privileges at Brandon until 1998 when he “switched to courtesy privileges,” (Tr. 1735) at Brandon. He reviewed the medical records of the first patient about whom Dr. Gandhi testified. A review of the patient’s medical records disclosed no adverse outcome due to the patient’s transfer. To the contrary, the patient was reasonably stable at the time of transfer. Nonetheless, it would have been in the patient’s best interest to have been transferred prior to the catheterization procedure at Brandon. As Dr. Randall explained, [W]e typically cath people that we feel are going to have a probability of coronary artery disease. That is, you don’t tend to cath someone that [for whom] you don’t expect to find disease . . . . If you are going to cath this patient, [who] is in a higher risk category being an elderly female with . . . diminished injection fraction . . . why put the patient through two procedures. I would have to do a diagnostic catheterization at one center and do some type of intervention at another center. So, I would opt to transfer that patient to a tertiary care center and do the diagnostic catheterization there. (Tr. 1764, 1765). Furthermore, regardless of what procedure had been performed, the significant left main blockage that existed prior to the patient’s presentation at Brandon E.R. meant that the likely outcome would be death. The second of the patients Dr. Gandhi transferred to St. Joseph’s was a 74-year-old woman. Dr. Gandhi performed “a heart catheterization at 5:00 on Friday.” (Tr. 2267). The cath revealed a 90 percent blockage of the major artery of the heart, another widow-maker. Again, Dr. Gandhi recommended bypass surgery and contacted a surgeon at St. Joseph’s. The transfer, however, was not immediate. “Finally, at approximately 11:00 the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital. That night she was operated on . . . ”. (Tr. 2267). If Brandon had had open heart surgery capability, “[t]hat would have increased her chances of survival.” No competent evidence was admitted that showed the outcome, however, and as Dr. Randall pointed out, the medical records of the patient do not reveal the outcome. The patient who was transferred to Tampa General (the third of Dr. Ghandhi's patients) had presented at Brandon’s ER on February 15, 2000. Fifty-six years old and a heavy smoker with a family history of heart disease, she complained of severe chest pain. She received thrombolysis and was stabilized. She had presented with a myocardial infarction but it was complicated by congestive heart failure. After waiting three days for the myocardial infarction to subside, Dr. Gandhi performed cardiac catheterization. The patient “was surviving on only one blood vessel in the heart, the other two vessels were 100 percent blocked. She arrested on the table.” (Tr. 2271). After Dr. Gandhi revived her, he made arrangements for her transfer by helicopter. The transfer was done by helicopter for two reasons: traffic problems and because she had an intra-aortic balloon pump and there are a limited number of ambulances with intra- aortic balloon pump maintenance capability. If Brandon had had the ability to conduct open heart surgery, the patient would have had a better likelihood of successful outcome: “the surgeon would have taken the patient straight to the operating room. That patient would not have had a second arrest as she did at Tampa General.” (Tr. 2273). Marc Bloom, M.D., is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He performs open-heart surgery at UCH, where he is the chief of cardiac surgery. He reviewed the records of this 54-year-old woman. The records reflect that, in fact, upon presentation at Brandon’s E.R., the patient’s heart failure was very serious: She had an echocardiogram done that . . . showed a 20 percent ejection fraction . . . I mean when you talk severe, this would be classified as a severe cardiac compromise with this 20 percent ejection fraction. (Tr. 2712). Once stabilized, the patient should have been transferred for cardiac catheterization to a hospital with open- heart surgery instead of having cardiac cath at Brandon. It is true that delay in the transfer once arrangements were made was a problem. The greater problem for the patient, however, was in her management at Brandon. It was very likely that open heart surgery would be required in her case. She should have been transferred prior to the catheterization as soon as became known the degree to which her heart was compromised, that is, once the results of the echocardiogram were known. Adam J. Cohen, M.D., is a cardiologist with Diagnostic Consultative Cardiology, a group located in Brandon that provides cardiology services in Hillsborough County. Dr. Cohen provided evidence of five patients who presented at Brandon and whose treatments were delayed because of the need for a transfer. The first of these patients was a 76-year old male who presented to Brandon’s ER on April 6, 1999. Dr. Cohen considered him to be suffering “a complicated myocardial infarction.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 43) Cardiac catheterization conducted by Dr. Cohen showed “severe multi-vessel coronary disease, cardiogenic shock, severely impaired [left ventricular] function for which an intra-aortic balloon pump was placed . . .”. (Id.) During the placement of the pump, the patient stopped breathing and lost pulse. He was intubated and stabilized. A helicopter transfer was requested. There was only one helicopter equipped to conduct the transfer. Unfortunately, “the same day . . . there was a mass casualty event within the City of Tampa when the Gannet Power Plant blew up . . .”. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 44). An appropriate helicopter could not be secured. Dr. Cohen did not learn of the unavailability of helicopter transport for an hour after the request was made. Eventually, the patient was transferred by ambulance to UCH. There, he received angioplasty and “stenting of the right coronary artery times two.” (Id., at p. 47.) After a slow recovery, he was discharged on April 19. In light of the patient’s complex cardiac condition, he received a good outcome. This patient is an example of another patient who should have been transferred sooner from Brandon since Brandon does not have open heart surgery capability. The second of Dr. Cohen’s patients presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 10:30 p.m. on June 14, 1999. He was 64 years old with no risk factors for coronary disease other than high blood pressure. He was evaluated and diagnosed with “a large and acute myocardial infarction” Two hours later, the therapy was considered a failure because there was no evidence that the area of the heart that was blocked had been reperfused. Dr. Cohen recommended transfer to UCH for a salvage angioplasty. The call for a helicopter was made at 12:58 a.m. (early the morning of June 15) and the helicopter arrived 40 minutes later. At UCH, the patient received angioplasty procedure and stenting of two coronary arteries. He suffered “[m]oderately impaired heart function, which is reflective of myocardial damage.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 58). If salvage angioplasty with open heart backup had been available at Brandon, the patient would have received it much more quickly and timely. Whether the damage done to the patient’s heart during the episode could have been avoided by prompt angioplasty at Brandon is something Dr. Cohen did not know. As he put it, “I will never know, nor will anyone else know.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 60). The patient later developed cardiogenic shock and repeated ventricular tachycardia, requiring numerous medical interventions. Because of the interventions and mechanical trauma, he required surgery for repair of his right femoral artery. The patient recently showed an injection fraction of 45 percent below the minimum for normal of 50 percent. The third patient was a 51-year-old male who had undergone bypass surgery 19 years earlier. After persistent recurrent anginal symptoms with shortness of breath and diaphoresis, he presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 1:00 p.m. complaining of heavy chest pain. Thrombolytic therapy was commenced. Dr. Cohen described what followed: [H]he had an episode of heart block, ventricular fibrillation, losing consciousness, for which he received ACLS efforts, being defibrillated, shocked, times three, numerous medications, to convert him to sinus rhythm. He was placed on IV anti- arrhythmics consisting of amiodarone. The repeat EKG showed a worsening of progression of his EKG changes one hour after the initiation of the TPA. Based on that information, his clinical scenario and his previous history, I advised him to be transferred to University Hospital for a salvage angioplasty. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 62). Transfer was requested at 1:55 p.m. The patient departed Brandon by helicopter at 2:20 p.m. The patient received the angioplasty at UCH. Asked how the patient would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon without having to have been transferred, Dr. Cohen answered: In a more timely fashion, he would have received an angioplasty to the culprit lesion involved. There would have been much less occlusive time of that artery and thereby, by inference, there would have been greater salvage of myocardium that had been at risk. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 65). The patient, having had bypass surgery in his early thirties, had a reduced life expectancy and impaired heart function before his presentation at Brandon in June of 1999. The time taken for the transfer of the patient to UCH was not inordinate. The transfer was accomplished with relative and expected dispatch. Nonetheless, the delay between realization at Brandon of the need for a salvage angioplasty and actual receipt of the procedure after a transfer to UCH increased the potential for lost myocardium. The lack of open heart services at Brandon resulted in reduced life expectancy for a patient whose life expectancy already had been diminished by the early onset of heart disease. The fourth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented to Brandon’s E.R. at 8:30, the morning of August 29, 1999. A fifty-four-year-old male, he had been having chest pain for a month and had ignored it. An EKG showed a complete heart block with atrial fibrillation and change consistent with acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was administered. He continued to have symptoms including increased episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. He required dopamine for blood pressure support due to his clinical instability and the lack of effectiveness of the thrombolytics. The patient refused a transfer and catheterization at first. Ultimately, he was convinced to undergo an angioplasty. The patient was transferred by helicopter to UCH. The patient was having a “giant ventricular infarct . . . a very difficult situation to take care of . . . and the majority of [such] patients succumb to [the] disease . . .”. (Tr. 2703). The cardiologist was unable to open the blockage via angioplasty. Dr. Bloom was called in but the patient refused surgical intervention. After interaction with his family the patient consented. Dr. Bloom conducted open heart surgery. The patient had a difficult post-operative course with arrythmias because “[h]e had so much dead heart in his right ventricle . . .”. (Id.) The patient received an excellent outcome in that he was seen in Dr. Bloom’s office with 40 percent injection fraction. Dr. Bloom “was just amazed to see him back in the office . . . and amazed that this man is alive.” (Tr. 2704). Most of the delay in receiving treatment was due to the patient’s reluctance to undergo angioplasty and then open heart surgery. The fifth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented at Brandon’s E.R. on March 22, 2000. He was 44 years old with no prior cardiac history but with numerous risk factors. He had a sudden onset of chest discomfort. Lab values showed an elevation consistent with myocardial injury. He also had an abnormal EKG. Dr. Cohen performed a cardiac cath on March 23, 2000. The procedure showed a totally occluded left anterior descending artery, one of the three major arteries serving the heart. Had open heart capability been available at Brandon, he would have undergone angioplasty and stenting immediately. As it was, the patient had to be transferred to UCH. A transfer was requested at 10:25 that morning and the patient left Brandon’s cath lab at 11:53. Daniel D. Lorch, M.D., is a specialist in pulmonary medicine who was accepted as an expert in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, consistent with his practice in a “five-man pulmonary internal medicine critical care group.” (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 4). Dr. Lorch produced medical records for one patient that he testified about during his deposition. The patient had presented to Brandon’s E.R. with an MI. He was transferred to UCH by helicopter for care. Dr. Lorch supports Brandon’s application. As he put it during his deposition: [Brandon] is an extremely busy community hospital and we are in a very rapidly growing area. The hospital is quite busy and we have a large number of cardiac patients here and it is not infrequently that a situation comes up where there are acute cardiac events that need to be transferred out. (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 20). Transfers Following Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Brandon transfers a high number cardiac patients for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery in addition to those transferred under emergency conditions. In 1996, Brandon performed 828 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Of this number, 170 patients were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 170 patients for angioplasty. In 1997, Brandon performed 863 diagnostic catheterizations of which 180 were transferred for open heart surgery and 159 for angioplasty. During 1998, 165 patients were transferred for open heart surgery and 161 for angioplasty out of 816 diagnostic catheterization procedures. For the first nine months of 1999, Brandon performed 639 diagnostic catheterizations of which 102 were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 112 for angioplasty. A significant number of patients are transferred from Brandon for open heart surgery services. These transfers are consistent with the norm in Florida. After all, open heart surgery is a tertiary service. Patients are routinely transferred from most Florida hospitals to tertiary hospitals for OHS and PCTA. The large majority of Florida hospitals do not have OHS programs; yet, these hospitals receive patients who need OHS or PTCA. Transfers, although the norm, are not without consequence for some patients who are candidates for OHS or PCTA. If Brandon had open heart and angioplasty capability, many of the 1220 patients determined to be in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery following a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon could have received these procedures at Brandon, thereby avoiding the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by transfer. Moreover, diagnostic catheterizations and angioplasties are often performed sequentially. Therefore, Brandon patients determined to be in need of angioplasty following a diagnostic catheterization would have had access to immediate angioplasty during the same procedure thus reducing the likelihood of a less than optimal outcome as the result of an additional delay for transfer. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Competition There is active competition and available patient choices now in Brandon's PSA. As described, there are many OHS programs currently accessible to and substantially serving Brandon's PSA. There is substantial competition now among OHS providers so as to provide choices to PSA residents. There are no financial benefits or cost savings accruing to the patient population if Brandon is approved. Brandon does not propose lower charges than the existing OHS providers. Balanced Budget Act The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had a profound negative financial impact on hospitals throughout the country. The Act resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of Medicare payments made to hospitals for services rendered to Medicare recipients. During the first five years of the Act's implementation, Florida hospitals will experience a $3.6 billion reduction in Medicare revenues. Lakeland will receive $17 million less, St.Joseph's will receive $44 million less, and Tampa General will receive $53 million less. The impact of the Act has placed most hospitals in vulnerable financial positions. It has seriously affected the bottom line of all hospitals. Large urban teaching hospitals, such as TGH, have felt the greatest negative impact, due to the Act's impact on disproportionate share reimbursement and graduate medical education payment. The Act's impact upon Petitioners render them materially more vulnerable to the loss of OHS/PTCA revenues to Brandon than they would have been in the absence of the Act. Adverse Impact on Tampa General Tampa General is the "safety net provider" for Hillsborough County. Tampa General is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. In fiscal year 1999, the hospital provided $58 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. Tampa General plays a unique, essential role in Hillsborough County and throughout West Central Florida in terms of provision of health care. Its regional role is of particular importance with respect to Level I trauma services, provision of burn care, specialized Level III neonatal and perinatal intensive care services, and adult organ transplant services. These services are not available elsewhere in western or central Florida. In fiscal year 1999, Tampa General experienced a net loss of $12.6 million in providing the services referenced above. It is obligated under contract with the State of Florida to continue to provide those services. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. In fiscal year 1999, it provided unfunded graduate medical education in the amount of $19 million. Since 1998, Tampa General has consistently experienced losses resulting from its operations, as follows: FY 1998-$29 million, FY 1999-$27 million; FY 2000 (5 months)-$10 million. The hospital’s financial condition is not the result of material mismanagement. Rather, its financial condition is a function of its substantial provision of charity and Medicaid services, the impact of the Act, reduced managed care revenues, and significant increases in expense. Tampa General’s essential role in the community and its distressed financial condition have not gone unnoticed. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce established in February of 2000 an Emergency Task Force to assess the hospital's role in the community, and the need for supplemental funding to enable it to maintain its financial viability. Tampa General requires supplemental funding on a continuing basis in order to begin to restore it to a position of financial stability, while continuing to provide essential community services, indigent care, and graduate medical education. It will require ongoing supplemental funding of $20- 25 million annually to avoid triggering the default provision under its bond covenants. As of the close of hearing, the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature had adjourned. The Legislature appropriated approximately $22.9 million for Tampa General. It is, of course, uncertain as to what funding, if any, the Legislature will appropriate to the hospital in future years, as the terms which constitute the appropriations must be revisited by the Legislature on an annual basis. Tampa General has prepared internal financial projections for its fiscal years 2000-2002. It projects annual operating losses, as follows: FY 2000-$20.1 million; FY 2001- $20.6 million; FY 2002-$31.9 million. While its projections anticipate certain "strategic initiatives" that will enhance its financial condition, including continued supplemental legislative funding, the success and/or availability of those initiatives are not "guaranteed" to be successful. If the Brandon program is approved, Tampa General will lose 93 OHS cases and 107 angioplasty cases during Brandon's second year of operation. That loss of cases will result in a $1.4 million annual reduction in TGH's net income, a material adverse impact given Tampa General’s financial condition. OHS services provide a positive contribution to Tampa General's financial operations. Those services constitute a core piece of Tampa General's business. The anticipated loss of income resulting from Brandon's program pose a threat to the hospital’s ability to provide essential community services. Adverse Impact on UCH UCH operated at a financial break-even in its fiscal year 1999. In the first five months of its fiscal year 2000, the hospital has experienced a small loss. This financial distress is primarily attributed to less Medicare reimbursement due to the Act and less reimbursement from managed care. UCH's reimbursement for OHS services provides a good example of the financial challenges facing hospitals. In 1999, UCH's net income per OHS case was reduced 33 percent from 1998. Also in 1999, UCH received OHS reimbursement of only 32 percent of its charges. UCH would be substantially and adversely impacted by approval of Brandon's proposal. As described, UCH currently is a substantial provider of OHS and angioplasty services to residents of Brandon's PSA. There are many cardiologists on staff at Brandon who also actively practice at UCH. UCH is very accessible from Brandon's PSA. UCH reasonably projects to lose the following volumes in the first three years of operation of the proposed program: a loss of 78-93 OHS procedures, a loss of 24-39 balloon angioplasties, and a loss of 97-115 stent angioplasties. Converting this volume loss to financial terms, UCH will suffer the following financial losses as a direct and immediate result of Brandon being approved: about $1.1 million in the first year, and about $1.2 million in the second year, and about $1.3 million in the third year. As stated, UCH is currently operating at about a financial break-even point. The impact of the Balanced Budget Act, reduced managed care reimbursement, and UCH's commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay has a profound negative financial impact on UCH. A recurring loss of more than $1 million dollars per year due to Brandon's new program will cause substantial and adverse impact on UCH. Adverse Impact on St. Joseph’s If Brandon's application is approved, St. Joseph’s will lose 47 OHS cases and 105 PTCA cases during Brandon's second year. That loss of cases will result in a $732,000 annual reduction in SJH's net income. That loss represents a material impact to SJH. Between 1997 and 2000, St. Joseph’s has experienced a pattern of significant deterioration in its financial performance. Its net revenue per adjusted admission had been reduced by 12 percent, while its costs have increased significantly. St. Joseph's net income from operations has deteriorated as follows: FYE 6/30/97-$31 million; FYE 12/31/98- $24 million; FYE 12/31/99-$13.8 million. A net operating income of $13.8 million is not much money relative to St Joseph's size, the age of its physical plant, and its need for capital to maintain and improve its facilities in order to remain competitive. St. Joseph’s offers a number of health care services to the community for which it does not receive reimbursement. Unreimbursed services include providing hospital admissions and services to patients of a free clinic staffed by volunteer members of SJH's medical staff, free immunization programs to low-income children, and a parish nurse program, among others. St. Joseph’s evaluates such programs annually to determine whether it has the financial resources to continue to offer them. During the past two years, the hospital has been forced to eliminate two of its free community programs, due to its deteriorating financial condition. St. Joseph’s anticipates that it will have to eliminate additional unreimbursed community services if it experiences an annual reduction in net income of $730,000. Adverse Impact to LRMC The approval of Brandon will have an impact on Lakeland. Lakeland will suffer a financial loss of about $253,000 annually. This projection is based on calculated contribution margins of OHS and PTCA/stent procedures performed at the hospital. A loss of $253,000 per year is a material loss at Lakeland, particularly in light of its slim operating margin and the very substantial losses it has experienced and will continue to experience as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In addition to the projected loss of OHS and other procedures based upon Brandon's application, Lakeland may experience additional lost cases from areas such as Bartow and Mulberry from which it draws patients to its open heart/cardiology program. Lakeland will also suffer material adverse impacts to its OHS program due to the negative effect of Brandon's program on its ability to recruit and retain nurses and other highly skilled employees needed to staff its program. The approval of Brandon will also result in higher costs at existing providers such as Lakeland as they seek to compete for a limited pool of experienced people by responding to sign-on bonuses and by reliance on extensive temporary nursing agencies and pools. Nursing Staff/Recruitment The staffing patterns and salaries for Brandon's projected 40.1 full-time equivalent employees to staff its open heart surgery program are reasonable and appropriate. Filling the positions will not be without some difficulty. There is a shortage for skilled nursing and other personnel needed for OHS programs nationally, in Florida and in District 6. The shortage has been felt in Hillsborough County. For example, it has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies that occur in critical nursing positions in the coronary intensive care unit and in telemetry units at Tampa General. Tampa General's expenses for nursing positions have "increased tremendously." (Tr. 2622). To keep its program going, the hospital has hired "travelers . . . short-term employment, registered nurses that come from different agencies, . . . with [the hospital] a minimum of 12 weeks." (Tr. 2622). In fact, all hospitals in the Tampa Bay area utilize pool staff and contract staff to fill vacancies that appear from time-to- time. Use of contract staff has not diminished quality of care at the hospitals, although "they would not be assigned to the sickest patients." (Tr. 2176). Another technique for dealing with the shortage is to have existing full-time staff work overtime at overtime pay rates. St. Joseph's and Lakeland have done so. As a result, they have substantially exceeded their budgeted salary expenses in recent months. It will be difficult for Brandon to hire surgical RNs, other open heart surgery personnel and critical care nurses necessary to staff its OHS program. The difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. To meet the difficulty, Brandon will move members of its present staff with cardiac and open heart experience into its open heart program. It will also train some existing personnel in conjunction with the staff and personnel at Bayonet Point. In addition to drawing on the existing pool of nurses, Brandon can utilize HCA's internal nationwide staffing data base to transfer staff from other HCA facilities to staff Brandon's open heart program. Approximately 18 percent of the nurses hired at Brandon already come from other HCA facilities. The nursing shortage has been in existence for about a decade. During this time, other open heart programs have come on line and have been able to staff the programs adequately. Lakeland, in District 6, has demonstrated its ability to recruit and train open heart surgery personnel. Brandon, itself, has been successful, despite the on- going shortage, in appropriately staffing its recent additions of tertiary level NICU beds, an expanded Emergency Room, labor and delivery and recovery suites, and new high-risk, ante-partum observation unit. Brandon has begun to offer sign-on bonuses to compete for experienced nurses. Several employees who staff the Lakeland, UCH and Tampa General programs live in Brandon. These bonuses are temptations for them to leave the programs for Brandon. Other highly skilled, experienced individuals who already work at existing programs may be lost to Brandon's program as well simply as the natural result of the addition of a new program. In the end, Brandon will be able to staff its program, but it will make it more difficult for all of the programs in Hillsborough County and for Lakeland to meet their staffing needs as well as producing a financial impact on existing providers. Financial Feasibility Short-Term Brandon needs $4.2 million to fund implementation of the program. Its parent corporation, HCA will provide financing of up to $4.5 million for implementation. The $4.2 million in start-up costs projected by Brandon does not include the cost of a second cath lab or the costs to upgrade the equipment in the existing cath lab. Itemization of the funds necessary for improvement of the existing cath lab and the addition of the second cath lab were not included in Brandon's pro formas. It is the Agency's position that addition of a cath lab (and by inference, upgrade to an existing lab) requires only a letter of exemption as projects separate from an open heart surgery program even when proposed in support of the program. (See UCH No. 7, p. 83). The position is not inconsistent with cardiac catheterization programs as subject to requirements in law separate from those to which an open heart surgery program is subject. Brandon, through HCA, has the ability to fund the start-up costs of the project. It is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-Term Open heart surgery programs (inclusive of angioplasty and stent procedures, as well as other open heart surgery procedures) generally are very profitable. They are among the most profitable of programs conducted by hospitals. Brandon's projected charges for open heart, angioplasty, and stent procedures are based on the average charges to patients residing in Brandon's PSA inflated at 2 percent per year. The inflation rate is consistent with HCFA's August 1, 2000, Rule implementing a 2.3 percent Medicare reimbursement increase. Brandon's projected payor mix is reasonably based on the existing open heart, angioplasty, and stent patients within its PSA. Brandon also estimated conservatively that it would collect only 45 to 50 percent of its charges from third-party payors. To determine expenses, Brandon utilized Bayonet Point's accounting system. It provided a level of detail that could not be obtained otherwise. "For patients within Brandon's primary service area, . . . that information is not provided by existing providers in the area that's available for any public consumption." (Tr. 1002). While perhaps the most detailed data available, Bayonet Point data was far from an ideal model for Brandon. Bayonet Point performs about 1,500 OHS cases per year. It achieves economies of scale that will not be achievable at Brandon in the foreseeable future. There is a relationship between volume and cost efficiency. The higher the volume, the greater the cost efficiency. Brandon's volume is projected to be much lower than Bayonet Point's. To make up for the imperfection of use of Bayonet Point as an "expenses" proxy, Brandon's financial expert in opining that the project was feasible in the long-term, considered two factors with regard to expenses. First, it included its projected $1.8 million in salary expenses as a separate line item over and above the salary expenses contained in the Bayonet Point data. (This amounted to a "double" counting of salary expenses.) Second, it recognized HCA's ability to obtain competitive pricing with respect to equipment and services for its affiliated hospitals, Brandon being one of them. Brandon projected utilization of 249 and 279 cases in its second and third year of operations. These projections are reasonable. (See the testimony of Mr. Balsano on rebuttal and Brandon Ex. 74). Comparison of Agency Action in CONs 9169 and 9239 Brandon's application in this case, CON 9239, was filed within a six-month period of the filing of an earlier application, CON 9169. The Agency found the two applications to be similar. Indeed, the facts and circumstances at issue in the two applications other than the updating of the financial and volume numbers are similar. So is the argument made in favor of the applications. Yet, the first application was denied by the Agency while the second received preliminary approval. The difference in the Agency's action taken on the later application (the one with which this case is concerned), i.e., approval, versus the action taken on the earlier, denial, was explained by Scott Hopes, the Chief of the Bureau of Certificate of Need at the time the later application was considered: The [later] Brandon application . . ., which is what we're addressing here today, included more substantial information from providers, both cardiologists, internists, family practitioners and surgeons with specific case examples by patient age [and] other demographics, the diagnoses, outcomes, how delays impacted outcomes, what permanent impact those adverse outcomes left the patient in, where earlier . . . there weren't as many specifics. (Tr. 1536, 1537). A comparison of the application in CON 9169 and the record in this case bears out Mr. Hopes' assessment that there is a significant difference between the two applications. Comparison of the Agency Action with the District 9 Application During the same batching cycle in which CON 9239 was considered, five open heart surgery applications were considered from health care providers in District 9. Unlike Brandon's application, these were all denied. In the District 9 SAAR, the Agency found that transfers are an inherent part of OHS as a tertiary service. The Agency concluded that, "[O]pen heart surgery is a tertiary service and patients are routinely transferred between hospitals for this procedure." (UCH Ex. 7, pp. 51-54). In particular, the Agency recognized Boca Raton's claim that it had provided "extensive discussion of the quality implications of attempting to deal with cardiac emergencies through transfer to other facilities." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 52). Unlike the specific information referred to by Mr. Hopes in his testimony quoted, above, however, the foundation for Boca Raton's argument is a 1999 study published in the periodical Circulation, entitled "Relationship Between Delay in Performing Direct Coronary Angioplasty and Early Clinical Outcomes." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 21). This publication was cited by the Agency in its SAAR on the application in this case. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference remains between this case and the District 9 applications, including Boca Raton's. The application in this case is distinguished by the specific information to which Mr. Hopes alluded in his testimony, quoted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital for open heart surgery, CON 9239. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 North Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Sarah E. Evans, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioners (collectively referred to as "Humana") are entitled to exemptions from the Certificate of Need ("CON") Law, to establish certain services at their facilities, pursuant to Subsection 381.713(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), (a provision which was repealed by Chapter 91-282, Laws of Florida). Whether Intervenors have standing to contest the exemption requests of Humana.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Humhosco, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Brandon (Humana Brandon) in Hillsborough County applied for CON exemption to initiate open heart surgery services. Humhosco, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Northside (Humana Northside) in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, applied for a CON exemption to initiate open heart surgery and inpatient MRI services. Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital St. Petersburg (Humana St. Petersburg), in Pinellas County applied for a CON exemption to establish a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pasco (Humana Pasco) in Dade City, Pasco County, applied for CON exemption to initiate inpatient cardiac catheterization. Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Bennett (Humana Bennett) in Plantation, Broward County applied for a CON exemption for a Level II NICU. Community Hospitals of Humana, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Cypress (Humana Cypress) in Pompano Beach, Broward County applied for CON exemption to perform inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, and for substance abuse and psychiatric beds. Community Hospital of The Palm Beaches, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Palm Beaches (Humana Palm Beaches) in Palm Beach County applied for a CON exemption to perform inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures. Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines (Humana Pembroke) in Broward County applied for CON exemptions for open heart surgery, inpatient cardiac catheterization, Level II NICU, psychiatric and comprehensive rehabilitation beds. Intervenors Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. (Adventist) filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 3, 1991. Florida Hospital Association (FHA) is a trade association of approximately 225 hospitals in the State of Florida. The Association of Voluntary Hospitals of Florida, Inc. (AVHF) is a not-for-profit corporation representing approximately 90 private and public not- for-profit hospitals in the State of Florida. All Children's Hospital (ACH), a 144-bed children's specialty hospital with Level II and Level III NICU beds, is a Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) located in St. Petersburg in HRS District 5 for Pinellas/Pasco Counties. Florida Medical Center, Ltd. (FMC) is a 459-bed acute care hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, at which services include inpatient cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery, and short term psychiatric services. Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC) is an 897-bed acute care hospital, located in Polk County in HRS District 6, with a range of cardiac services, including open heart surgery. Plantation General Hospital (Plantation), a general acute care hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, offers cardiac catheterization and Level II NICU among its procedures and programs. South Broward Hospital District (SBHD), a legislatively-created special taxing district, operates a 737-bed Memorial Hospital in HRS District 10, Broward County, at which its services include open heart surgery, inpatient cardiac catheterization, Level II and III neonatal intensive care, short-term inpatient psychiatric treatment, and inpatient comprehensive rehabilitation. St. Anthony's Hospital is a 434-bed community hospital in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, which is in HRS District 5, and offers inpatient cardiac catheterization. St. Joseph's Hospital is a 649-bed facility in Tampa, Hillsborough County, which is in HRS District 6, and provides inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. St. Mary's Hospital, a 378-bed general, acute-care hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, offers Level II and III NICU, and inpatient cardiac catheterization. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, operates Tampa General Hospital (Tampa General) in HRS District 6, with 1,024 beds and a range of cardiac services, including open heart surgery. University Community Hospital (UCH) is located in HRS District 6, and is an existing provider of open heart surgery. Standing Adventist failed to present evidence of standing. FHA members include all of the petitioners and intervenors in this case. AVHF members include at least one member providing the same service in the same HRS District as the services which the eight Humana hospitals seek to establish by the exemption requests. ACH is an existing provider of Level II NICU in HRS District 5, the same service in the same area as proposed in the exemption request of Humana St. Petersburg. FMC provided 10% of its cardiac services in 1990 to HMP enrollees and is an existing provider of inpatient cardiac catheterization, open heart surgery, and short term psychiatric services in HRS District 10, which are, in part, the subjects of the Humana Cypress and Pembroke exemption requests. At LRMC, from October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990, 163 open heart surgeries, 215 cardiac catheterizations, 22 angioplasties, and 1,434 other cardiology procedures were performed on patients discharged to zip codes included by Humana Brandon in its service area for its exemption request for open heart surgery. Plantation is an existing provider in HRS District 10 of inpatient cardiac catheterization, for which Humana Cypress requested exemption, and Level II NICU, for which Humana Bennett requested exemption, and both of which services are included in the Humana Pembroke exemption request. SBHD estimates the range of patients lost, as a result of approval of the exemption requests of Humana Pembroke and Humana Bennett, at between 25-344 cardiac catheterizations, 58-434 open heart surgeries, up to 232 substance abuse treatments, between 8-352 comprehensive rehabilitations, 25-1933 short-term inpatient psychiatric, and 58-1354 neonatal patients. St. Anthony's provides inpatient cardiac catheterization in St. Petersburg and Southern Pinellas County, the same service in an overlapping service area as proposed in the Humana Pasco exemption request. St. Joseph's service areas for inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery overlap those in the exemption requests of Humana Pasco for cardiac catheterization, and overlap those of Humana Brandon and Humana Northside for open heart surgery. St. Mary's is a Humana Care Plan provider for inpatient cardiac catheterization, in a service area overlapping that proposed for inpatient cardiac catheterization by Humana Palm Beaches, and for NICU at Humana Bennett, since St. Mary's is one of the designated statewide Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Centers. Tampa General is under contract to Humana HMO, PPO and insurance subscribers, and provided 116 open heart surgeries to patients included within the service area of the Humana Brandon exemption request, and projects its loss of gross revenue at $1.5 million from the approval of the Humana Brandon exemption request for open heart surgery. At UCH, which has a service area within the area proposed for open heart surgery at Humana Brandon, twenty open heart surgeries in fical year 1990, and forty open heart surgeries in the first six months of 1991 were performed on HMP enrollees, the latter generating approximately $2 million in gross revenues. Amendment of Applications for Exemption (Costs) The June 1990 Humana exemption requests failed to include the costs of the services proposed, as required by Florida Administrative Code 10- 5.005(2)(a). HRS reviewed the requests, failed to notify Humana of the omission of cost data, and failed to cite the absence of that data as a basis for its decisions. The cost of services is included implicitly within the statutory criterion for review of exemption requests, because cost may be a factor in distinguishing between services which are or are not available by exemption. Tertiary and Inpatient Institutional Health Services or Beds Subsection 381.702(20), Florida Statutes, defining "tertiary health services" was enacted subsequent to the HMO exemption in Subsection 381.713(1), Florida Statutes, without any concurrent, material amendment of the latter. NICU and comprehensive rehabilitation are included in Subsection 381.702(2), Florida Statutes, as examples of tertiary health services. Open heart surgery is included within the definition of tertiary health services in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.002(66). Inpatient cardiac catheterization is an inpatient institutional health service. Short-term inpatient psychiatric and substance abuse services are included in "alcohol treatment, drug abuse treatment and mental health services" as defined in Subsection 381.702(9), Florida Statutes. Because they are within the definition of "health services" but not within the definition of "tertiary services", short-term inpatient pschiatric and substance abuse are also included within the definition of "institutional health services" which may be exempt from CON regulation if all other provisions of the HMO exemption provision are met. Certain inpatient institutional health services, such as substance abuse and psychiatric services are authorized by the issuance of licenses designating the number of approved beds which may be used in offering the service. Need methodology and physical plant requirements are factors which differ in the requirements for services offered in approved licensed beds. The HMO exemption provision encompasses inpatient services provided in licensed bed inventories, in the phrase "inpatient institutional health services." Nature and Control of Facilities Each of the eight Humana hospitals are health care facilities, as defined in Subsection 381.702(7), Florida Statutes. Each of the eight Humana hospitals are licensed acute care hospitals which primarily provide inpatient health services, as required by Subsection 381.713(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1989). Humana Pembroke Humana Pembroke Pines, Inc. was incorporated in December 1989. It acquired the assets of Pembroke Pines General Hospital, pursuant to an asset sale and purchase agreement, the performance of which was guaranteed by Humana, Inc. Humana Medical Plan, Inc. (HMP), an HMO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Group Health Insurance, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. Although HMP acquired 100% of the stock in Humana Pembroke Pines, Inc., documents filed with state and federal agencies, other than HRS and the Department of Insurance, continued to list Humana, Inc. as the insured or controlling entity. Humana first indicated to HRS that the acquisition of Pembroke Pines General Hospital would be made by Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc., with a possible change of ownership to another Humana subsidiary, and subsequently notified HRS that the acquiring subsidiary would be HMP. Based on Humana's notice that the acquisition would not result in a change in beds or services, HRS determined that the acquisition of Pembroke Pines was not reviewable under CON requirements. An internal memorandum dated February 1, 1990, indicates that Humana planned to take advantage of the HMO exemption request prior to the acquisition of Pembroke Pines General Hospital, but did not report its plans to HRS. On March 2, 1990, HRS issued a license to Humana Hospital Pembroke Pines, Inc. There is no evidence to support the assumption that HRS would not have approved the acquisition of Humana Pembroke, or that Humana's plans to utilize the HMO exemption would have invoked CON review of the acquisition and resulted in a denial of the acquisition. Humana Pembroke is controlled directly or indirectly by HMP, the Humana HMO, as required by Subsection 381.713(1)(b)2. Enrollment of 50,000 Individuals Within the Service Area Subsection 381.713(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes, required the enrollment of at least 50,000 enrollees within the HMO's service area. The term "service area" is not used in the statute on CON application review criteria. Rather that statute, in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, uses the term "service district", which is defined in Subsection 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, as the organizational components of HRS. The term "service area" is also not used in Subsection 641.47(3), Florida Statutes; that statute defines the area in which an HMO does business as an approved "geographic area". The HMO service area, under the exemption provision, is the HMO's geographic area, because the requirement in subsection (2), that the HMO have 50,000 enrollees, otherwise would be indistinguishable from the requirement in subsection (3), that the facility's access area have 50,000 enrollees. HMP's appoved service area includes Broward, Dade, Flagler, Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole and Volusia Counties, and approximates 400,000 enrollees. Facility Geographically Located So That Service Is Reasonably Accessible To The 50,000 Enrollees Accessibility standards for various services are established for CON applications by rules. There is no reason to distinguish between the standards used for the determination of accessibility to health services within the CON application process and the standards applicable to making that same determination within the CON exemption request process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)6. establishes a standard of 45 minutes maximum ground travel time under average travel conditions for access to inpatient psychiatric services, which is the equivalent of a 15-mile radius for Humana Pembroke. Humana Pembroke's exemption request, filed in June 1990, as up-dated in July, identified 55,592 enrollees within a 15-mile radius of the hospital. This enrollment data was given by zip code in Attachment 3B for inpatient cardiac catheterization and in Attachment 3D for short term inpatient psychiatric services. 1/ In its September 1990 CON application for inpatient cardiac catheterization, which has the slightly longer travel time of one hour, Humana Pembroke identified a service area with zip codes which would include only 21,375 of the 55,592 enrollees. When compared to enrollment data for the same zip codes in Humana's Exhibit 41, the most recent data available, enrollment in Humana Pembroke's zip codes for inpatient cardiac catheterization services and short term inpatient psychiatric services equals 27,083 HMP members, although one zip code, 33154, does not appear on Exhibit 41. Even accepting Humana's assertion that 321 enrollees reside in zip code 33154, total enrollment would equal 27,404. Humana has failed to demonstrate that Humana Pembroke is geographically located so as to be reasonably accessible to provide either inpatient cardiac catheterization or short term inpatient psychiatric services to 50,000 HMP enrollees. Limitation of Service to HMO Enrollees HRS preliminarily determined that Humana Pembroke's exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization services should be granted but that the service should only be available to HMP members. The text of subsection 381.713(1)(b), Florida Statutes, does not however restrict the provision of services to HMO enrollees, and the fact that a minimum number of enrollees must be in the service area to maximize the utilization of the service by enrollees does not compel such a conclusion. Subsection 381.713(1)(a), Florida Statutes, is a similar exemption provision which requires the enrollment of 50,000 individuals in an HMO's service area and a reasonably accessible facility, but also requires that 75% of reasonably expected patients be HMO enrollees. The Legislature was, therefore, obviously aware of the issue, yet in the applicable subsection failed to include any provision conditioning CON exemption approved upon provision of services only to HMO enrollees. Exemption Requests Based On Voting Trust Agreements Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress requested exemption approval to establish various inpatient institutional health services based on the control of those facilities by HMP by virtue of a voting trust agreement. The license-holder of Humana Pasco, Humana of Florida, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. The license-holder of Humana Palm Beaches, Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. The license-holder of Humana Cypress, Community Hospitals of Humana, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc. On behalf of Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, Humana, Inc., entered into Voting Trust Agreements (Agreements) designating HMP, the Humana HMO, as trustee, but did not report the change of control to state and federal agencies. The Agreements, dated May 29, 1990, have identical substantive provisions. The term of the Agreements is ten years, terminating May 28, 2000, with a provision that Humana, Inc. may not unilaterally terminate the Agreements, although Humana, Inc. subsequently offered to terminate one of the agreements. Each Agreement authorizes HMP to hold and vote the shares of stock of the respective Humana, Inc. subsidiary. Each Agreement obligates HMP to vote the shares in the best interest of Humana, Inc. and the applicable wholly-owned subsidiary. Each Agreement requires HMP to pay over all profits and dividends to Humana, Inc., with all convenient speed. Each Agreement provides that without the consent of Humana, Inc., HMP shall not increase or reclassify capital stock; sell, lease or exchange all or substantially all property or assets; or vote to consolidate, merge, or dissolve the Humana, Inc. subsidiaries. The Agreements provide that the trustee accepts the specified responsibilities, but recite no compensation. The Humana hospitals, including Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, have chief operating officers who are known as executive directors, who report to HMP Vice-Presidents, but the executive directors receive incentive compensation for maximizing hospital utilization, as do all their superiors throughout the chain of command, up to and including the president of Humana Inc. Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress pay management fees to Humana, Inc., as does HMP, and are directly owned by corporate entities which have the same officers and directors as HMP. By virtue of the voting trust agreement, HMP votes the shares of stock in Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress, but no operational changes in the facilities have resulted from the establishment of the voting trust agreements. HMP, as voting trustee, has control of the assets of Humana Pasco, Humana Palm Beaches, and Humana Cypress. HMP is an HMO with in excess of 50,000 enrollees in its service area. See, Findings 60 and 61, above. The standard for determining if a proposed service is geographically accessible for 50,000 enrollees is the same as that established in the rules for CON applications for the same service. See, Findings 62 and 63, above. Humana Pasco. Humana Pasco's exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization asserted that 74,225 HMP enrollees reside within one hour's travel time of the facility. The applicable travel time standard for inpatient cardiac catheterization subject to CON review is one hour, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.032. Areas within a forty-mile radius of Humana Pasco are within one-hour average travel time of the facility. The zip codes for enrollees in the Humana Pasco exemption request are substantially different from those included within its service area in a 1987 CON application and from Hospital Cost Containment Board data on actual utilization of the facility. Humana failed to demonstrate that 50,000 HMP enrollees have geographic accessibility for inpatient cardiac catheterization services to Humana Pasco, based on the applicable travel time standard of one hour. 2/ Humana Palm Beaches. In the June 7, 1990 Humana Palm Beaches' exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization services, Humana asserted that there were 58,268 HMP enrollees within a 40-mile radius, or one-hour average travel time of the facility. In the July 31, 1990 submission of corrected information, Humana's attachment 3a asserts that 50,592 HMP enrollees reside in areas within 45 miles of Humana Palm Beaches. 3/ Humana's Exhibit 41, a computer printout of enrollees for May 1990, demonstrates that the enrollees in the zip codes listed on attachment 3a of the July submission equal 49,894 HMP members. Although not determinative of enrollment in the service area, HMP's reports to the Department of Insurance on enrollment in Palm Beach County and the Hospital Cost Containment Board data on zip codes with greater than 5% actual utilization of Humana Palm Beaches also show fewer than 50,000 enrollees. Humana attempted to assert that its enrollment figures are constantly increasing. Because the number of HMP members is so close to 50,000, that assertion becomes significant. A comparative review of the individual zip code enrollments asserted in Attachment 3A to the Humana Palm Beaches' July submission to those in Humana Exhibit 41 demonstrates that some zip codes lost members, presumably due to changing residential patterns. Therefore, it is impossible to make a general assumption that HMP's growth in membership is evenly distributed across zip codes within an area geographically accessible to a hospital. Humana has failed to establish that 50,000 enrollees have geographic access to Humana Palm Beaches for inpatient cardiac catheterization services using the one-hour travel time standard for CON review. Humana Cypress. Humana asserted that 50,962 HMP enrollees are geographically accessible to Humana Cypress for inpatient cardiac catheterization, or within the one-hour travel time or 15 miles, although its September 1990 CON application for the same service defines an area including approximately half that number. Humana asserted that 68,412 HMP enrollees are geographically accessible to Humana Cypress for inpatient substance abuse and short term inpatient psychiatric services, or within the 45-minute travel time or a 15-mile radius, although its September 1989 CON applications for the same services encompass an area with approximately 41,000 of the enrollees. When zip codes in the exemption requests are compared to Humana's exhibit 41, a computer printout of enrollees for May 1990, 4/ the enrollees in the zip codes submitted in the exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization total 50,581 and those submitted in the exemption requests for inpatient substance abuse and short term inpatient psychiatric services total 67,812. 5/ Humana has established that Humana Cypress is geographically accessible to provide inpatient cardiac catheterization to 50,000 HMP enrollees under the one-hour travel time requirement. Humana has established that Humana Cypress is geographically accessible to 50,000 HMP enrollees under the 45 minute travel time requirement for short term inpatient psychiatric and inpatient substance abuse services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered Dismissing the Petition to Intervene filed by Adventist based on its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Denying the exemption requests of Humana Brandon for open heart surgery, Humana Northside for open heart surgery, Humana St. Petersburg for Level II NICU, and Humana Bennett for Level II NICU, Humana Pembroke for open heart surgery and Level II NICU, because those services are tertiary services, not institutional health services. Denying the exemption request for inpatient cardiac catheterization and short-term inpatient psychiatric services at Humana Pembroke for failure to establish geographic accessibility to 50,000 HMP enrollees. Denying the exemption requests of Humana Pasco and Humana Palm Beaches for failure to establish that 50,000 HMO enrollees have reasonable access to inpatient cardiac catheterization services at these facilities. Granting the exemption request of Humana Cypress for inpatient cardiac catheterization, short term inpatient psychiatric services, and inpatient substance abuse services, without limiting the provision of services to HMP enrollees. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. Eleanor M. Hunter 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 14th day of October, 1991.
The Issue Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care facilities and programs in Florida. It is also the designated state health planning agency. See Subsection 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. For health planning purposes, AHCA District 9 includes Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. See Subsection 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero for additional open heart surgery programs in District 9, for the January 2002, planning horizon. The mathematical need formula in the rule, using the use rate for open heart surgery procedures in the district as applied to the projected population growth, indicated a gross numeric need for 7.9 programs in District 9. After rounding off the decimal and subtracting four, for the number of existing District 9 open heart surgery programs, the formula showed a numerical need for four additional ones. The need number defaulted to zero, however, because one of the existing programs, at Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood), had not reached the required minimum of 350 surgeries a year, or 29 cases a month for 12 months prior to the quarter in which need was published. Having initiated services in March 1999, the Lawnwood program had not been operational for 12 months at the time the applications were filed in October 1999. The other existing providers of adult open heart services in District 9, in addition to Lawnwood, are Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (PBGMC); Columbia/JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership, d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK); and Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Medical Center (Delray). All are intervening parties to this proceeding. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. Despite the publication of zero numeric need, five hospitals in District 9 applied for CONs to establish new adult open heart programs asserting need based on not normal circumstances. Three of those applications are at issue in this case: CON Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); CON Number 9250 by Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and CON Number 9248 by Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH). AHCA initially reviewed and denied all of the applications. After changing its position before the final hearing, AHCA supports the approval of the applications filed by Martin Memorial and BRCH. Martin Memorial Martin Memorial, the only hospital in Martin County, and the only party/applicant not located in Palm Beach County, operates two facilities, a total of 336 beds, on two separate campuses under a single license. The larger hospital, in Stuart, has 236 beds and is located approximately 20 miles south of Lawnwood and 30 miles north of PBGMC. Martin Memorial owns and maintains, at the hospital, its own ambulance service used exclusively for hospital-to-hospital transfers. The drive from Martin Memorial to Lawnwood averages 38 minutes. The drive time to PBGMC averages 48 minutes. By helicopter, it takes 11 or 12 minutes to get from Martin Memorial to PBGMC. The remaining 100 Martin Memorial Hospital beds are located on its southern campus, approximately six miles south of the Stuart facility. Martin Memorial is a private not-for-profit hospital, established in 1939. The parent corporation also operates an ambulatory care center, physician group, billing and collection company, and a foundation. Martin Memorial is applying to operate an open heart program at its Stuart location, where it currently offers cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary, infectious disease, pathology, blood bank, anesthesiology, diagnostic nuclear medicine, and intensive care services. Martin Memorial has a 25-bed telemetry unit, a 14-bed medical intensive care unit, a nine-bed surgical intensive care unit, and a 22-bed progressive care unit, with an identically equipped 16-bed overflow unit used only for high seasonal occupancy, from approximately December to April. If its CON is approved, Martin Memorial will dedicate four surgical intensive care unit beds and six progressive care beds for post-open heart surgery patients. Martin Memorial agreed to condition its CON on the provision of 2.4% of the project's gross revenues for charity care and 2% for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $6.5 million. Martin Memorial intends to affiliate with the University of Florida and its teaching facility, Shands Hospital, to assist in establishing the program and training staff. The cardiovascular surgeon is expected to be a full-time faculty member who will live and work in Martin County. Although initially opposed, AHCA now supports Martin Memorial’s application primarily because (1) it has the largest cardiac catheterization (cath) program at any hospital in this state which does not also provide open heart services; (2) it has a medium size and growing Medicare population, which constitutes the age group most likely to require open heart surgery and related services; (3) Martin County residents now must receive open heart and related services at hospitals outside Martin County, primarily in areas ranging from Palm Beach County south to Dade County; (4) emergency heart attack patients who present at Martin Memorial-Stuart could receive primary angioplasties without transfer; and (5) it is a not-for-profit hospital, while all of the existing open heart providers in the District are for- profit corporate subsidiaries. Of the applicants, Martin Memorial is also located the greatest distance from the existing providers. Bethesda Memorial Bethesda has 362 licensed beds located in Boynton Beach. JFK is nine miles north or an average drive of 18 minutes from Bethesda. Delray is nine miles south or an average drive of 17 minutes from Bethesda. Established in February 1959, Bethesda is a not-for- profit subsidiary of Bethesda Health Care Systems, Inc., which also operates some for-profit subsidiaries, including Bethesda Medical/Surgical Specialists, Bethesda Management Services, and Bethesda Comprehensive Cancer Institute. Bethesda is a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid and Medicare services. The services currently available at Bethesda include obstetrics, Level II and III neonatal intensive care, cardiology, orthopedics, pediatrics, neurological and stroke care, peripheral vascular surgery, wound care, pulmonary and infectious disease care. Bethesda recently eliminated a 20-bed unit for adult psychiatric services, and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. Currently, at Bethesda, the sickest patients are placed in a 10-bed critical care unit. The hospital also operates a 12- bed surgical intensive care unit, an eight-bed medical intensive care unit, and 30 and 25-bed telemetry units. Bethesda was planning to open a 20-bed extension to the telemetry unit, all in private rooms, in January 2002. If an open heart surgery program is established, Bethesda, will add an eight-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit to care post-operatively for the patients. Bethesda offered to condition its CON on the provision of 3% of total open heart surgeries to Medicaid and 3% of total open heart surgeries to indigent patients. Bethesda's estimated total project cost is $4 million, $1.7 million for equipment, and $2.24 for construction. Bethesda will receive assistance from Orlando Regional Medical Center in training personnel and developing protocols for an open heart program. At Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital, the number of open heart cases ranges from 1,300 to 1,600 a year. Bethesda has a contract with a physicians' group to provide a board-certified cardiovascular surgeon to serve as medical director for the open heart program. AHCA’s position is that the Bethesda application is "approvable" but, of the Palm Beach County applicants, less desirable than that of BRCH. By contrast, Bethesda's experts emphasized (1) the absence of any overlap with the Lawnwood market; (2) the greater need for a new program, based on the volume of cases, in Palm Beach County than elsewhere in the District; (3) the size, growth, and age of the population within Bethesda's market area, and (4) the ability of Bethesda to enhance access for underserved groups, particularly Medicaid patients. Boca Raton Community Hospital BRCH is licensed for 394 beds. Located in southern Palm Beach County, close to the Broward County line, BRCH is from eight to nine miles south of Delray and approximately 15 miles north of North Ridge Medical Center (North Ridge), in adjacent Broward County. On average, the drive from BRCH to Delray takes 20 minutes. The drive from BRCH to North Ridge takes about 25 minutes. Founded in the late 1960's, BRCH operates as a not-for- profit corporation. BRCH has a staff of 750 physicians and 1,600 employees. Services at BRCH include cardiology, a 10-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit, hematology, nephrology, pulmonology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and neurology. If approved and issued a CON for adult open heart surgery, BRCH will build a new facility for the program, including two new cath labs, an electrophysiology lab and 12 intensive care beds. In the CON, the estimated construction cost was $16.5 million and the estimated equipment cost was $2.7 million of the $20 million estimated for the total project. BRCH agreed to having conditions on its CON (1) to provide 5% of open heart cases in year two to uninsured patients, (2) to establish an outreach program to increase the utilization of open heart services among the uninsured, and (3) to relinquish the CON if it fails to perform at least 350 open heart surgery procedures a year in any two consecutive years after the end of the second year of operations. AHCA determined that it should change its initial position opposing the approval of the BRCH application to one of approval because of (1) the large Medicare population in the service area; (2) the volume of emergency room heart attack patients; (3) the district out-migration for services primarily to North Ridge; (4) the large, well-developed interventional cardiology program; and (5) the not-for-profit organizational structure. When AHCA decided to support the approval of the BRCH application, it did so, in part, based on erroneous data. The cath lab volume was assumed to be approximately 1,800 caths a year, as compared to the actual volume of 667 caths for the year ending March 2001. Having considered the corrected data, AHCA’s expert described BRCH’s application as significantly less compelling, but still preferable to that of Bethesda. BRCH is the largest hospital in number of beds in Florida which does not have an open heart surgery program. AHCA also responded favorably to identified "cultural" access issues, described as underservice to demographic groups, based on race, gender, and class. BRCH presented a plan to equip a mobile unit to provide diagnostic screenings and primary care in underserved areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulations The parties stipulated that all of the applications met the statutory requirements concerning the application content and filing procedures of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH have a history of providing quality care. See Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). There are no existing outpatient, ambulatory or home care services which can be used as alternatives to inpatient adult open heart and angioplasty services. See Subsection 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial and Bethesda have sufficient available funds for capital and operating expenses required for their proposed open heart surgery programs. See Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial complied with the requirements related to costs and methods of construction, and equipment for the proposed project. Except for the contention that it omitted $1,687,180 in fixed equipment costs and that the proposed construction project is excessively large and expensive, the parties stipulated that BRCH reasonably estimated construction and equipment costs, including costs and methods of energy provision. See Subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties agreed that Subsections 408.035(1)(p), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes, related to nursing home beds, are not at issue at in this proceeding. If Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary, competent nursing and surgical staff, they will meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(3), (4)(b), (4)(c), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Adult open heart surgery services are currently available to District 9 residents within the two-hour travel standard of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), assuring quality as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The parties agreed that if Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary nursing and surgical personnel, their programs would meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(b), (4)(c), (5)(b), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, except that JFK and Lawnwood did not agree that the applicants satisfied the requirements related to cardiovascular surgeons. Martin Memorial will be able to obtain perfusionist services, as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda and BRCH projected reasonable staffing patterns, in their CON schedules 6A, given projected census levels, although the ability to recruit staff and adequacy of projected salaries are at issue. The rule criteria related to pediatric open heart surgery are not applicable to this proceeding. Disputed Statutory and Rule Criteria The following statutory criteria and applicable in this case: Subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (c) - for comparison; (e), (f), (g), (h) - related to funding for BRCH, and related to staff recruitment and salaries; (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) - for Bethesda, and related to the size, scope, and fixed equipment cost for BRCH, (n), and (o); and Subsections 408.035(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The criteria in Rules 59C-1.030, and of Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b) - related to staffing, except as stipulated - are at issue. The parties have also raised the issue of whether AHCA is consistent in applying its agency rules related to open heart cases. The District 9 health plan contains two preferences for open heart applicant hospitals, the first for hospitals with established cardiac cath programs, the second for applicants with a documented commitment to serve patients regardless of their ability to pay or county of residence. All of the applicants have established diagnostic cardiac cath programs and related cardiology services. During the cardiac cath procedure, a catheter is inserted into a cardiac chamber to diagnose heart disease. During a therapeutic cardiac cath procedure, or angioplasty, the catheter with a balloon-tip is inserted into a coronary artery and inflated to open blockages. The latter requires open heart surgery back-up in case a vessel is ruptured and thus, an open heart surgery certificate of need. Martin Memorial operates the largest cardiac cath program at a hospital in Florida which does not also offer open heart surgery. At Martin Memorial, 1,885 inpatient and outpatient caths were performed in 1999, 1,770 in 2000, and 1,286 in the first nine months of 2001. Cardiac caths are only performed at the Stuart facility. Non-invasive cardiology services began in the 1970's at Martin Memorial. A CON to establish the first cardiac cath lab was issued in 1989, and a second, CON-exempt cath lab opened in 1998. Martin Memorial also offers pacemaker implants and peripheral angioplasties to eliminate clots in other areas of the body, for example, in the legs, electrocardiography, echocardiography, stress tests, and cardiac rehabilitation. Neither electrophysiology studies nor defibrillator implants are performed at Martin Memorial. Martin Memorial has an open staff of cardiologists, meaning that its cath lab is available for use by any of the invasive cardiologists on staff. The facilities include two cardiac cath procedure rooms, a control room for the laboratory, a five-bed holding room and a two-bay inpatient recovery area. Bethesda also has an established cardiac cath program with an open staff. Seventeen cathing physicians were listed on the Bethesda roster for the month of March 2001. Of those, five were also the only cardiologists allowed to perform caths at the closed lab at JFK. Some of these cardiologists are permitted to perform emergency angioplasties at Bethesda. Bethesda has, at least, two cardiovascular surgeons on staff. From 1995 to 1998, the volume of cardiac caths at Bethesda increased over 60%, from 133 to 213. For the 12 months ending August 31, 2000, Bethesda cardiologists performed 428 caths. For the 12 months ending September 30, 2001, the cath volume was 506 cases. Currently, cath procedures at Bethesda are performed in one lab with recently upgraded digital equipment. As part of the planned expansion of the hospital, the existing lab will be relocated and a second one added. Permanent pacemakers are implanted at Bethesda, but internal cardioverter defibrillator procedures, electrophysiology, and table studies are not performed. Cardiac cath services, at BRCH, started in 1987. Two cath labs with state-of-the-art digital equipment are used. In the 12 months ending March 31, 2001, there were 667 inpatient and outpatient caths performed at BRCH. Currently, cardiac services at BRCH are the largest source of admissions, approximately 20% of total admissions. The available services include echocardiography, tilt table studies, electrocardiography, stress tests, cardiac wellness and rehabilitation programs, electrophysiology studies, and internal cardioverter defibrillator implants. Each year, one or two "rescue" or salvage angioplasties are performed in extreme, life- threatening circumstances at BRCH. Forty-nine cardiologists are on the closed "invitation-only" medical staff at BRCH, 47 are board-certified and approximately half are invasive cardiologists. The staff also includes seven electrophysiologists, five of whom are board-certified, and seven thoracic surgeons, five of whom perform open heart surgeries at other hospitals. For the first two years of operating an open heart program, BRCH intends to have a closed program, by virtue of an exclusive contract with a single group of cardiovascular surgeons. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - district health plan preference for serving patients regardless of county of residence or ability to pay; and Subsection 408.035 (1)(n) - history of and proposed services to Medicaid and indigent patients Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH will serve patients regardless of residence and, they contend, will enhance access for Medicaid, indigent, charity and/or self-pay patients. Each applicant has offered to care for patients in some of these categories as a condition for CON approval. The proposed conditions, are, for Martin Memorial, 2.4% of total project revenues for charity and 2% of admissions for Medicaid patients. Martin Memorial provides a number of services without charge, including follow-up education to former inpatients to assist them in managing diseases such as asthma, diabetes, congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Obstetric care includes one free home visit by a nurse/midwife to check the health of newborns and mothers. Office space is provided for a free clinic for the "working poor" of Martin County, which receives approximately 10,000 annual visits from a patient base of about 2,000 patients. Over $100,000 a year is provided for an indigent pharmacy program. Combining the outreach services with other charitable contributions, including charity care, Martin Memorial valued "community benefits" at $24 million in 1998, $30.5 million in 2000. When Martin Memorial received an inpatient cardiac cath CON, it agreed to provide a minimum of 2.5% of total cardiac caths to Medicaid patients and 3% to charity care. Due to changes in state regulation, Medicaid and charity care for cardiac caths no longer needs to be reported to the state. That data, representing as it does, the base of patients from which open heart cases will come, is useful in evaluating Martin Memorial's projections. In 1999, seven-tenths of one percent of the patients in Martin Memorial's cath lab were Medicaid and four-tenths of one percent were indigent. In 2000, seven-tenths of one percent were Medicaid and two-tenths of one percent were indigent. Martin's cath lab data indicates that its projected open heart levels of Medicaid and indigent care are not attainable. Bethesda offered a commitment to provide 3% of total open heart cases for Medicaid patients and 3% to indigent patients annually. Historically, Bethesda has cared for a relatively large number of Medicaid, minority, and indigent patients. It is recognized as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid care under the Florida program and of Medicare under the Federal program. The Palm Beach County Health Department provides approximately $1 million a year to Bethesda for charity care. As a percentage of gross revenue, Bethesda provided 8.8% Medicaid and 3.46% charity care in 1999. Approximately 54% of the charity care is attributable to obstetrics and pediatric services. Bethesda's younger patient base and the number of adult open heart Medicaid cases from Bethesda's service area, 2.4% or 7 cases in the year ending September 2000, raise the issue of its ability to generate sufficient cases to meet the proposed commitment. In 1995, 20 of the 36 total resident Medicaid open heart surgeries were performed at the three providers in District 9, Delray, JFK, and PBGMC. In 1999, when Lawnwood began open heart care, the Medicaid volume at the District providers increased to 51 of the 64 total Medicaid resident cases. In 2000, the four programs treated a net number of 56 of 60 resident Medicaid cases. A program at Bethesda also could reasonably be expected to increase the number of Medicaid and charity cases performed in the District, in volume and by reversing outmigration, but the patients must come from a base of patients with cardiac diagnoses. For the year ending September 2000, in Bethesda's service area, 4.9% of cardiac patients were Medicaid and charity patients combined, 1.6% Medicaid and 3.3% charity. Assuming that the same proportions could be maintained for open heart surgeries, Bethesda cannot achieve 3% Medicaid and, although unlikely, has a chance of reaching 3% charity only in the best case scenario. If approved, BRCH commits to providing 5% of total OHS in the second year to uninsured patients and to establish an outreach program to increase utilization by uninsured patients. BRCH has, over the past three and a half years, established outreach programs, which include having nurses and social workers in schools, providing free physical examinations to children who do not have primary care doctors, and performing echocardiograms for high school athletes, equipping police and fire rescue units with portable defibrillators, and operating mobile units for mammography screenings and vans to transport patients to and from their homes for hospital care. A free dental screening program is operated in conjunction with Nova Southeastern University. BRCH also operates a family medical center approximately seven miles west of the hospital. Recently, the Foundation for BRCH purchased, for $1.8 million, a large bus to equip as a mobile clinic. The mobile diagnostic unit is intended to reach uninsured patients to provide primary care and ultimately open heart surgery care to those who might not otherwise be screened, diagnosed and referred. No information was available and no decisions had been made about the staff and equipment, or service areas for use of the van. Because of the lack of more specific plans, it is impossible to determine whether the outreach effort has any reasonable prospects for success in meeting any unmet need. For the years ending June 1996, 1997, and 1998, BRCH provided six-tenths of one percent, and five-tenths of one percent of gross revenues for charity care. In 2000, BRCH provided one-half of one percent for charity care and, in 2001, twenty-seventh hundreds of a percent. The historical levels do not support the proposed commitment of 5% of open heart surgeries for uninsured patients in the second year of the program. Although worded to apply only to the second year, BRCH's President and CEO testified concerning the condition without limiting it to the second year. In Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order (Reformatted), filed on July 5, 2002, the condition is described as follows: 49. As conditions of CON approval, Boca will, beginning in the second year of operation of the program and continuing thereafter, provide a minimum of five percent each year of OHS cases to uninsured patients, and establish an outreach program to locate and provide OHS and cardiology services to uninsured patients in Palm Beach County. (Boca Ex. 3 at Schedule C; Pierce, 1899). Boca reasonably decided to focus on the needs of the uninsured, rather than Medicaid patients, because of the low volume of Medicaid patients who require OHS services. (Pierce, 1902). At BRCH, Medicaid and Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO) care as a percent of total ranged from 1.3% to 1.4% from 1996 through 1998. BRCH projected serving 1.2% to 1.3% open heart Medicaid cases, or four patients in the first year and 1.5% to 1.6%, or seven Medicaid patients in the second year. The projections are consistent with its history although BRCH offered no Medicaid condition. Bethesda and BRCH also claimed not normal circumstances exist in District 9 due to the disparity in open heart care for uninsured and Medicaid patients as compared to the insured. For uninsured residents of Palm Beach County during the twelve months ending June 30, 2000, the use rate was 4.7 per 1000, as compared to 21.8 per 1,000 for insured open heart patients. For angioplasty patients, the insured use rate was 38.2, but the uninsured rate was only 8.9. Assuming that the use rates should not be so different, the discrepancy in access for the uninsured is significant and unfortunate but was not shown to be a not normal circumstance in the health care delivery system. The applicants' proposals, unlikely as they are to meet even the proposed conditions, are inadequate to increase access materially for the uninsured. Comparisons of the level of Medicaid provided statewide to that provided in District 9 without consideration of other factors, including age and income levels, were not useful in analyzing access. Assertions that any discrepancy in care for potential Medicaid open heart patients constitutes a not normal circumstance are not substantiated by this evidence. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (2)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing facilities in District Nine In 2006, the population in District 9 is projected to reach 1.2 million people, of which approximately 992,378 will reside in Palm Beach County, 119,573 in Martin County, 181,406 in St. Lucie County, 106,790 in Indian River County, and 31,140 in Okeechobee County. In District 9, throughout Florida, and in the United States, heart disease is the leading cause of death. In 2000, heart disease was the cause in 522 of 1,560 total deaths in Martin County, and 4,337 of 12,795 total deaths in Palm Beach County. From 1995 to 2000, the number of Florida residents having open heart surgeries increased 15.1%. During the same period of time, the number of District 9 resident cases, regardless of where the surgeries were performed, increased from 3,119, to 3,938, an increase of 755 OHS cases, or 24%. Palm Beach County residents represented 427 of the 755 increase, and 2,633 of the total of 3,938 resident cases. The distribution of the remaining 1,305 District resident cases by county was as follows: 597 from St. Lucie, 339 from Martin, 269 from Indian River, and 100 from Okeechobee County. More recent data, however, indicates trends towards a leveling off or even decline in the number, but an increase in the complexity of open heart procedures. Some experts describe open heart volumes having reached a "plateau" in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. Last year, the number of open heart surgeries in the United States declined 22%. The statewide volume of cases was 32,199 in 1996, 33,507 in 1997, 34,013 in 1998, and 32,097 in 1999. At District 9 hospitals, open heart volumes were 1,670 in 1994, 1,841 in 1995, 2,152 in 1996, 2,407 in 1997, 2,527 in 1998, 2,656 in 1999, and 2,650 in 2000. Cardiac Catheterizations and Angioplasties The major reason given for the stable and declining open heart volume is the increase in the utilization of angioplasty, or therapeutic cardiac cathing, an alternative which costs less and is less invasive. Angioplasty procedures increased from 1995-2000, by over 2,500 cases for District 9 residents, and over 2,600 cases in District 9 hospitals, from 2,104 cases in 1995, to 4,714 in 2000. Among the procedures generally referred to as angioplasties are percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTCA) or balloon angioplasty, percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA), and the insertion of scaffolding- like devices, called stents, to prevent re-occlusion of coronary arteries. In Florida, diagnostic cardiac caths may be performed at facilities which do not have angioplasty and open heart surgery programs, but angioplasties must be performed, except in rare emergency circumstances, only at hospitals which are licensed to provide open heart services, in case back-up surgery is needed. Lawnwood Regional Lawnwood is located in Fort Pierce, in St. Lucie County, which is second to Palm Beach County in population and in District 9 resident open heart cases. Lawnwood is owned by a subsidiary of HCA, the Hospital Corporation of America, formerly known as Columbia. HCA is a for-profit, investor-owned corporation which owns and operates approximately 200 hospitals in the United States. A $17 million addition at Lawnwood, designed for the open heart program, includes two dedicated operating rooms and a 12-bed intensive care unit. The Lawnwood program has a full-time staff of two surgeons and one additional surgeon who divides his time between Lawnwood and PBGMC. Lawnwood, having opened its program early in 1999, is not considered a mature program. In addition, Lawnwood has had some difficulties with accreditation and disputes with cardiologists. Lawnwood reported one open heart case in the first quarter of 1999, and 143 or 144 for the year. In calendar year 2000, between 330 to 340 open heart surgeries were performed at Lawnwood. In calendar year 2001, the volume was between 333 and 336 cases. Depending on the source of the data, the volume at Lawnwood was reported to be as high as 364 for the twelve months ending September 30, 2000; in a range from 336 to 396 for the twelve months ending March 31, 2001; and up to 412 for the twelve months ending July 2001. The variances result from seasonal patient utilization, and from AHCA’s use, for the fixed need pool, of the most current available data which it receives from the various local health councils. That data is submitted on handwritten or typed forms which are not uniform across districts. Subsequently, the hospitals provide electronic data tapes directly to AHCA, which if properly decoded, should provide more accurate statistics. While there may be variances either way, in this case, the lower volumes for Lawnwood were derived from the more reliable electronic tapes. Based on that data and the testimony of the cardiac surgeon who is the director of the program at Lawnwood, the annual volume of open heart surgeries was approximately 330 in 2000, and 348 in 2001. The new rule, adopted on January 24, 2002, reduces the minimum number required for existing programs to 300 a year, or 25 adult operations a month. The number of angioplasties performed at Lawnwood increased from 465 in 1999, to 845 in 2000. Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center South of the four relatively small northern counties in District 9, PBGMC has 204 beds located in northern Palm Beach County. It is a subsidiary of Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals (Tenet). Adult open heart surgery has been available at PBGMC since 1983. The surgeries are typically performed in two or three of the 11 operating rooms, although five are equipped to handle open heart cases. PBGMC has 94 telemetry beds, and 32 intensive care beds, eight designated for cardiovascular intensive care patients. PBGMC has four cardiac cath labs and separate electrophysiology labs. The medical staff of approximately 400 physicians includes about 200 cardiologists, 24 invasive cardiologists and seven cardiac surgeons. The number of open heart cases at PBGMC was 700 in 1994, 801 in 1995, 913 in 1996, 1,028 in 1997, 1,045 in 1998, 1,124 in 1999, 940 in 2000, and 871 in 2001. The number of angioplasties increased from 552 in 1994, to 1,019 in 1997, to 1,431 in 2000. JFK JFK, which has 387 beds, is located roughly in the center of Palm Beach County, in the City of Lake Worth. Like Lawnwood, JFK is an HCA's subsidiary, having been purchased by that corporation in 1995. Open heart services and cardiac cath services began simultaneously at JFK in 1987. JFK has three open heart operating rooms. JFK, after a major expansion, has a separate entrance to its three cardiac cath laboratories, a dedicated electrophysiology suite, for treatment of arrhythmias, and 17- patient holding area. JFK provides all cardiac services, except heart transplants. The average age of patients at JFK is 74 years old. The medical staff of 504 board-certified or board- eligible physicians includes 25 cardiologists, five invasive cardiologists, two electrophysiologists, and three cardiac surgeons. JFK has recently accepted applications from but not yet extended privileges to three additional cardiovascular surgeons. Volumes of open heart cases at JFK were, with some variances depending on the data source, approximately 428 in 1994, 434 in 1995, 630 in 1996, 674 in 1997, 711 in 1998, 613 in 1999, 621 in 2000, and 610 in 2001. The number of angioplasties ranged from 709 in 1994, to 1,152 in 1997, to 1,281 in 2000. Delray Delray, with 343 beds, in Delray Beach, is the trauma center for southern Palm Beach County. Open heart care began at Delray in 1986. The surgeries are currently performed in three of ten, but soon to be a total of twelve operating rooms with shelled-in spaces set aside for two more. Patients recover in a 15-bed surgical intensive care unit. The Delray medical staff of over 600 physicians has close to 60 cardiologists, including 15 invasive cardiologists and six cardiovascular surgeons. Delray has three cath lab rooms and seven bays for holding patients pre- and post-procedure. For the years 1994 through 2001, open heart volumes at Delray were 542, 606, 609, 705, 771, 758, 759, and 738, respectively. During the same period of time, the annual number of angioplasty procedures increased from 591 in 1994, to 810 in 1997, to 929 in 2000. The existing CON-planned and approved programs in the District are well distributed geographically and allocated appropriately based on population. Considering the declining utilization, the like and existing open heart surgery programs are available and accessible. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - services that are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas Over 30% of District 9 resident open heart cases are performed in other districts, the vast majority at North Ridge in District 10 (Broward County). The district outmigration for a service when excessive or difficult can indicate access or quality concerns and constitute a not normal circumstance for approval of a new program. In this case, with adequate available services in District 9 and its close proximity, the outmigration to North Ridge, which is 15 miles or 25 minutes from BRCH is not a not normal circumstance. There is also substantial overlap in the medical staff at both hospitals which allows continuity of care for patients despite transfers. The argument that families, particularly an older spouse, will necessarily have to drive farther to visit the patient is rejected, since that depends on where in the district the person resides not on the distances between hospitals. North Ridge has 391 licensed beds, with 260 to 270 acute care beds in use. At North Ridge, cardiovascular surgeons usually use three OHS operating rooms, although a fourth is also available. Open heart patients recover in a six-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. The reported volumes of open hearts at North Ridge have been from 1994 through 2001, respectively, 864, 935, 893, 826, 882, 890, 905, and 795. The total number of open heart cases in District 10 has been declining since 1998. The volume of angioplasties at North Ridge increased from 793 in 1994, to 829 in 1997, to 1,155 in 2000, consistent with a rising District 10 use rate from 2.95 to 3.66 over the same period of time. The staff at North Ridge includes 107 cardiologists, 27 interventional cardiologists, and 17 cardiovascular surgeons, many of whom also regularly perform open heart surgeries at Holy Cross, which is approximately a mile south of North Ridge in Fort Lauderdale. At Holy Cross, which also has established referral networks from District 9, open heart volumes declined from a high of 753 in 1998 to 693 in 2000. All of the open heart services proposed by the applicants are reasonably available in adjoining areas, in Districts 10 and 11 to the south and in the other districts to the north. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - comparisons of quality; and Subsection 408.035(1)(e) - joint, cooperative or shared resources; and Subsection 408.035(1)(g), (h), and (k) - need for research, educational and training programs or facilities for medical and health care professionals; and Subsection 408.035(1)(h) and Rule 59C-1.033 - recruitment, training and salaries for staff The parties stipulated that the applicants have a history of providing quality care. Martin Memorial was accredited with commendation by the JCAHO in 1997, which is now called accreditation without Type I Recommendations. That was followed, in July 2001, with a score of 93 on survey items with some follow-up improvements required related to patient assessment and nutrition. Martin Memorial offers internships, and residencies for training non-physician medical personnel from Barry University, Indian River Community College, and Florida Atlantic University. The cancer center at Martin Memorial is affiliated with the Moffitt Center. Despite the absence of an open heart program, Martin Memorial has participated in clinical trials of cardiac drugs. The Shands Healthcare System of nine affiliated hospitals, including two research and teaching hospitals, is the model for the relationship proposed with Martin Memorial. The partnerships are intended to upgrade the care available in community hospitals and to establish, for complex cases, referral networks for the Shands teaching hospitals. Shands has already satisfied itself that Martin Memorial meets its due diligence test for the quality of its existing program and philosophical compatibility. If Martin Memorial's CON is approved, Shands will assist in training staff for the program. Initially, the program will have one cardiovascular surgeon, a University of Florida medical school faculty member, in Martin County. When that surgeon is ill or on vacation, others from the University of Florida will be available. The logistics of the plan raises questions about the adequacy of coverage to meet the 24-hour requirements of Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. In the JCAHO survey process, Bethesda received a score of 97, as a result of its survey in June 2000, and was accredited for the maximum allowable time, three years. Personnel for a Bethesda program can be appropriately trained at Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital with a high volume open heart program. In June 2000, BRCH received a JCAHO score of 96. BRCH maintains a scholarship program for new nurses making a two-year commitment, and an on-site educational department with a preceptorship for training operating room and emergency room nurses. Nursing students from Florida Atlantic University (FAU), which is located across Glades Road from BRCH, rotate at BRCH. FAU is in the process of establishing a medical school. There is a severe shortage of nurses in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. All of the hospitals in District 9 have resorted to highly competitive and innovative recruitment and retention strategies, including international recruiting, signing bonuses, child care and, of course, rising salaries and benefits. The demand is greater and shortages more severe in highly specialized areas, such as critical care, telemetry and open heart surgery nursing. The average age of nurses has also increased to 46 or 47 years old, while enrollment in nursing schools and the number of nursing school professors have declined. All of the applicants concede that recruiting and retaining nurses for new open heart program will be a challenge. The likely results are a loss of experienced nurses from existing programs, an increase in total health care costs, an increase in vacancies, and, at least temporarily a decline in the quality of experienced nursing care in existing open heart programs. At this time, there is no evidence that declining open heart utilization will eventually alleviate the shortage of experienced nurses. It has, so far, only eased the need to resort as frequently to other extreme and expensive alternatives, including pay overtime, contracting with private agencies, and bringing in traveling nurses. Subsection 408.035(1)(m) - size, scope and fixed equipment cost at BRCH; Subsection 408.035(2)(c) - alternatives to new construction; and Subsection 408.035(1) (h) - funding for BRCH BRCH plans to construct a 74,000 square-foot cardiac care facility, which will include two open heart operating rooms and two cardiac cath labs, an electrophysiology lab, 12 cardiovascular intensive care beds, and 18 cardiac cath lab bays. Only 18,568 square feet are attributable to the open heart operating rooms and cardiovascular intensive care unit which compares favorably with Bethesda's estimate of 17,759 square feet for the same functions. It is not possible, therefore, to conclude that the size of the BRCH project is excessive as compared to that proposed by Bethesda. BRCH underestimated the cost for fixed equipment for the open heart project by approximately $1.6 million. That omission resulted in understated estimates of depreciation by approximately $275,000. The total project cost for BRCH is approximately $2.2 million when almost $2 million in omitted equipment costs is added to the original estimate of $20 million. All pending capital projects, as shown on Schedule 2 of the BRCH application, total $54 million. With combined cash and investments of $160 million, the BRCH foundation has sufficient funds for the hospital's projects. Although BRCH earned profits of $6.6 million and $7.3 million in 1998 and 1999, respectively, the hospital lost $30 million from operations due to billing and collection errors in 2000. BRCH has a donor who has stated a willingness to donate $20 million for the cardiac care center. BRCH has the funds necessary to build the facility. With Medicare capital cost reimbursement completely phased out, there is insufficient evidence of a direct impact on health care costs based on this proposed capital expenditure. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - short and long term financial feasibility Martin Memorial initially projected that its program would perform 360 open heart surgeries in year one and 405 in year two. As a result of changes in the use rate, Martin Memorial lowered its second year projection to 375 surgeries while increasing staffing levels. Even if projected open heart surgery revenues of $264,000 in the second year decline in proportion to expected lower utilization, estimated angioplasty revenues of $468,000, are sufficient to make up the deficit and to keep the combined program financially feasible in the short and long term. Bethesda projected volumes of 165 open heart surgeries in the first year and 270 in the second year. Assuming Bethesda's revenues are 90% of the district average, the combined net profit for open heart and angioplasty services is reasonably expected to be approximately $750,000 in the second year operations. The project is profitable, therefore, financially feasible in the short and long term. BRCH's expert projected volumes of 308 open heart surgeries and 289 angioplasties in the first year, and 451 open heart surgeries and 422 angioplasties in the second year. If utilization projections are correct, then BRCH will receive incremental net income of $1.6 million from the open heart surgery program and $825,000 from the angioplasty services. Factoring in claims that the Medicare case weight was overstated and depreciation underestimated, the BRCH project is, nevertheless, financially feasible for the short and long term. Typically, any open heart surgery program that can reach volumes in the range of 200 to 250 cases, will be financially feasible. The establishment of an open heart program also has a "halo effect," for the hospital, attracting more patients to the cardiac cath labs and other related cardiology services. Open heart surgery and angioplasty tend to be profitable, generating revenue which hospitals use to offset losses from other services. Subsection 408.035(1)(j) - needs of HMOs All of the applicants will enter into contracts with, but none is a health maintenance organization. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact of fostering competition to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness Hospitals with higher volumes of open heart surgeries and angioplasties usually have higher quality as measured by lower mortality rates and fewer complications. The open heart surgery rule, in effect at the time the applications were filed, established a minimum volume of 350 annual admissions for existing providers. In the rule as amended on January 24, 2002, the minimum volume for existing programs was reduced to 300. The divisor in the formula for determining need, which represents the average size of a program in the district, was 350 prior to amendment and 500 subsequently. The minimum and average volumes in the rule set, in effect, the protected range for existing programs, not the optimal size, or "cut point" at which outcomes are worse below and better above. According to the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) the evidence is clear that outcomes are better if an individual performs at least 75 procedures at a high volume center with more than 400 cases. The ACC/AHA guidelines indicate, although more controversial and less clearly established, that acceptable outcomes may be achieved if the individual operator performs at least 75 procedures in centers with volumes from 200 to 400 cases. Because the relationship between higher volumes and better outcomes is continuous and linear, and because research showing the benefits of primary angioplasty with or without open heart surgery back-up is preliminary and limited, the position of the ACC/AHA is, in summary, as follows: The proliferation of small angioplasty or small surgical programs to support such angioplasty programs is strongly discouraged. (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 37, no. 8 June 15, 2001, pp. 2239xvii (Tenet Exhibit 5)) An open heart program at Martin Memorial will redirect cases that would otherwise have gone to Lawnwood, PBGMC, and JFK. The proposed Martin Memorial Service area overlaps that of Lawnwood in southern St. Lucie County, an area which generates one quarter of the open heart cases at Lawnwood. Lawnwood is reasonably expected to lose 56 open heart cases a year with total volume going down below 300, resulting in loss of $1.8 million, or 20% of its total revenues. Lawnwood would have unacceptably low volumes threatening the quality of the open heart program. PBGMC, as a result of a new program at Martin Memorial, will lose approximately 170 and 180 open heart cases annually and an equal number of angioplasties reducing its open heart volume to approximately 700 a year. The financial loss would range from $4 to $5 million a year, as compared to total net income which was between $20 and $30 million a year for past three years. PBGMC would not suffer an adverse impact sufficient to threaten either the quality or the financial feasibility of the open heart program or total hospital operations. JFK, which currently receives most of the angioplasty referrals from Martin Memorial, is expected to lose from 25 to 30 open heart cases, and 65 to 70 angioplasties each year during the first two years of a Martin Memorial program. The estimated financial loss to JFK is $1.7 million, a significant detriment when compared to $2.8 million in net income from operations in calendar year 2000. Approval of open heart program at Bethesda will adversely affect case volumes at JFK and Delray. Bethesda projected that, in its first year, 75% of its cases would have gone to Delray and 25% to JFK, and that by the third year, the split would be even at 50% from Delray and 50% from JFK. JFK, depending on the approach to the impact analysis, will lose from 40 to 60 open heart cases in the first year, from 90 to 110 in the second year, and from 115 to 170 in the third year of a program at Bethesda. The volumes of lost angioplasties is expected to be slightly higher. The resulting combined open heart and angioplasty financial loss is $6.6 million, far greater than the significant detriment expected from a Martin Memorial program alone. The annual volume of open heart cases at JFK would be approximately 400 to 500, assuming flat not continued declining utilization. If Bethesda offered the service, Delray's open heart volumes would decline by 124 cases in the first year and by 248 cases in the third year of operations, decreasing total volume to 500 or 600 annual surgeries. Delray had a net income from operations of approximately $24.7 million in 2000, which would indicate that neither quality nor financial stability would be significantly adversely affected. If an open heart program is approved for BRCH, the volumes of cases at Delray and North Ridge will decline. Delray would be expected to lose 163 open heart cases and 235 in years one and two, respectively, and equal numbers of caths and angioplasties, resulting in annual open heart cases reduced from the low 700s to approximately 500 cases. Delray's pre-tax revenue was $39 million in 2001. In terms of quality and financial stability, Delray can withstand the adverse impact of a new program at BRCH. North Ridge would lose approximately 124 open heart cases in year one and 178 in year two, and similar numbers of caths, reducing open heart volumes from the upper 700s to approximately 600 annual cases. North Ridge's pre-tax income was $21 million for the year ending May 31, 2001. It appears that North Ridge could, even with the adverse impact of BRCH, maintain a quality, financially viable open heart program. Subsection 408.035(l) - probable impact on costs The applicants, all not-for-profit corporations, contend that the fact that District 9 has only for-profit open heart hospitals affects charges and is a not normal circumstance for the approval of one or more not-for-profit. District 9 is the only district in Florida in which all open heart providers are for-profit corporations. Statewide, not-for-profit open heart hospitals charge 31% less than for-profit. Martin Memorial's CON proposal includes a charge structure below that at existing programs. Bethesda's planned charges are 10% less than the District 9 average for open heart and angioplasty services. BRCH is the applicant which is most likely to increase competition in District 9, based on the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI's measurement of competition in a market used by economists frequently to analyze anti-trust issues. Charges are not a factor in up to 75% of open heart/angioplasty cases reimbursed by payors, such as Medicare, at set flat rates. In approximately 10% of cases, including complex "outlier" cases exceeding the range for flat rate reimbursement and for other payors on a percent-of-charges basis, charges are not irrelevant. But, the evidence to demonstrate lower charges were applicable to patients of the same severity was questionable. Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care There is insufficient evidence the any applicant is preferable based on its ability to promote a continuum of care in a multilevel system. Subsection 408.035(2)(a) - alternatives to inpatient services There are no alternatives to inpatient services for open heart surgery and angioplasty patients. Subsection 408.035(2)(d) - patients who will experience serious problems in the absence of the proposed new service The applicants and AHCA determined that new open heart surgery programs are needed mainly to provide emergency or "primary" angioplasty to patients suffering heart attacks (acute myocardial infections). Primary angioplasty is an alternative to "clot busting" medications, or thrombolytics, and to open heart surgery. Performed on an emergency basis, the three different treatments are used to restore blood flow before heart muscle dies. Because "time is muscle," patients benefit only if treated within a relatively short time after the onset of symptoms. The goal is 90 minutes from door-to-balloon for angioplasty. The decision to treat a patient with a particular therapy is based on a number of factors assessed during triage. Paramedics in consultation with ER doctors at the receiving hospital frequently begin triage and administering medications and oxygen in ambulances equipped with sophisticated diagnostic equipment. As the statistical data demonstrates, angioplasty, whether scheduled or emergency, is increasingly becoming the preferred therapy. Some studies have shown improved outcomes, higher survival rates and fewer complications, from primary angioplasty as compared to thrombolytics. Comparisons have not been made over extended periods of time, and the apparent benefits of angioplasty have not been duplicated in community hospitals as compared to clinical trials in high volume research centers. Estimates of the number of people who could benefit from the availability of angioplasty services at the applicants vary based on the number of elderly in the service area, the number of non-traumatic chest pain ER visits, delays in transfers of emergency patients, and the number of patients being transferred to existing providers for angioplasties or open heart surgeries. Martin Memorial selected five patients as examples of those who could be served in an open heart program at Martin Memorial. The anecdotal evidence of transfer "delays" is insufficient to demonstrate bed unavailability or capacity constraints. Martin Memorial-Stuart and Martin Memorial South transferred 240 heart attack patients to open heart surgery hospitals. Only 18 of the emergency heart attack patients who presented at the Martin Memorial ER were transferred from the ER. Approximately ten patients a year are so unstable that an intra- aortic balloon pump is required during transfer. Martin Memorial presented evidence of delays of two hours or more in transfers of 84 patients from its cath labs to open heart surgery hospitals. The transfer records, created for subsequent certificate of need litigation, were of questionable probative value. The case studies were inadequate to establish whether "delays" were reasonable or not. Factors such as physician consultation time, time to stabilize a patient for transfer and the assumed travel time seem to have been included in the time periods. Bethesda transferred 270 patients for cardiac care from October 1999 through September 2000. Thirty patients were transferred, from November 2000 to July 2001, for angioplasties or open heart surgery after having cardiac caths at Bethesda. Bethesda failed to establish that transfers were delayed due to capacity problems at existing hospitals because emergency patients were not classified separately, and the causes of the time lapses were not identified. Of the applicants, BRCH has the busiest ER, with 50,000 to 52,000 annual visits compared to approximately 48,000 at the two Martin Memorial locations combined. BRCH admitted 439 heart attack patients through its ER during the year ending June 30, 2000. The majority of patients are treated with thrombolytics at BRCH. BRCH transfers approximately one emergency heart attack patient a week on average, or from 30 to 50 a year, for interventional cardiac procedures. BRCH's presentation of evidence of delays in transfers was flawed. The data was collected and used only for litigation, and was incomplete. Some patient records were lost and others were deleted due to inaccurate data. Of the applicants, BRCH is located in an area with the largest percentage of the population age 65 and older, approximately 35%, as compared to 24% in Martin Memorial's service area. Agency Consistency Martin Memorial, through expert witness testimony, compared its situation to that of Brandon, a hospital in AHCA District 6, which was issued an open heart surgery CON in 2001. The expert noted that Martin Memorial and Brandon are both in five county health planning districts, and that they are 19 and from 15 to 17 miles, respectively, from the nearest open heart provider. Three of the counties in District 6 have open heart programs, including Hillsborough County where Brandon is located, as compared to two District 9 counties, St. Lucie and Palm Beach, but not Martin. The Martin Memorial primary service area projected population is 238,861 for 2004, 24.1% aged 65 and older. The Brandon service area population projection is 309,000 for 2004, with 10.5% aged 65 and older. Brandon has 255 beds, Martin Memorial-Stuart has 236. Brandon had 53,000 emergency room visits, and Martin Memorial, at both locations, had 48,503 in 1999. Before defaulting to zero, the numerical formula yielded a need for 3.27 additional open heart programs in District 6 as compared to 3.9 in District 9. Other specific comparisons favorable to Martin Memorial included the number of heart attack patients presenting at its ER, cath lab volumes, patient transfers for open heart and angioplasty procedures. Among others, there are several significant distinguishing facts in Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 00-0481CON, (R.O. Mar. 30, 3001, F.O. Oct. 17, 2001) aff'd per curiam sub nom, University Community Hospital v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 1DO1-3592, et al. (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 19, 2002), the Brandon case. In that case, the two existing providers performing fewer than 350 cases a year, Blake Medical Center, and Manatee Memorial Hospital, both in Manatee County, were mature programs located 40 miles from Brandon with no service area overlap. By contrast, Lawnwood which is not a mature program and, therefore, has not reached its potential volume, is 20 miles from Martin Memorial, and has an overlapping service area. Martin Memorial's ER volume and the number of transfers from its ERs are the combined experience from two locations. The more accurate comparison is 27,000 ER visits at Martin Memorial-Stuart to 53,000 at Brandon. Emergency heart attack patients presenting at Martin Memorial South would continue to require transfers for primary angioplasty. Finally, the decision in Brandon was based, in large part, on transportation difficulties, inadequate interfacility ambulances and traffic congestion, which are not factors in District 9. Factually, the case of Halifax Hospital Medical Center, d/b/a Halifax Medical Center v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al., Case No. 95-0742 (AHCA Jan. 14, 1997) is also distinguishable. The applicant could have no effect on the low volume providers located 80 miles to the north. That was one not normal circumstance. Need existed because of another not normal circumstance, i.e., capacity constraints at the only other provider in the same primary service area. In Oak Hill Hospital v. AHCA, Case No. 00-3216CON (R.O. Oct. 4, 2001, F.O. Jan. 22, 2002), appeal dismissed sub nom Hernando HMA, Inc. v. HCA Services of Florida, Inc., Case No. 1DO2-854 (Fla. 1st DCA June 6, 2002), the two approved applicants were in separate counties which constituted entirely separate health care markets. Neither applicant would adversely affect the low volume providers. After the Administrative Law Judge recommended approval of the Citrus County applicant, AHCA, engaging in what appears to be a comparative review of the two remaining applicants from Hernando County, approved a second applicant from the same district at the same time. Some facts are similar to those in this case: The average drive time between hospitals was 30 minutes; transfers and admissions procedures required additional time; there was a recognition of increasing preferences for reperfusion of heart muscle using primary angioplasty; patients and families experience stress and anxiety as a result of transfers. Institution-specific issues included the transfer of 600 cardiac patients by ambulance from Oak Hill, the size of the cardiology and cardiac cath programs (1,641 caths in 1999), the larger elderly population in the service area, and the hospital's size.
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 denying Certificate of Need Application Number 9248 filed by BRCH, Certificate of Need Application Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial, and Certificate of Need Application Number 9250 filed by Bethesda. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 11th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310K St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 W. David Watkins, Esquire R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire Watkins & Caleen, P.A. 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Post Office Box 15828 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828 H. Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Amundsen, Moore & Torpy, P.A. 502 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Law Firm of Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter ALL CHILDREN'S), is a medical facility located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which provides pediatric hospital care. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need in accordance with the statewide and district health plans. Intervenor, BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER (BAYFRONT), is an acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT are located adjacent to each other and are connected by a thirty-yard tunnel. In 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S began operation of a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. ALL CHILDREN'S pediatric cardiac catheterization program existed prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to provide such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S cardiac catheterization program. Since 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S has expended at least $500,000 on upgrading the cardiac catheterization program. Since 1970, ALL CHILDREN'S has operated a pediatric open heart surgery program. ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program existed prior to the statutory requirement for issuance of a certificate of need to perform such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program. By letter dated May 13, 1974, HRS specifically advised ALL CHILDREN'S that modifications to the ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program were not subject to agency approval. In May of 1973, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT entered into a shared service agreement to provide adult cardiac catheterization services. In accordance with the shared service agreement, the actual catheterizations are performed in the physical plant of ALL CHILDREN'S and with equipment located on the ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult cardiac catheterization shared service program by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. Beginning in 1975, BAYFRONT has also provided adult open heart surgery services through a joint program with ALL CHILDREN'S with the actual surgeries being performed at the physical plant on ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult open heart surgery shared service by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. The shared service agreement between ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT to provide adult cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services was in existence prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to perform such services. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need to provide such services. The cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program operated by ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT was "grandfathered" in because the program existed prior to the certificate of need requirement. Because no certificate of need was issued to ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT for its shared adult cardiac service program, no conditions have been imposed by AHCA on the operation of the program. "Conditions" placed on certificates of need are important predicates to agency approval and typically regulate specific issues relating to the operation of the program and the provision of the service such as access, location, and provision of the service to Medicaid recipients. The ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT cardiac shared services program is the only "grandfathered in" shared service arrangement in Florida, and is the only shared service arrangement operating without a certificate of need in Florida. An open heart surgery program is shared by Marion Community Hospital and Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. The Marion/Munroe program operates pursuant to a certificate of need issued by AHCA. On December 22, 1995, AHCA published a notice of its intent to approve a certificate of need for a shared pediatric cardiac catheterization program between Baptist Hospital and University Medical Center in Duval County, Florida. BAYFRONT has applied for, but has not yet been issued, a certificate of need to perform cardiac catheterization services independent of the shared services arrangement with ALL CHILDREN'S. The agency receives hundreds of inquiries each year requesting information and guidance from health care providers regarding the certificate of need application process and other requirements of the certificate of need program. On more than one occasion ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT have inquired either orally or in letters to the agency regarding whether certain changes in their adult cardiac shared services program would require agency approval through a certificate of need application. In response to a 1990 written inquiry from ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT regarding modifications to the shared services agreement, the agency (then HRS) by letter dated September 18, 1990, stated in pertinent part that "the alterations you propose still constitute shared services." The agency response went on to state that it is therefore "...determined that they (the proposed changes) have not altered the original intent." On January 31, 1991, Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code, governing shared service arrangements in project-specific certificate of need applications was promulgated. The rule provides: Shared service arrangement: Any application for a project involving a shared service arrangement is subject to a batched review where the health service being proposed is not currently provided by any of the applicants or an expedited review where the health service being proposed is currently provided by one of the applicants. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: Each applicant jointly applying for a new health service must be a party to a formal written legal agreement. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service will authorize the applicants to provide the new health service as specified in the original application. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service shall not be construed as entitling each applicant to independently offer the new health service. Authority for any party to offer the service exists only as long as the parties participate in the provision of the shared service. Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termina- tion of service. If termination is approved by the agency, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. All applicable statutory and rule criteria are met. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: A shared services contract occurs when two or more providers enter into a contractual arrangement to jointly offer an existing or approved health care service. A shared services contract must be written and legal in nature. These include legal partnerships, contractual agreements, recognition of the provision of a shared service by a governmental payor, or a similar documented arrangement. Each of the parties to the shared services contract must contribute something to the agreement including but not limited to facilities, equipment, patients, management or funding. For the duration of a shared services contract, none of the entities involved has the right or authority to offer the service in the absence of the contractual arrangement except the entity which originally was authorized to provide the service. A shared services contract is not transferable. New parties to the original agreement constitute a new contract and require a new Certificate of Need. A shared services contract may encom- pass any existing or approved health care service. The following items will be evaluated in reviewing shared services contracts: The demonstrated savings in capital equipment and related expenditures; The health system impact of sharing services, including effects on access and availability, continuity and quality of care; and, Other applicable statutory review criteria. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. All statutory and rule criteria are met. By letter dated October 22, 1993, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT inquired again of the agency regarding modifications of the adult inpatient cardiac shared service program. AHCA did not respond to the 1993 inquiry, and AHCA ultimately considered the inquiry withdrawn. By letter dated February 24, 1995, BAYFRONT made further inquiry of the agency, and requested agency confirmation of the following statement: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") takes the position that the shared services agreement between Bayfront and All Children's may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and that the shared services contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4) F.A.C. By letter dated March 16, 1995, the agency made the following reply to BAYFRONT from which this proceeding arose: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your understanding of this agency's position with reference to the reviewability of a modifica- tion of the shared services agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital set forth in your February 24, 1995 letter.
