The Issue Whether Respondent nursing home violated Florida statutes and Department rules (and should be subject to a civil penalty) as alleged by the Department for (1) failing to provide adequate health care to an injured patient, and (2) failing to meet nursing staffing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and posthearing filings by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent Nursing Home, the Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center, is a nursing care facility located immediately west of Blountstown, Florida. It is licensed by the Department, and has been in operation since June, 1975. (Testimony of Margaret Brock) Injury to and Standard of Care Provided Myrtle White On July 4, 1979, Dora M. Keifer was the licensed practical nurse on duty during the Nursing Home's night shift. At approximately 1:30 a.m., nurse Keifer heard a noise coming from the nearby room of an elderly patient, Myrtle White. The nurse immediately investigated, and found Myrtle White lying on the floor, and against the wall. Nurse Keifer then visually examined Mrs. White's head and extremities for bruises, discolorations, swelling, lacerations, and other signs of possible fractures. Finding only a slight abrasion on her elbow, nurse Keifer then manually examined the patient's leg and hip for signs of a bone fracture or associated pain. The patient responded by complaining of pain on her right side from her knee to her hip. However, no swelling of that area could be detected; nor were there any other physical symptoms of a bone fracture which were detectable by visual or manual examination. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) After completing the examination, nurse Keifer, with the assistance of four aides, placed Mrs. White on a blanket and carefully lifted her directly onto her bed, placing her on her back. This is a lifting procedure which minimizes sudden movement and is recommended for use with patients who are suspected of suffering from bone fractures. Nurse Keifer then raised the bed side rails to prevent the patient from falling off the bed, and checked the patient's vital signs. Except for slightly elevated blood pressure, the patient's vital signs were within normal limits. Nurse Keifer, then pushed the bed to within 10 feet of her nursing station to ensure that the patient would-be constantly observed during the remainder of her shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Except on the two occasions when she made her routine rounds, nurse Keifer kept Mrs. White under constant personal observation until her shift ended at 7:00 a.m. on July 4, 1979. When she made her rounds, nurse Keifer advised her aides to keep Mrs. White under constant observation. During the remainder of her shift, nurse Keifer periodically reexamined Mrs. White. Physical symptoms of a fracture, or other injury resulting from the patient's fall, continued to be absent. At 4:30 a.m., nurse Keifer checked the patient's urine sample and detected no blood or other unusual signs. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) At the time of her accident on July 4, 1979, Mrs. White, an 88-year-old woman, was suffering from deafness, senility, disorientation, poor eyesight and arthritis. She had previously fractured her right hip, and a prosthetic device had been inserted. Her ailments caused her to frequently suffer, and complain of pain in the area of her right hip, for which her doctor (Dr. Manuel E. Lopez) had prescribed, by standing (continuing) order, a pain medication known as Phenophen No. 4. The standing order authorized the nursing staff to administer this pain medication to the patient, without further authorization from a physician, four times daily, and on an "as needed" basis to relieve Mrs. White's pain. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Mr. Manuel Lopez, Margaret Brock) Previous to and at the time of Mrs. White's accident, nurse Keifer was aware of Mrs. White's ailments, and frequent complaints of discomfort, as well as the standing order of Dr. Lopez which authorized the administering of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White on an "as needed" basis to relieve pain. In addition, nurse Keifer, by background and training was qualified to examine, make judgments concerning, and render care to patients requiring emergency medical treatment. For several years, she had served as a part-time nurse on the night shift at the Nursing Home, and had served for 6 years in the emergency room and obstetric ward at Calhoun County Hospital. At the hospital, she had engaged in the detection and treatment of traumatic injuries and broken bones on a daily basis, and was familiar with the proper nursing and medical techniques used in caring for such injuries. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Nurse Keifer had been instructed by local physicians (including Dr. Lopez) practicing at the Nursing Home that they should not be telephoned during the late evening and early morning hours unless, in the nurse's judgment, the patient required emergency care. Because Blountstown suffers a severe shortage of physicians, the judgment of licensed nurses necessarily assumes on increasingly important role in providing adequate medical care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White, Margaret Brook, Dr. Manuel Lopez) Between 1:30 a.m. (the time of Mrs. Trite's accident) and 7:00 a.m., on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer administered Phenophen No. 4 two times to Mrs. White for the purpose of relieving pain. The initial dose was given Mrs. White shortly after she had complained of pain and been moved near nurse Keifer's duty station for observation. The drug appeared to alleviate Mrs. White's discomfort. Three or four hours later, after Mrs. White again complained of pain, a second dose was administered. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) Nurse Keifer administered the two doses of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White during the early morning hours of July 4, 1979, without contacting, or seeking the further authorization of a physician. Having detected no symptoms of a bone fracture, or other injury to Mrs. White resulting from her fall, nurse Keifer concluded that administration of the medication to relieve pain was authorized by Dr. Lopez's standing order, and justified under the circumstances. She further made a judgment that Mrs. White was not suffering from an injury which justified emergency treatment, and the immediate contacting of a physician. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Manuel Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) At 5:30 a.m. on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer telephoned Calhoun County Hospital and left a message requesting Dr. Lopez to come to the Nursing Home and examine Mrs. White as soon as he completed his rounds at the hospital. Nurse Keifer was aware, at the time, that Dr. Lopez began his daily hospital rounds at 6:00 a.m. Later that morning, at the direction of Dr. Lopez, Mrs. White was taken to the hospital for x-rays which revealed that Mrs. White had fractured her right hip. She was returned to the Nursing Home that day, and transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for several days. No surgical repairs were ever made to the hip fracture, however, and Mrs. White was subsequently returned to the Nursing Home, for bed-side care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) It was nurse Keifer's professional judgment, based upon the facts known to her at that time, that Mrs. White's fall, and physical condition neither required emergency medical treatment nor justified the immediate contacting of a physician. Nurse Keifer further concluded that the administration of Phenophen No. 4 to relieve Mrs. White's pain, without further authorization of a physician, was necessary and authorized by the standing order of Dr. Lopez. These professional nursing judgments and actions were reasonable, justified by the facts, consistent with established health care standards applied in the Blountstown area, and did not endanger the life, or create a substantial probability of harm to Mrs. White. Although the Department's Medical Facilities Program Supervisor, Howard Chastain, testified that nurse Keifer's failure to immediately notify a physician concerning Mrs. White's fall presented an imminent danger to the patient, it is concluded that the contrary testimony of two experienced medical doctors constitutes the weight of the evidence on this issue. As to the meaning of Dr. Lopez's standing order con cerning administration of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White, the Department's witnesses on this matter, James L. Myrah and Christine Denson, conceded that they would net disagree with Dr. Lopez if the doctor testified that nurse Keifer's action was consistent with the standing order. Dr. Lopez, subsequently, so testified. (Testimony of Dr. M. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White, James L. Myrah) Shortage of One Nurse on Night Shift During the period of June 1 through June 30, 1979, and July 1, through July 21, 1979, for a total of fifty-one (51) nights, the Nursing Home employed only one licensed nurse on the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. night shift. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah) During this same 51-day time period, the number of patients at the Nursing Home fluctuated between 70 and 80 patients. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) The Nursing Home is managed by a licensed nursing home administrator, and provides a full range of health and related services to patients requiring skilled or extensive nursing home care. Most of the patients require nursing services on a 24-hour basis and are seriously incapacitated, mentally or physically. (Testimony of Margaret Brook) The Administrator of the Nursing Home was aware that Department rules required the employment of two licensed nurses on the night shift during June and July, 1979. She made numerous unsuccessful efforts to recruit, locate, and employ an additional nurse for the night shift. Her failure to hire the additional nurse required by Department rules was not a willful act of misfeasance or nonfeasance on her part--but was due to a statewide nursing shortage which is particularly severe in rural northwest Florida. Other nursing homes have experienced similar difficulty in recruiting and hiring the requisite number of licensed nurses. The Nursing Home received no economic benefit from its failure to employ the additional night nurse during the time in question because the cost of such an employee is fully reimbursed by the State. On approximately March 1, 1980, the Nursing Home located, and has since employed, the additional licensed nurse required by Department rules for the night shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brook) Due to the widespread shortage of qualified nursing personnel, the Department ordinarily brings enforcement actions against nursing homes for noncompliance with the minimum nursing staff requirements only if the noncompliance is adversely affecting patient care. (Testimony of James L. Myrah, Margaret Brock) The shortage of one licensed nurse on the night shift during the time in question did not adversely affect the level of patient care provided by the Nursing Home. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brock) The parties have submitted proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that those findings and conclusions are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, unsupported by the evidence, or law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's Administrative Complaint, and the charges against Respondent contained therein, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter, P.A. Suite 610 - Eola Office Center 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the certificate of need law applies to Whitehall Boca's intended conversion of 100 beds in an adult congregate living facility to skilled nursing beds. The second issue is, in the event that it is determined that the certificate of need law does apply, whether Whitehall Boca is entitled to convert a limited number of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds without the need for obtaining a certificate of need in accordance with Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner called Carol J. Wortham, Steve Mulder, and Jeffrey W. Smith. The Respondent called as its only witness Gene Nelson. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence seventeen exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted into four exhibits. Subsequent to the final hearing, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they were rejected by the Hearing Officer as unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact Whitehall Boca is a 187-bed health care facility located in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. Sixty-nine (69) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as skilled nursing beds in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes. One hundred eighteen (118) of Whitehall Boca's beds are licensed by the Department as an adult congregate living facility (hereafter ACLF) in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Whitehall Boca is seeking to convert 100 of its adult congregate living facility beds to skilled nursing beds. Whitehall Boca holds two separate licenses for the nursing home beds and for the ACLF. Whitehall Boca was opened on December 17, 1982, and was the culmination of the owner's goal of attempting to build the finest nursing home that has ever been built. The Whitehall Boca facility has received a superior rating from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' office of licensure. The cost of construction of Whitehall Boca was approximately five and one-half million dollars. The funds for this construction were obtained from 100 percent private funds, which was arranged by Oak Park Trust Bank in Illinois and invested capital provided by the Mulder family. The loans were not guaranteed by the federal government or any governmental entity whatsoever. The 100 existing ACLF beds which Petitioner seeks to convert fully comply with all applicable federal, state and local license requirements for skilled nursing beds in their present condition. Only a few ancillary items such as medicine carts would be needed in order to make the conversion. Such items would involve a capital expenditure of no more than $5,000 to $6,000. The Respondent conceded at the formal hearing that cost of conversion is not an issue. It has been the policy of Whitehall Boca since 1955 not to accept federal funds nor to accept Medicaid or Medicare patients. Whitehall Boca does not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients in any of its homes because they offer an elite type of nursing home care which is not offered in other existing nursing homes. Whitehall Boca did not obtain its initial certificate of need for the 69 skilled nursing home beds by the usual statutory procedure. Whitehall Boca purchased Health Care Corporation, the entity who had originally obtained the certificate of need. However, after Whitehall Boca obtained the certificate of need, it applied for a license from DHRS and specifically informed them in its application that it would not accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. Whitehall Boca, an Illinois limited partnership, owns and operates the 187-bed nursing home complex in Boca Raton, Florida. At present, this is the only home owned by the Petitioner in the State of Florida. Whitehall Boca is owned by a father and a son, Paul and Steve Mulder. They own three nursing homes in Chicago, Illinois. Daily rates for the skilled nursing home beds at Whitehall Boca are $68 per day for three persons to a room, $80 per day for two persons to a room, with private rooms beginning at $125 per day. These rates are substantially higher than most other nursing homes in the area. Whitehall Boca caters to a very small segment of the population that is able to afford the luxuries and amenities available at Whitehall Boca. For most residents who have chosen the luxury accommodations at Whitehall Boca, the only alternative which would provide comparable care and maintenance of their lifestyle, would be private duty nursing arrangements at home. In the alternative to a total exemption from certificate of need review, Whitehall Boca contends it is entitled to convert 18 of its ACLF beds to skilled nursing beds without CON review pursuant to the provisions of Section 381.494(1)(d), Florida Statutes. DHRS does not consider an ACLF a health care facility and contends therefore that Section 381.494(1)(d) is not applicable to Petitioner's request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denying an exemption for Petitioner to convert ACLF beds to skilled nursing home beds and requiring that such a request be subject to review under Sections 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Culpepper, Turner and Mannheimer Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3300 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The parties have stipulated that Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, F.S., and that the attorney fees requested are reasonable, up to the $15,000.00 statutory limit. The issue remaining for resolution is whether the expungement proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are adduced from the record, consisting of the transcript and exhibits in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C, from the stipulations of the parties, and from the final order of the agency adopting the recommended order of Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers, dated March 20, 1990. Petitioners are sole proprietors of Forest Haven, an unincorporated adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and located at 8207 Forest City Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners and Forest Haven have their principal office in Orlando, Florida and are domiciled in Orlando, Florida. They have less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million. On March 17, 1989, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) survey team visited Forest Haven to conduct an annual survey of the facility. The survey team was comprised of 10 persons, enlarged due to a training exercise. Several of the team members were registered nurses; several members were Office of Licensure and Certification supervisors. During the course of the visit and observations of the residents, members of the team determined that eight residents required a higher level of care than could be provided at the ACLF. As found in the recommended order adopted by the agency, the basis for this determination was, As to T.M., age 81, the need for a restraining vest, and the existence of bruises and gashes on the face and head; As to H.L., age 89, the presence of a foley catheter, total disorientation, low weight and poor skin turgor (brittle skin); As to F.W., age 72, the presence of a foley catheter, observation of fresh blood in the catheter bag, and low body weight; As to M.B., age 81, incontinence and nonambulatory status; As to R.T., age 84, a foley catheter and contraction of both legs; As to L.O., age 94, edema of lower extremities, contracture of both knees, low body weight, skin tear on left buttocks, and possible bed sore on right buttocks; As to P.B., age 88, incontinence, low body weight, and inability to transfer from wheelchair to bed without assistance; and As to F.H., age 89, one-half inch bed sore on coccyx, pitting edema of legs, incontinence and somewhat confused state. An adult protective services investigator was summoned, as well as law enforcement personnel, and the above residents were removed from the facility on an emergency basis and were placed in a nursing home. They were evaluated at the nursing home the following day by Carolyn Lyons, a Registered Nurse Specialist with HRS, who found that intermediate or skilled nursing home services were required. A ninth resident, C.K., was evaluated by a medical review team nurse and an adult protective services worker at the ACLF on March 20, 1989, and was removed from the facility and placed in a nursing home the same day. C.K., age 89, was found to be confused, incontinent, with bruises, a swollen foot, non- ambulatory, and with a red rash on the trunk of her body. HRS obtained orders from the Circuit Court to provide protective services for seven of the above-mentioned residents. Of the remaining two, one was competent to consent to the nursing home placement and another was returned to his own home by relatives. On March 22, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Annette Hair, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. of the eight residents who had been removed from the ACLF. She relied on her own observations of the individuals, on the medical assessments performed by the survey team nurses at the ACLF, and the subsequent assessment of Carolyn Lyons, the HRS staff person responsible for making an evaluation of the level of care required for medicaid nursing home placement. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Hair's report provides, in pertinent part: * * * Based on the facts obtained during the course of this investigation this case is being classified as CONFIRMED. In accordance with F.S. Section 415.102(4) it is clearly estab- lished that [S. and J.G.] were the caregivers of the eight alleged victims of this report as they had been entrusted with the care of said individuals. The allegation of neglect is verified for each of the eight alleged victims in that [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the care and service necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of an aged person that a prudent person would deem essential for the well-being of an aged person (F.S. Section 415.102(13)). Specifically each of the eight alleged victims has a medical condition which required twenty-four hour skilled nursing care and supervision which the caregivers, [S. and J.G.] failed to provide for said individuals. Five of the eight alleged victims, [H.L., L.O., T.M., F.H. and P.B.] had Scabies (a highly contagious disease caused by parasitic mites that burrow under the skin. This disease is associated with unsanitary conditions and causes a painful itch). [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the supervision necessary to detect this disease and in so doing jeopardized the health and well-being of the other residents in the facility. [H.L.] in addition to having Scabies, was semi-comatose, had bed sores on her buttocks and pelvic area and had a foley catheter. [T.M.] had open lacerations on her face, was extremely mentally confused and was known to wander and fall which required her to be physically restrained. [L.O.] had two open skin areas and Edema. [M.B.] has an excoriated area on her buttocks, Edema of the feet, and her right knee was swollen. [R.T.] had a cough of unknown origin, contraction of both legs, and an in-dwelling catheter. [F.W.] had an in-dwelling catheter which was draining bloody urine and appeared malnourished. [P.B.] appeared malnourished and was incontinent of both bowels and bladder, was extremely confused, and had an open draining wound. [F.H.] had bed sores, and Pitting Edema in addition to Scabies. [S. and J.G.], in addition to being negligent for failing to provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the alleged victims, were in direct violation of F.S. Section 400.426(1) as they did not perform their responsibility of determining the appropriateness of residence of said individuals in their facility. (Petitioner's exhibit 2, in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) On April 4, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Kathleen C. Schirhman, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. She relied on her own assessment of the resident, and on the medical assessments by Nurse Lyons, and by medical staff at the receiving nursing home, including a physician, Dr. Parsons. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Schirhman's report provides: Based upon the facts obtained during the course of this investigation, both alle- gations of medical neglect and other neglect were determined to be verified, and the case is being classified as CONFIRMED. [J.G. and S.G.] assumed the responsibility of care for [C.K.] and, therefore, became her caregivers. They did not provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of [C.K.] that a prudent person would deem essential for her well-being. She required medical services and nursing supervision in a skilled nursing facility. Pursuant to F.S. 400.426 "the owner or Admini- strator of a facility is responsible for determining the appropriateness of admission of an individual to the facility and for deter- mining the continued appropriateness of resi- dence of an individual in the facility." The assessment by the CARES nurse determined that [C.K.] was being medically neglected, because she required 24 hour nursing care, which she was not receiving. She had Scabies, for which she was not being treated. The CARES nurse believed that the alleged victim was at risk and requiring immediate nursing home placement. Allegation of "other neglect" was added to the original report. [C.K.] was being neglected, because she was a total transfer patient, who required restraints, which were not used and cannot be used in an ACLF. Furthermore, the potential for harm to her was great: She was blind, confused, and unable to self-preserve. (Petitioner's exhibit number 1 in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) S.G. and J.G. requested expungement of the reports but the request was denied on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, through counsel, they made a timely request for a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 14 and 15, 1990, by DOAH Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers. Depositions of David J. Parsons, M.D. and Gideon Lewis, M.D. were filed after the hearing, by leave of the Hearing Officer. In his recommended order issued on March 20, 1990, Hearing Officer Ayers found that the HRS investigators did not contact the physicians who had signed the admissions forms when each of the residents at issue had been admitted to the ACLF. Nor did the HRS staff obtain records from the home health agency which, at the treating physicians' direction, was providing, or had provided, home health care to most of the residents at Forest Haven. Skin lesions (decubitus) and scabies were found to be frequently present in nursing home and ACLF residents. Edema and underweight conditions are also common in these residents. Dr. Lewis, the treating physician for most of the residents at Forest Haven, had ordered the vest restraint for T.M.'s protection. He had also written to HRS about a year prior to the survey, recommending that efforts be made to relocate H.L. to a skilled nursing facility. The recommended order found that no evidence of exploitation or neglect, other than medical neglect, was presented at the hearing. The order also found that evidence of medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. was not presented, but rather, "[t]o the contrary, the evidence was unrebutted that Respondents [Petitioners in this proceeding] promptly reported to the resident's physician all changes in the resident's physical condition." The agency's final order was filed on May 29, 1990, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by Hearing Officer Ayers, and granting J.G. and S.G.'s requests for expungement. The Final Order addressed the department's exceptions to the recommended order, as follows: RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT The dispositive issue is whether retention of a resident (or residents) in an ACLF whose medical condition is more serious than the established criteria for residence in an ACLF (see Section 10A-5.0181, Florida Administra- tive Code for the criteria) constitutes per se neglect under Chapter 415. Inappropriate retention of a resident may constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions under the licensure rules, but it does not automatically consti- tute abuse under Chapter 415. See State vs. E. N. G., Case Number 89-3306C (HRS 2/13/90). The evidence of medical neglect was based on the inappropriate retention of certain resi- dents. The Hearing Officer's finding that these residents were not medically neglected is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, the department is obligated to accept this finding. Johnson vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), B. B. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 542 So2d 1362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). In pursuing expungement, Petitioners incurred fees, costs and interest in the total amount of $22,772.49. The amount of interest included in that total is $1,000.91. As stipulated, the fees, up to the $15,000.00 statutory maximum, are reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The controversy Forum Group, Inc. (Forum Group), Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd. (Hillsborough Healthcare), Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), and Careage House Healthcare Center (Careage) filed applications for certificates of need for community nursing homes in Hillsborough County, which is a subdistrict of HRS district VI. The applications were filed in the July, 1986, batching cycle, for need in July, 1989, known as the planning horizon. As amended prior to being deemed complete by HRS, Hillsborough Healthcare and Careage sought 120 beds, Health Quest sought 88 beds, and Forum Group sought 60 beds. All of the applications satisfy and are consistent with state and local health plans. The Department's free form preliminary action Ordinarily, the Department's preliminary decision on these applications would have been issued in November or December of 1986. In these cases, the parties were orally advised of the Department's preliminary action in January, 1987, but the state agency action report containing that preliminary decision was not issued until August, 1987. The delay in decision making in this case occurred due to the altered process of free form decision making that was used in this case. Careage filed a number of applications in the July, 1986, batching cycle, in a number of subdistricts. The preliminary review conducted by HRS determined there to be bed need in four of the counties in which Careage had applications: Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee. During free form agency decision making on the applications in this batching cycle, Ms. Marta Hardy was the Deputy Assistant of Regulation and Health Facilities for the Department. T. 1024. Her duties included responsibility to oversee the issuance of certificates of need and develop health planning policies. Id. Ms. Hardy was the direct supervisor of Robert Maryanski, who was the head of the office of community medical facilities, and Robert Sharp, who was the head of the office of comprehensive health planning. T. 1024. Mr. Maryanski was the direct supervisor of Mr. Reid Jaffe who reviewed the applications in Hillsborough county. Preliminary decisions on the applications in this batch were normally due in November, 1986. It was the normal procedure at the Department to review applications for certificates of need in the following manner. First, an employee in the position entitled "medical facilities consultant" reviewed all applications in the batching cycle for a particular district or subdistrict and made recommendations on each application. These recommendations were then reviewed by his supervisor, the medical facilities consultant supervisor. The recommendations of the medical facilities consultant supervisor upon each application then went to Mr. Maryanski. In Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee Counties in the July, 1986, batching cycle, all reviewers found there to be a bed need. In the normal course of business, all reviewers forwarded through Mr. Maryanski and to Ms. Hardy recommendations that did not recommend the award of a certificate of need to Careage in any of these four counties. T. 1057, 1055, 1281-82. Mr. Maryanski told Mr. Jaffe to "find a way" to approve the Careage application in Pinellas County. T. 1283-84. The time of this communication is not in the record. At about the time that Careage applied for certificates of need (August or September, 1986), Ms. Hardy had dinner with the owner of Careage, Mr. Gene Lynn, Mr. Lynn's wife, and Mr. Ralph Haben. T. 1040. At that meeting, the representatives of Careage told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. Mr. Haben is an attorney, and was then representing Careage. T. 1059. Mr. Haben and Ms. Hardy had been friends since the late 1970's, and in August and September, 1986, they had had lunch or dinner together socially four or five times. T. 1041- 49. In December, 1986, after Departmental staff had preliminarily recommended that Careage's applications be disapproved in the four counties in which was there was need, Ms. Hardy determined to ask Robert Sharp to review applications in the four counties. The result of Mr. Sharp's review was to recommend approval of the Careage application in the four counties. That recommendation was approved by Ms. Hardy. Mr. Sharp was responsible for health planning. He normally had nothing to do with review of certificate of need applications, although he had reviewed some hospital applications in the past. T. 1054. Ms. Hardy had come to the conclusion that Careage provided care of good quality. T. 1063. At the time she formed that opinion, Careage did not operate any nursing homes, and had not done so since 1982. Mr. Sharp understood that Ms. Hardy was impressed with Careage, but did not know the basis for such favorable impression. T. 940. Ms. Hardy told Mr. Sharp that she did not believe that the current method of comparative review of applications was adequate, and used Careage as an example of a best qualified applicant that was overlooked by the current method. T. 940. Mr. Sharp developed a method for comparative review of the applications in the batch for Hillsborough County and the other counties. The method has been referred to in the record as a matrix. Mr. Sharp simply selected certain aspects of the applications for comparison. Two types of information were selected: numerically quantified information, and "program characteristics," which called for a determination whether the selected item existed or did not exist in the proposal. The "matrix" also had a narrative for some of the applicants. Mr. Sharp used Careage as the standard of comparison for all other applicants in the comments section. There was no evidence that the items selected by Mr. Sharp were unreasonable or unfair. The items selected appear to be reasonably related to the task of comparing the virtues of the applicants. The items, for the most part, simply are based on information required by the Department in the application form. The matrix was found in September, 1987, to contain numerous factual errors, and the Department issued a revision. H.Q. Ex. 27. Need pursuant to rule 10-5.011(1)(k) Licensed beds in the district (LB) The number of licensed beds in the district (LB) as of June 1, 1986, was at least 5,964. T. 1706. This figure is derived by adding the 5,557 licensed beds shown on the August 25, 1986, semi-annual nursing home census report, H.Q. Ex. 16, to the 407 additional community nursing home beds that has been erroneously classified as sheltered nursing home beds. None of the other testimony credibly establishes this base figure. There is a dispute as to whether 96 additional beds at the Home Association should be considered licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Home Association was founded in 1899. It is officially recognized that there was no certificate of need requirement in 1899. The Home Association has never received a certificate of need. Thus, it is inferred that the Home Association was never "issued" beds for "nonrestrictive use." At the time that the Home Association was licensed, there was no license category of "sheltered bed. Prior to 1982, there was no statute defining a "sheltered bed." T 1721-22. Thus, prior to 1979, the Home Association was not 1,issued" beds as "sheltered beds" or "for restrictive use". The Home Association is in the district and in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. The Home Association had 96 beds in 1972, and had the same number on June 1, 1986. On or about August 20, 1986, HRS sent a letter to the Home Association. HQ Ex. 9. The letter stated that HRS records currently identified the Home Association as a "sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under Chapter 651, F. S.," but that HRS records did not indicate the date of the initial CON. The letter stated that the specific number of beds allocated to community and sheltered nursing home beds were listed below. At the bottom of the letter, HRS listed 96 beds in the column and line identified as current number of sheltered nursing home beds. The Home Association was told to review the data and make changes and return the letter to HRS. It further stated that a failure to respond would be interpreted as approval of the HRS listed bed allocations. The letter then provided four blanks for the Home Association to respond. The first two provided places to show the "corrected number of beds" both on a line identifying such beds as "community nursing home beds," and a line identify such beds as "sheltered nursing home beds." The Home Association left these lines blank. The third blank asked for the certificate of need number and date. The Home Association typed in: "The Home was founded in 1899; no certificate of need was issued." The fourth blank stated: "Sign Here if Corrections Requested." Initials appear in handwriting in that blank. H.Q. Ex. 9. The response of the Home Association was ambiguous. Having signed the fourth blank, thus seemingly communicating a desire to "correct" the form, the Home Association failed to tell HRS whether it wanted to correct the number of beds or the classification of the beds, or some combination thereof. HRS's need expert admitted that the only way one could settle the question would be to call the Home Association. T. 1724. The problem is further compounded by the way in which the letter from HRS was drafted. The letter did not ask the Home Association to provide information concerning the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association, and thus did not collect any information as to "historical utilization." See the last sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987). Instead, it told the Home Association that HRS records identified the Home Association as a sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under chapter 651. It also told the Home Association that "any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not approved specifically as a sheltered nursing home bed and any nursing home bed located in a life care facility prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community nursing home bed." And the letter appeared to allow the Home Association an opportunity to request a "change in status" only if it had been issued a certificate of need as a community nursing home bed after 1979 and before 1982. It may be that when the Home Association wrote back that it had no certificate of need issued, and that it had been in existence since 1899, the Home Association was simply telling HRS that its beds fell in the category of automatically being community nursing home beds because "located in a life care facility prior to 1979." If the Home Association beds are counted as community nursing home beds, then those 96 beds are added to 5,964, and LB is 6,060. Licensed beds in the subdistrict (LBD) On June 1, 1986, there were 2,612 licensed beds (LBD) in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. If the 96 beds at the Home Association are counted as community nursing home beds, then LBD is 2,708. Current populations (POPC and POPD) Whether POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, or July 1, 1986 HRS divides the regulatory function with respect to certificates of need into two program offices. The office of comprehensive health planning (OCMF) is ordinarily responsible for writing the rules and developing the methodologies for the certificate of need program. It is also responsible for writing the state health plan. The office of community medical facilities (OCMF), which is now called the office of community health services and facilities, is normally responsible for making decisions upon applications for certificates of need. T. 929 (The transcript is in error on line 11; it should read OCMF), 930, 936, 1748, 1251. There are exceptions. T. 937 From 1984 through 1986, the office of comprehensive health planning routinely issued semiannual reports in which it calculated the need for community nursing home beds. H.Q. Exs. 12-18. T. 970-971, 1251. In each of these reports, bed need was projected for an established date. In each of these reports, the "current populations" (the base populations from which the need projection was made) were 3.5 years earlier than the date upon which need was projected. H.Q. Exs. 12-18; T. 1253. From 1984 through 1986, notwithstanding the fact that the semiannual report was based upon a 3.5 year period of need projection, the office of community medical facilities sometimes used a 3.0 year period of projection to actually issue certificates of need. T. 1254. That practice was not uniform within the office of community medical facilities. A number of certificate of need applications were issued based upon the calculations of need in the semiannual nursing home report, which used a 3.5 year period of projection. T. 560-561. It is officially recognized that several formal administrative hearings were settled using a 3.5 year period of projection of need. Health Quest Realty d/b/a Regents Park of Sarasota v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Final Order issued October 25, 1985 (CON number 3278), DOAH case number 84-3389, which was an exhibit in DOAH case number 86-0050, both cases which were before this Hearing Officer; Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 2485, DOAH case number 84- 3297. But even that deviation was not uniform. It is officially recognized that in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051, HRS proposed at the formal administrative hearing to use a 2 year period of projection, using 1986 populations as "current" populations, although the applications were filed in 1985, and need was being projected in 1988. See paragraph 18, findings of fact, of that recommended order, which was written by this Hearing Officer. See also T. 1290. It is also officially recognized that in Forum Group, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 8 F.A.L.R. 5438, 5445, para. 15, the Department used January 1986, as the starting date for a projection to July, 1987, an 18 month period of projection. It would serve no useful purpose to review all the other orders in the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the way in which HRS has interpreted the meaning of "current" populations in its nursing home rule in the period from 1984 to 1986 was inconsistent. In fact HRS did not uniformly use a 3.5 year period of projection as now urged by the Petitioners. Since it has been concluded as a matter of law that the values of POPC and POPD must be determined as of July 1, 1986, no findings of fact will be made as to the populations on January 1, 1986. Whether POPC and POPD are determined from the July 1, 1986, or the May 12, 1987 release of Governor's estimates and projections The Governor's estimates and projections of population are prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research and the University of Florida. T. 240. The Governor's estimates are released twice a year. T. 241. A population estimate, such as POPC or POPD, is an educated guess as to current population size. T. 239. A population projection, such as POPA or POPB, is a mathematical prediction of what a future population size will be. T. 240. The Governor's population estimates are based primarily upon actual data collected with respect to residential electric hookups combined with local information about housing mixes and national data about household size, persons per household, and institutional or group populations. T. 240, 242. The information is gathered each year. T. 242. The Governor's population projections are based upon the most recent population estimate projected forward using assumptions about future migration, mortality, and fertility. T. 240, 242. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections were the official Governor's release on the date of the formal administrative hearing, and were then the most current release. T. 241. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections for July 1, 1986, and July 1, 1989, were more accurate than the release by the Governor on July 1, 1986 for the following reasons: The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, is more accurate because the projection only attempts to project two years into the future. The July 1, 1986, release tries to project three years into the future. Extrapolation is more accurate over a shorter period of time because the underlying assumptions upon which the extrapolation is based will be assumed to remain constant for a shorter period of time. Stated another way, fewer things typically go wrong with the assumption that assumptions will remain constant over a short period of time rather than a longer period of time. T. 243-244. The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based upon actual hard data (electric hookups) for July 1, 1986, projected forward. The July 1, 1986, projection of populations for July 1, 1989, was not based upon a population estimate, but was based upon a population projection as to the population on July 1, 1986, which itself was based upon electric hookup data from an earlier period. T. 244. (This is also the reason that the May 12, 1987, estimate of July 1, 1986, populations, is more accurate than the projection of that population released on July 1, 1986.) The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based more current (actual 1986) figures upon which the extrapolation is made: actual levels of fertility, mortality, and migration for 1986, as well as 1980 through 1985. The July 1, 1986, release did not have this better data available, and had to rely on figures for only 1980 through 1985. T. 244. The district has grown at about 2.9 percent a year from 1980 to 1986. The July 1, 1986, release projects a rate of growth in each year from July 1, 1986, to July 1, 1989 of only 1.6 percent, or only one-half of the actual observed rate. There is no basis to conclude that the district growth rate in the period 1986-1989 will be one-half the rate observed in the prior six years. T. 245. The July 1, 1986, release bases its projection of July 1, 1989, populations upon an extrapolation based in part upon mortality rates from 1980 mortality tables. However, the mortality rates for the age groups involved, ages 65-74 and 75+, have substantially declined since the 1980 tables were compiled. T. 247-248. Elfie Stamm is Supervisor of the HRS Health Care Facilities and Services office. That office is responsible for all HRS health planning activities, including development of regulations for the certificate of need program, issuance of health policies governing the certificate of need program, and development of the state health plan. Ms. Stamm thought that the May 12, 1987, release of Governor's estimates and projections of populations was more accurate than the July 1, 1986, release because it was based on more up-to-date data. F.G. Ex. 15. The effect of selecting the May 12, 1987, release of populations, rather than the July 1, 1986, release upon the net need projected for the subdistrict in July, 1989, by HRS's rule is exceptionally dramatic: if the July 1, 1986, release is used, the net bed need is 143, and if the May 12, 1987, release is used, the net bed need is 300, assuming other factors are held constant (the projection period and the Home Association beds). HQ Ex. 4. Thus, use of the May 12, 1987, release of populations reveals 100 percent more bed need in 1989 than use of the July 1, 1986, release. HRS presented only one justification or basis for its policy of using the July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections: those were the most current estimates and projections at the time the applicants filed their applications and subsequently when the agency conducted its review of the applications in the batching cycle and developed its proposed agency action. T. 1709. The July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections was not available, however, when the applicants in this batch had to file their letters of intent. T. 1286. Based upon the Governor's estimates of population released on May 12, 1987, the estimated population on July 1, 1986, for age 65-74 (POPC) was 134,968, and for age 75+ (POPD) was 94,402. H.H. Ex. 6. Projected populations on July 1, 1989, POPA and POPB Based upon the Governor's projections of population released on May l2, 1987, the projected population on July 1, 1989, for age 65-74 (POPA) was 149,771, and for age 75+ (POPB) was 108,400. H.H. Ex. 6. The occupancy rate The occupancy rate for the 2,612 licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.18 percent. T. 1707. If the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association are counted as licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict, the occupancy rate within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.29 percent for these 2,708 beds. This is derived by averaging the occupancy rate of the Home Association for the six month period, which is 97.225 percent, see T. 1725, and then factoring the two rates together as follows: (97.225 X 96/2708)) + (94.18 X 2612/2708)= 94.29. The date for determining licensed beds and approved beds for purposes of determining net need in the final calculation The number of approved beds was 368 whether one relies upon the date that the supervisor signed the state agency action report, T. 1708, or August 25, 1986, which is the date of the semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocations, H.Q. Ex. 16. It appears that all parties agree to use of 368 for AB in the formula. See T. 1708, 437; F.G. Ex. 8. Since that is the case, the following findings of fact are made in the event that the Hearing Officer has overlooked evidence on this point in this voluminous record. HRS relies again on incipient policy for the date of determination of the number of approved beds. That policy is to determine the number of approved beds in the subdistrict on the date that the supervisor signs the state agency action report, a date different from the date that licensed beds are determined. T. 1708, 1716. Pursuant to this policy, the date for determining approved beds will vary, but will always be later than the date of determining licensed beds. T. 1291. The basis for this incipient policy was not explained in this record. T. 1698-1711, 1711-1728, 1291-1295, 1746-1764. Mr. Jaffe, the supervisor in this case, first signed the state agency action report in mid-November, 1986. T. 1295. Subsequently, however there were several superseding state agency action reports, and the report signed originally by Mr. Jaffe was never issued. As a result, the last state agency action report in this case was not issued until August 18, 1987, over one year after the initial applications were filed. This was an irregular procedure, and not the way state agency action reports normally are issued. T. 1714. Moreover, the state agency action report issued in August, 1987, did not have a line or signature for the supervisor, Mr. Jaffe, to sign. T. 1292; F.G. Ex. 5. Changes to the application of Forum Group Forum Group's original application for certificate of need in this case is F.G. Ex. 3. It should be noted that this exhibit contains some revisions to tables that were filed by Forum Group before HRS deemed application to be complete, and thus superseded earlier tables in the same exhibit. At the formal administrative hearing, Forum Group submitted an "update" of its application for certificate of need which was prepared about a year after the initial application, as amended, was filed. The update is F.G. Ex. 6. T. 43. Table 7 of both applications contains Forum Group's plan for utilization by class of pay. Table 7 in the original application was for the first year of operation. Table 7 of the update is for the second year of operation. Table 8 of the application is a list of projected patient charges by reimbursement or charge type. Table 8 of the update is significantly different from the original application. Table 8 of the original application, F.G. Ex. 3, listed charges that were consistent with then current charges at other Forum Group facilities. T. 185. The update is for an effective date two years later. Although Forum Group presented evidence that the charges in the updated table 8 were reasonable, T. 189, it claimed that the above increases were solely due to the two year difference in the tables. T. 195. There is also evidence that the revised charges in table 8 was based upon a telephone survey conducted of subdistrict nursing homes three months prior to the formal administrative hearing. Forum Group was unable to provide any evidence as to whether the charges in the updated table 8 were based upon data that was not available to Forum Group when the original table 8 was prepared; moreover, Forum Group did not prove that the data was such that Forum Group could not, and reasonably should not, have been expected to have gathered for its original application. T. 198. The revisions of table 8 were not based upon ordinary inflation. Forum Group assumed in both the original table 8 and the revised table 8 that the inflation rate impact on charges between the first and second year of operation would be only 3.5 percent, T. 199. Forum Group's expert on charges was of the opinion that the inflation rate for expenses would be about 3.5 percent. T. 200-201. The increases in charges shown on table 8 of the update are much greater than expected inflation. For example, the charge for Medicaid ICF semiprivate rooms increased from $50 to $63, an increase of 26 percent. The charge for private pay ICF private rooms increased from $75 to $115, an increase of 53 percent. Table 10 of the application is a projection of patient days and occupancy percentages for each month over the first two years of occupancy. The revision to table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, were prompted by the delay in the case, resulting in an initial opening date two years later. The revisions to table 10 in the update were also based upon the prior experience of Forum Group and a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes to obtain more current fillup and occupancy rates. T. 39, 79-80, 84-87. The telephone survey was conducted after the initial application was deemed to be complete. Table 11 of the application sets forth the "manpower" requirements, specifying full time equivalents and annual salaries. Revised table 11 in F.G. Ex. 6 contains changes both in annual salary levels and in FTE's. The dietary supervisor and maintenance supervisor are new positions in the revised table 11, and would be shared with the retirement living facility. These positions could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 164; F.G. Ex. 6. The revised table 11 reports positions for utility workers, positions not in the original application but which could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 166. The revised table 11 has fewer registered nurses and licensed practical nurses than the original application. This change was based upon Forum Group's decision that this new staffing pattern would be more efficient. While the testimony attributed this to a difference in projected occupancy in the first year (95 percent instead of 74.4 percent), this is not a plausible reason for changing the number of RN FTE's from 5.3 to 4.3, or the number of LPN FTE'S from 3.6 to 2.8, since one would expect a need for more nursing at higher occupancy. The revised staffing pattern could have been contained in the original application. T. 166, 170. The increases in salaries reported in the revised table 11 were caused in part by inflation (a later opening date). T. 161-62. The revision in salaries was based upon a survey of salaries conducted a year after the application was filed, T. 162. Considered in the new survey was new information concerning federal requirements for professionals that was estimated to make the professional hiring shortage even worse. Id. It is concluded that the basis for the revisions to the salaries was market data that could not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. Table 25 of the application covers estimated project costs. Revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, contains changes of two types: shifts of costs from one accounting line to another, and new estimates of costs based upon a later date of construction. T. 66-67, 91-94. The new estimates of costs were based upon inflation and the current construction experience off Forum Group, both of which would not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its initial application. T. 66-67. The shifts in costs by accounting line (even though one shift was to operating costs), considered alone, did not substantially change the total project cost. T. 91-94. The construction costs contained in the revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, are projected to be $1,654,826, which is 12 percent greater than the $1,466,500 originally projected. This new estimate is based upon inflation, current construction experience, and a decision to reduce some less essential space to lower costs. T. 66-67, 1461-65. The inflation rate is estimated to be higher than 3.5 percent in 1990, and the date of commencement of construction is inferred to be two years later than the date assumed in the original application. The revised projection is also more conservative, based upon Forum Group's analysis of current market data. The revised construction cost is thus adequately based upon new data that was not available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. As a result of inflation, Forum Group decided to reduce some space that was less essential. The reduction of space is reflected in revised tables 17 through 20 of F.G. Ex. 6. Forum Group's initial application (F.G. Ex. 3) did not mention or discuss patient treatment plans, patient rights, patient councils, or Alzheimer's programs. It did, however, list 10 special areas of nursing that it would provide, many of which are in the subacute area. See, e.g., ventilator care and compare T. 150. The revised pro forma of operating expenses projects total operating expenses in the first year of $923,153 and $1,256,991 in the second year. F.G. Ex. 6. The original application, as revised before deemed complete, reported total operating expenses of $659,900 and $740,693, respectively, for these same projected years. The new information in the revised pro forma was explained as based upon a projection of higher use by private pay patients and faster fillup, as well as some inflation. T. 202. The change clearly is not explained as a simple matter of inflation, since the increases are about 50 percent in each of the years. T. 201-202. Changes to the application of Health Quest The original Health Quest application is H.Q. Ex. 1, as amended by H.Q. Ex. 2, and is for an 88 bed community nursing home facility. Health Quest submitted a revised application for 60 beds dated a year later, in September, 1987. H.Q. Ex. 3. Table 8 of the application is the list of projected charges by patient type. The revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, increased charges from 25 to 34 percent. This new information was not based solely upon inflation assumptions, but was based upon increased assumptions about operating costs, and a decision to make a more conservative projection. T. 629, 690-91. Health Quest did not prove that these assumptions were based upon data not available when the original application was filed. Table 11 of the application lists manpower by position and projected annual salary. The revised table 11, H.Q. Ex. 3, increases the numbers of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses from the original application. The new data is based upon the experience of Health Quest in the year following the filing of the original application. T. 630. The testimony on pages 688-89 of the transcript is not inconsistent with the testimony on page 630. It is evident that a change in planning took place, and that the change in planning was based upon new experience. Table 17 of the revised Health Quest application, H.Q. Ex. 3, does not have six 3 bed rooms which had been planned for the facility in table 17 of the original application, as amended, H.Q. Ex. 2. This new information was not caused by the reduction of the application from 88 beds to 60 beds. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to delete 3 bed rooms from its project was based upon data that it could not have had when it filed its original application. T. 630-31. Table 18 of the revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, changes the square footage of 1 bed rooms from 150 to 216. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to make this change was based upon data that it could not have obtained when it filed its original application. T. 632-33. Changes to the application of Careage Careage presented new information at the hearing which consisted of Careage Exhibits 18-22 and 24-25. The changes to these exhibits were based solely upon a small (3 percent) inflation rate or a different starting date. T. 1570-85. There was also a decrease in utility rates of an apparent few thousand dollars. Compare C. Ex 25 to C. Ex. 3, attachment 12. T. 1583-85. The new projection of utility rates was shown to be based upon new information from the utility company, and new heating and cooling technology. T. 1584. Changes to the application of Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. The merits of the Careage application Credibility of the Careage application Credibility of Mr. Gentle Russell Gentle is Careage's Vice President for nursing home operations, and is responsible for development of the nursing home at issue in this case, and operation of the facility after it opens, as well as development and operations of other Careage nursing homes. T. 1487. The application filed by Careage in this case was prepared by Mr. Gentle, with the exception of the section on need. T. 1491. Mr. Gentle was called as an expert witness for Careage to provide opinion testimony to substantiate the Careage application and to prove the nature of the facility that Careage states it would build and operate if granted a certificate of need. T. 1491-93. Mr. Gentle testified twice that he had a bachelor's degree with a major in accounting from the Alaska Methodist University. T. 1487, 1493. This testimony was presented in order to have Mr. Gentle qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Gentle was tendered as an expert in several areas, including nursing home finance. T. 1493. Upon voir dire examination, and after it became obvious that counsel conducting the examination had investigated Mr. Gentle's academic credentials, 1493, Mr. Gentle admitted that he did not have a degree in accounting, but that his degree had been in science. T. 1496. A motion was made to have Mr. Gentle precluded from testifying as a witness due to his untruthful testimony. T. 1497-98. The motion for the sanction of preclusion of testimony was denied, but the tender of expertise was denied for lack of credible evidence in the record as to expert credentials. T. 1499, 1504, 1512-13, 1514-16. Since the witness had intentionally lied about his college education, a matter of importance in determining expertise, the remainder of the witness's testimony as to his experience and expert credentials was tainted and not credible. There was no independent evidence of the training and experience of the witness, other than from his own testimony. The tender of expertise thus was denied for lack of credible evidence of expertise in the record. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home development had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficient to qualify Mr. Gentle as an expert in nursing home development. Since 1985, he had been fully responsible for development of only two nursing homes, and assisted in the development of five others. T. 1509, 1489, 1514-15. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home operation and administration had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficiently detailed to qualify him as an expert in nursing home operation and administration. T. 1513-15. Mr. Gentle had never served as a nursing home administrator. T. 1494. Mr. Gentle testified that in 1972 he went to work for the State of Alaska as an auditor in the Department of Health and Social Services. He further testified that he worked his way up through the sections and became chief Medicaid auditor for the state of Alaska. T. 1487. The employment record for Mr. Gentle, however, from the State of Alaska was admitted into evidence without objection. H.H. Ex. 33. That record shows a starting date of work in 1973, not 1972. More important, it does not show continuous employment consistent with the claim of having worked "up through the sections." The record shows no employment of Mr. Gentle by the State of Alaska for 2 and 1/2 years, from July, 1973, through March, 1976, and the only employment is in temporary positions, not in permanent positions expected to have been in the "sections" Mr. Gentle "worked up through." Finally, the employment record only shows Mr. Gentle in a position as an accountant IV (temporary) for a 9 month period in 1976. Mr. Gentle's testimony that he obtained the position of chief Medicaid auditor for the State of Alaska after working his way up through the sections is not credible. Mr. Gentle testified that C. Ex. 15 was an excerpt from the magazine "Contemporary Long-Term Care," and that this excerpt was the section of the magazine that included an award. T. 1541-42. He testified that all of the narrative in the exhibit was part of the magazine and the award. T. 1542. This is testimony was incorrect. The last page of the exhibit contains narrative that is advertisement prepared by Careage. The typeset is identical to that in the interior pages as well. Thus, pages 2-4 of the exhibit are not excerpts from the magazine. Mr. Gentle did not choose his words with care as he testified. Table 11 (projected salaries and FTE's) is a part she original application filed with HRS in July of 1986. Mr. Gentle testified that in part the projected salaries were based upon salaries that "Careage is paying to its existing staff." T. 1557. At that time, Careage did not operate any nursing home. Mr. Gentle could have meant that these were salaries in nursing homes leased out by Careage, but his choice of words was misleading. Whether Careage will operate the facility Careage was started in 1962, and since that time it has constructed more than 270 new hospitals, nursing homes, and related facilities. Generally, Careage has built facilities for others to operate. T. 1516-17. A few of these (seven were named, T. 1520) may have been operated by Careage, but the vast majority were not. T. 1591-1520. In 1982, Careage ceased all nursing home operations. T. 1592. From 1982 through 1985, Careage did nothing but hospital development. T. 1519. In 1985, Careage decided to build and operate nursing homes, and in March 1985, hired Mr. Gentle to set up the operating arm of the corporation with respect to nursing homes. T 1513, 1518. In July, 1986, when Careage filed its application for a certificate of need, Careage did not operate any nursing homes in the country. T. 1595. It appears that the first nursing home now operated by Careage was opened in December, 1986. T. 1610. At the time of the formal hearing, Careage operated and managed three nursing homes on its own, and jointly managed three others. (Another was said to be "jointly operated by others.") T. 1519-20. All of these facilities are in western states. In the letter of intent, Gene D. Lynn, the proposed owner of the proposed facility, and the sole owner of Careage, stated his intent to operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County. C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. The application, C. Ex. 3, asserts on page 4-24: Each community and situation is unique. There are times in which we operate directly through Healthco Management (a wholly owned subsidiary). In all cases, we establish the operating procedures and pro forma and closely monitor each facility. This strategy has generated such a successful program that, in twenty-four years of business, we can boast at never having missed a debt service payment nor have we had a single incident of governmental intervention into our operations. (E.S.) The clearly intended implication of the foregoing portion of the application is that for 24 years, Careage has either operated its nursing homes (which in the majority of cases was untrue) or, if it did not operate its nursing homes, it "closely monitored each facility." The statement in the application that Careage closely monitors each facility is not true, at least with respect to currently leased facilities. Mr. Gentle, who is in charge of nursing home operations for Careage, does not routinely review state licensure survey reports for leased facilities. T. 1842. Leased facility reports may be reviewed by the Careage leasing section, which is separate from nursing home operations. T. 1842. The only monitoring that Careage does with respect to leased facilities is to step in if there is government intervention. T. 1843. Careage has retained the contractual right to intervene in the operations of a leased facility only "in cases of severe problems in a facility." (E.S.) T. 1518. The statement in the application, P. 4-24, concerning the history of Careage as to operation or supervision of nursing homes is misleading. As will be discussed ahead, Careage representatives were either confused about the operation of nursing homes by Careage (Dr. Etten) or used words in a manner that misrepresented the operational status of Careage (Mr. Gentle and representatives of Careage at a dinner meeting with Ms. Hardy). These misleading statements, coupled with the prior history generally of not operating nursing homes, lead to the conclusion that Careage has not proved that it will operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Substantive aspects of the application General provisions Careage's original application proposed to construct 120 beds, 10 of which would be a subacute unit, 21 of which would be an Alzheimer's unit, and the remaining 89 beds would be general SNC/ICF (skilled/intermediate) nursing care beds. C. Ex. 3, P. 2-1. Four of the ten subacute unit beds would be designated for neonates and technology dependent children. C. Ex. 3, P. 3-6; T. 1522. The 10 bed subacute unit is proposed to provide 24 hour nursing care patients who are recovering from strokes, craniotomy patients, comatose victims of accidents, and others suffering serious chronic maladies. T. 1212. Nursing services to be provided include tube feedings, ventilators, tracheostomies, continuous intravenous infusion, hyperalimentation, total parenteral nutritional care, and inhalation therapy. T. 1213. The program proposed by Careage conforms to professional standards for such a program. Id. The 21 bed Alzheimer's disease unit is designed and intended to provide an environment adapted for the special needs of those patients. The design and program emphasizes low stimulation, safe ambulation, and simplicity to minimize confusion. The design is considerably more therapeutic for such patients than commingling such patients among other patients in an ordinary nursing home setting. T. 1206-12, 1432, 1474-75. The precise number of skilled and intermediate care nursing beds is unclear. At least 39 beds will be skilled nursing, and 21 beds for the Alzheimer's patients. T. 1136. Careage intends to concentrate on skilled nursing care rather than intermediate care. T. 1523, 1678. Careage does not intend to serve the market for intermediate care. Id.; C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. Careage did not include adult day care in its application, T. 1142, 1592, because it takes the position that adult day care does not require a certificate of need. T. 1592. Careage in fact will not offer adult day care. T. 1192. Careage intends to provide respite care at the facility. T. 1531. Careage estimates that 37 percent of its patients will be Medicaid patients. T. 1361. Quality assurance The nursing quality assurance programs described in the application of Careage are adequate, and would be adequate if implemented by Careage. T. 1221. Dr. Etten testified for Careage concerning her visit to two nursing homes owned by Careage. She did not express an opinion that the Careage quality assurance program in fact would be implemented based upon these visits. She did not describe the current operation of any Careage quality assurance program. She simply stated that she was favorably impressed by the physical environment in those two nursing homes. T. 1221-26. One of the facilities was in Salt Lake City, Utah, and there is no evidence in the record that Careage operates that facility. See T. 1519-20. Indeed, Dr. Etten later admitted on cross examination that she knew the Utah facility was not operated by Careage. T. 1234. Throughout the application process, Careage tended to misrepresent its status as an existing operator of nursing homes providing care of good quality. As discussed above, in the meeting in August or September, 1986, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Lynn, Mr. Haben, and Ms. Hardy, Careage's representatives told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. The application, at page 4-24, appeared to assert that Careage had 24 years of experience operating nursing homes. Mr. Gentle represented that proposed salaries were based upon salaries in nursing homes currently operated by Careage. These statements were not true. Careage leased facilities, but did not operate any facilities at that time of the application, and its history had been primarily in the development of health care facilities for operation by others. Careage did not exercise close operational control of the leased facilities. And Dr. Etten seemed unconcerned as to what entity was operating the Utah nursing home that she visited. Her failure to do so caused her testimony to appear to be representative of the quality of care actually provided at Careage operated nursing homes. For these reasons, Careage did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it has had a history of operation of nursing homes, that it has had a significant history of providing nursing care of good quality, that it has had substantial experience in management of quality assurance programs, or that it would in fact implement the quality assurance program reviewed by Dr. Etten. Staffing Staffing, particularly nursing staffing, is established based upon the assumption that most of the beds at the Careage facility will be at least skilled nursing care beds, and some will be Alzheimer's disease beds or subacute beds, including beds for technology dependent children. Attachment 14, Ex. 3. The nursing staffing proposed by Careage is adequate. T. 1216. Other staffing proposed by Careage is based upon staffing at other facilities owned by Careage and standards in HRS rules. T. 1557, 1559. It is concluded that other staffing is adequate. The projected annual salaries for staff are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656, 1680-81. The objection to this testimony, taken under advisement, was overruled. T. 1687. The witness amply demonstrated expertise with regard salary levels. Construction and facility design The building proposed by Careage would be one story and have 45,500 square feet for 120 residents, or a total of 379.17 gross square feet per bed. T. 1133. The application represents that the net square foot area for living space in 2 bed (semiprivate) rooms is 283 to 295 square feet. C. Ex. 3, table This was an exaggeration. The actual square footage was shown to be substantially less upon cross examination: 213.75 square feet of living space for semiprivate rooms. This figure is based upon the fact revealed upon cross examination that the length of the room for purposes of calculating gross square feet is 23.5 feet instead of 24 feet, 4 inches. This correction reduces gross living square footage for the living area to 305.5, and net to 213.75. The floor plan, site plan, and space programs in the proposed design are adequate and will meet or exceed all requirements of Florida law. T. 1137. The nursing home floor plan does not include a space for adult day care. T. 1142. Careage projects that construction costs will be $56.77 per square foot. This estimate is in line with estimates of other applicants and is reasonable. T. 1176-78. Construction costs equate to $21,526 per bed. Careage did not include an estimate of costs for equipment for technology dependent children, but plans to cover this with funds estimated for contingencies. T. 1195. The amount of such costs is not in evidence. Id. The estimate of overall project costs, table 25 of the application, Ex. 3, is reasonable. T. 1171-76. Total project costs are estimated to be $4,150,000, or $34,583 per bed. The project cost includes $515,000 for 3 to 5 acres of land. T. 1546. The adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed equipment for the facility was not established by expert testimony. See T. 1179. Availability of resources Gene D. Lynn has an extensive history in successfully financing and constructing health care facilities, including nursing homes. T. 1516-17. Gene D. Lynn has more than adequate lines of credit to obtain complete financing for this project. T. 157 6- /7 Existing lines of credit, including SeaFirst, are available up to at least $9 million. T. 1576. The objection as to hearsay, which was sustained, was sustained only as to what unnamed persons with Washington Mutual "indicated." The remainder is not hearsay. It is testimony of the existing state of facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. The foregoing findings of fact are based upon testimony of Mr. Gentle, whose credibility as a witness was partially impeached as discussed in findings of fact above. Mr. Gentle's credibility problems, however, are not sufficient to compel the disregard of his testimony as to the general financial condition of the Lynns and Careage. Mr. Gentle demonstrated that his testimony as to his own expert qualifications was unworthy of belief, and he demonstrated that some portions of his testimony concerning the features of the proposed facility were exaggerated or incorrect. But this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that his testimony as to general financial resources of Careage is an untruth. It is noted that there is no evidence in this record to suggest in any manner that Gene Lynn does not have the net worth set presented in his unaudited financial statement. That net worth is over $45 million. If this were a substantial untruth, surely one of these highly competitive applicants would have presented evidence on the point. Financial feasibility The proposed project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 1632-39, 1686. Careage's projections as to patient mix (by payor type) and expected fillup (utilization) are reasonable. T. 1640- 42 The charges proposed by Careage are reasonable. T. 1642-45. Careage's projections as to operating expenses are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656-57. The proposed project is financially feasible in the long term. T. 1647, 1649-50, 1686. The Forum Group application General provisions Forum Group is a national company which owns and operates 11 retirement living centers and 22 nursing homes in a number of states. The retirement living centers are independent rental apartments which do not require entry fees. T. 20; F.G. Ex. 3. The Forum Group proposal is to construct and operate a 60 bed community nursing home in conjunction with a retirement living facility of 120 apartments and an adult congregate living facility of 30 units. F.G. Ex. 3, attachment 1. The community nursing home section would offer all services required for provision of skilled nursing care, intermediate nursing care, respite care, and adult daycare. T. 27. Forum Group does not propose to provide a separate Alzheimer's disease unit. The estimated total cost of the nursing home portion of the project is $2,673,084. F.G. Ex. 6, table 25. This is $44,551 per nursing bed. Forum Group will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. T. 27, 210. Quality assurance Forum Group has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended, and it has never had one of its facilities placed into receivership. T. 158. The proposed facility would provide 24 hour supervision by either a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse, or by both. T. 140. The staffing levels proposed in the original application are adequate. T. 153. Staffing levels would vary according to the needs of the residents. T. 134. Medications would be distributed by unit dose. T. 139. Forum Group would implement an adequate plan for quality assurance audits. T. 141-43. The plan is in writing, is in use in other Forum Group nursing homes, and covers all aspects of the operation of the nursing home that are relevant to the quality of care received by nursing home residents. Forum Group would check staff qualifications prior to employment and would provide ongoing staff training. T. 149. Forum Group would provide residents with written statements of patients' rights upon admission to the facility, and would have an independent patients' rights council. T. 147- 48 Forum Group provides reasonably adequate nursing care in its existing nursing homes, and would do so in the proposed nursing home. T. 31-32, 158. Staffing The staffing proposed for the facility, and projected salaries, are reasonable and adequate. T. 151-154. Forum Group reviews the qualifications of applicants to insure that applicants are qualified for the job. T. 149. Construction and facility design Forum Group's community nursing home facility will have about 24,500 square feet. This is reduced from the original 27,000 due to inflation in costs. Patient room areas were not changed. T. 1453. This is 408 total gross square feet per bed. The net living area square footage allocated to semiprivate 2 bed rooms is 228 square feet. F.G. Ex. 3. The square footage allocated in both versions is reasonable. T. 1445, 1453. The building would be wood frame with brick veneer. It would have heavy roof insulation, double glazed windows, and a heat pump to conserve energy and to operate with less utility expense. T. 1454. The construction costs, including equipment costs, estimated for the revised project, F.G. Ex. 6, table 25, paragraph d., are reasonable. T. 1453. The costs as originally projected were also reasonable. T. 1446. The proposed facility would comply with state and federal standards for construction. T. 1456. The 60 bed community nursing home would require two to three acres of land. T. 1455. The $400,000 estimated to be needed to acquire a suitable site is reasonable for location in the northwest portion of Hillsborough County. T. 54, 59. Availability of resources Forum Group will attract suitable health care professionals, despite the shortage in Hillsborough County, by offering attractive fringe benefits, including attractive work schedules and continuing education. T. 156-57. Forum Group has the financial resources to construct and begin the initial operation of the facility. T. 182-84. Financial feasibility The project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 182-84. Due to its corporate size and current operation of a number of nursing facilities, as well as the size of the combined planned facility in Hillsborough County, Forum Group will be able to purchase supplies and other operational necessities at a favorable low cost, thus saving on operational expenses. T. 156. The estimated fillup rate in the original application was about 75 percent occupancy after the first year and about 86 percent occupancy after the second year. T. 37. Given the recent experience in Hillsborough County of occupancy around 95 percent and very fast fillup rates for new nursing homes, T. 116-18, a projection of 86 percent occupancy in the second year is probably too low. For purposes of determining financial feasibility, it is reasonable but conservative. T. 37. The project is financially feasible in the long term based upon the pro forma contained in the original application. T. 186-88; F.G. Ex. 3. The merits of the Hillsborough Healthcare application General provisions Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., would own the proposed facility. T. 419. The facility would be managed by Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) which is also owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. CSI was formed in 1978 to own and operate extended care facilities owned or controlled by the Kelletts. T. 420. CSI currently operates 21 nursing homes and 3 retirement homes in 7 states. Six of the nursing homes and 2 retirement centers are in Florida. Id. Centralized management is provided by regional offices in Sarasota, Houston, Texas, and Huntsville, Alabama. T. 420. The long range plan of CSI is to acquire and develop nursing facilities in locations where CSI already has a management structure nearby. T. 421. Hillsborough Healthcare proposes to construct and operate a single story combination nursing home, consisting of 120 beds, and an adult congregate living facility, consisting of 60 beds. H.H. Ex. 1; T. 423. The 120 nursing beds would consist of 60 skilled nursing beds and 60 intermediate care beds. The 60 skilled nursing beds includes a distinct 24 bed unit for Alzheimer's disease patients. Id. The application estimates the total project cost to be $5,032,475, with $3,367,668 of that cost attributed to the nursing facility portion of the project. H.H. Ex. 1. This is $28,063.90 per nursing bed for 120 beds. The facility would have a rehabilitation program, activities, and social services programs. T. 423. The Hillsborough Healthcare facility intends to make its facility available as a training facility for medical and nursing schools. T. 461. The facility would participate in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and estimates about 30 percent Medicaid utilization. T. 423. Hillsborough Healthcare would accept partial approval of only 60 nursing home beds. T. 490. In that event, the 60 bed nursing facility (combined with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility) would offer the same services, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 390, 473. Access as a patient to the facility will be on an equal basis, without distinction as to race, religion, or sex. The facility will be constructed to provide handicapped access. T. 462-63. At least 30 percent of the patients served by the Hillsborough Healthcare facility would be Medicaid patients, and the percentage may well be higher. Currently, 17 of the 21 CSI nursing homes participate in state Medicaid programs, and all of the Florida nursing homes have Medicaid patients. All new nursing homes developed by CSI participate in both Medicaid and Medicare. Many of the 17 nursing homes were not Medicaid certified prior to acquisition by Hillsborough Healthcare, but are now certified and participate. CSI has never decertified one of its nursing homes as a Medicaid provider. T. 424. Existing CSI managed facilities in Florida are currently experiencing a 40 percent Medicaid utilization, which includes at least one in Hillsborough County. T. 1798. B. Quality assurance Sixteen of the 21 CSI managed nursing homes are in states that use a licensure rating system, and of these, 14 are have achieved the highest rating. T. 422. No CSI facility has ever had its licensed revoked or has ever been fined. Id. One-half (three) of CSI managed Florida facilities are rated superior. T. 319. Centralized management and location of facilities so that management resources can be shared should enhance the quality of care at the proposed nursing facility. The quality assurance program will be guided by a lengthy policies and procedures manual that is in use in other Florida CSI managed nursing homes. H.H. Ex. 11; T. 313. CSI employs a full time Florida registered nurse to make visits at least once a month to CSI facilities in Florida as a part of the quality assurance program. T. 316. The nurse conducts quality of care inspections, using measuring instruments developed by the CSI quality assurance program, and teaches new methods to improve the quality of health care. T. 317. Hillsborough Healthcare will have an adequate quality assurance program. T. 310. C. Services and programs CSI would provide programs for care of Alzheimer's disease patients, respite care, and adult day care. Respite care is temporary nursing care, for 16 days or less, to give the family a temporary rest from home care, and to improve the condition of the patient. T. 300. Adult day care is care only during the day to enable a family member to work. T. 301. Both types of care provide an opportunity for the elderly patient to receive nursing services, including the programs and medical care available at the nursing home, while giving home care providers a rest or needed free time. The Alzheimer's disease unit of 24 intensive care nursing beds would have operational and design features to meet the special needs of those patient. The medical director is to be board certified with a specialty in geriatrics and training with respect to Alzheimer's disease. Activities will be altered to accommodate the limitations of those patients. Staffing will be at a higher level, and staff will be specially trained to meet the needs of those patients. The facility will be designed with a secure courtyard, special dining room, and wander guard, to allow movement without physical or chemical intervention or restraints. T. 299, 289. CSI varies the activities programs at its facilities to match the needs of patients. T. 270. Activities for Alzheimer's patients, adult day care and respite care residents are designed within the limitations of those patients. T. 289-90. CSI typically provides activities that provide small and large group interaction, socialization, mental and physical activity, recreation, and religious activities. T. 270. The activities that have been implemented or suggested for CSI facilities are innovative, varied, and appear to be the result of much thoughtful work. T. 273-74; H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 115-123 H.H. Ex. 8. Some of CSI staff involved in activities have received awards for their work. T. 288. The proposed facility would provide activities similar to the activities provided at other CSI facilities. T. 274. CSI has employed an expert in community relations and activities programming to coordinate community relations, activities, and the volunteer program at all CSI nursing homes, including the proposed facility. That expert is the author of pp. 114-121 of the application, H.H. Ex. 1. The expert would recruit and train activities and community relations directors at the proposed facility. T. 287. CSI publishes a newsletter containing an exchange of program information, and encourages each nursing home to publish its own newsletter. Some do. H.H. Ex. 10; T. 284-85. Volunteers are encouraged to participate in nursing home activities. 272. CSI has compiled a package of volunteer information for use in development of a volunteer program at each nursing home. H.H. Ex. 9. Volunteers increase resident participation in programs, bring fresh ideas, and causes there to be a greater variety of activities and programs for residents. T. 281. Association of the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility is a useful way to provide continuity of care and lessens the trauma to the resident of the initial move into a nursing facility. In some cases, a spouse may live in the adult congregate living facility and thus be closer to the spouse who must be in a nursing facility. CSI currently manages Sun Terrace Nursing Center, a 120 bed nursing home, and Lake Towers Retirement Center, both in Hillsborough County. Consequently, CSI has already in existence a network of relationships that would benefit residents at the proposed facility. Existing relationships include a system for patient referrals from local hospitals, transfer agreements with local hospitals for acute and emergency care, and agreements with local providers for ancillary services, such as physical therapy, diet therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, opthalmology, dental care, podiatry, x- ray, and pharmacy services. T. 302-304. Similar agreements for the proposed facility could be established. Such agreements are cost effective because used only as needed. T. 304. CSI would provide all the ancillary services listed in figure 1, page 14, H.H. Ex. 1. T. 304. Staffing The proposed staffing of the facility, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit, is adequate. T. 308. The proposed salaries are reasonable and adequate. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will be able to recruit adequate staff. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will provide a reasonable staff development program. T. 309. This program will aid in the retention of staff. T. 310. Construction and facility design The 120 bed nursing section is designed to include 4 private rooms and 58 semiprivate (double occupancy) 4 rooms. T. 355. The design includes the services and departments listed on table 12 of H.H. Ex. 1. It is proposed that the total gross square feet will be 33,996, or 283 square feet per bed. H.H. Ex. 1 The square footage allocated by the design to net living space in patient bedrooms and gross area of the nursing unit, tables 18 and 19, H.H. Ex 1, are reasonable. T. 355. Semiprivate (2 bed) rooms would have 185 net square feet of living space. The Hillsborough Healthcare design has several cost saving features. Sharing ancillary services and spaces (kitchen, administrative areas, and laundry) with the adult congregate living facility of 60 beds reduces the overall construction and equipment cost and operational cost per bed. Use of a modular "T" configuration, with straight line walls and corridors for units, results in a savings in construction cost. T. 360-61. The compact design, accompanied by extensive roof over hangs and insulating materials, will reduce energy requirements. T. 357 The floor plan could easily be altered by alteration of the arrangement of the modular wings to fit on different sites. T. 358. Nurses' stations are located in the middle of wings, giving good visibility down corridors, but no visibility into rooms. The nurses' station is 7 rooms from the most distant room on any wing. H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The Alzheimer's disease unit is in a separate portion of one wing, and is contiguous to an interior space that will be fenced to make a secure courtyard. T. 357; H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The construction cost includes additional wheelchairs and walkers, and includes $4,500 for a wander guard system for the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 364. The projected construction cost includes fixed equipment. T. 356. The construction cost of $2,331,418 is reasonable. T. 356. All of the costs estimated in table 25, H.H. Ex. 1, p. 33 (estimated project costs) are reasonable. T. 345-466, 356, 455-56. Availability of resources Through available equity and long term debt, adequate resources exist for Hillsborough Healthcare to construct and initially operate the proposed facility. T. 396-402. Financial feasibility The proposed facility is financially feasible in the short term. T. 396-402; H.H. Exs. 15, 16, 1. The projected charge rates, table 8, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 379-80, 400, 452. The projected percentages of patient utilization by payor class, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 450, 393. The projected number of expected patient days in the first two years of operation, tables 10 and 7, H.H. Ex. 1, reasonable. T. 488-49. The projections of total revenue, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 400-01. The projections of expenses and net income for the first two years of operation are reasonable. H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 100-01; T. 401-02. The 120 community nursing home bed version of Hillsborough Healthcare's application is financially feasible in the long term. T. 402. If the Department partially approves the Hillsborough Healthcare application for 60 beds, to be operated in conjunction with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility, the projection will be financially feasible in both the short and long term. T. 402. The project would be financially feasible with a higher Medicaid participation. T. 424. The merits of the Health Quest application General provisions Since critical portions of the 60 bed application, H.Q. Ex. 3, were impermissible changes to the 88 bed application, and thus not admitted into evidence, only the 88 bed application will be discussed. Health Quest proposes to construct and operate 88 community nursing home beds in conjunction with an adult congregate living facility of 124 units. H.Q. Ex. 2. The total cost of the nursing portion of the facility is estimated to be $3,054,466, or $34,719 per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest has entered into an agreement with a group of 129 physicians, organized as the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa. That association comprises the bulk of the physicians who practice at University Community Hospital in northern Tampa. T. 585. The agreement is that Health Quest would build and manage the nursing home, and the physicians would provide medical oversight and referrals. T. 579. The physicians would contribute to equity and share in operating profits and losses. T. 624. The share is 25 percent. T. 694-95. Other details are not in evidence. The negotiations for the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa took several months, and the agreement itself did not come into being until August, 1987. T. 581. The University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is not named as an applicant in the original application since the agreement came into being after the application was filed. Health Quest intends to construct the proposed nursing home and adult congregate living facility near the present location of the University Community Hospital. T. 583. Health Quest intends to serve approximately 30 percent Medicaid patients. T. 841, 1102. Quality Assurance Health Quest has nursing homes in Florida, Indiana, and Illinois. Health Quest has a reputation in Indiana and Illinois for providing good health care. T. 599-609. Health Quest has three nursing homes in Florida. Of those three, two had been open long enough at the time of the hearing to have received a Florida rating. Both were rated superior. T. 610. Health Quest has a nursing home in Jacksonville, Florida, and the quality assurance program and services at that facility are representative of the type of care and services at other Health Quest facilities, as well as what is intended for the proposed Health Quest facility in Hillsborough County. T. 1077, 1102. All findings of fact which follow that reference the quality of care or scope and nature of services at the Jacksonville facility are thus also findings of fact that these quality assurance programs and services are intended to exist at the Hillsborough facility. The Jacksonville facility maintains a resident care plan on each resident. Health Quest would provide health care of good quality at its proposed facility. Services and programs The Jacksonville facility provides a number of services that require skilled nursing or arguably fall within the category of "subacute" care. The term "subacute" care is not a formal definition, and there is no Florida licensure category for that phrase. The Jacksonville facility provides intravenous therapy, parenteral nutrition, and tracheostomy care. T. 848-51. It also provides care for comatose patients (accident or stroke victims) regardless of age, and care of post-craniotomy patients. T. 851-53, 855-56. Health Quest does not intend to care for neonates (sick infants less than two weeks old). Neonates require care that is distinct from the care required for the elderly, thus requiring staff with different training. Neonates also can be at substantial risk from respiratory and urinary infections commonly present among the elderly in a nursing home. T. 859-61. The Jacksonville facility provides physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. The physical therapist is a full time position. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides counseling to residents and families with a full time social worker on staff. T. 864. The Jacksonville facility provides music therapy, outside trips, and other activities, such as family night, the artist in residence program, and use of the facility for community programs. T. 866, 888, 892. Some of these programs are conducted jointly with the adult congregate living facility. Volunteers are used in the activities programs as well. T. 869. The quality of the activities program is directly related to the numbers of staff persons involved in the program. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides respite care of about two weeks in duration, although it could be longer. T 872. The adult congregate living facility that would be a part of the Health Quest facility would have tee same beneficial consequences as the adult congregate living facility proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare. T. 902-04. The Jacksonville facility is often used as a place for continuing nursing education for high schools or the local nursing association. T. 906-07. Staffing Health Quest proposes a total of 59.75 FTE's or .679 FTE per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 11. Health Quest acknowledged that the staffing proposed for the 88 bed facility was adequate in 1986 when prepared, but by 1987, it was experiencing the need for more licensed personnel, and that it would increase licensed personnel for the 88 bed facility now. T. 630. No evidence was presented as to the specific changes that would be made. T. 632. Construction and facility design Health Quest proposed in its application to construct 34 two bed rooms, 6 three bed rooms, and 2 one bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 17. Health Quest wants to change its design, if built, to make the three bed rooms into two bed rooms. T. 631. Health Quest proposes to provide 240 square feet of net living space for semiprivate two bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest proposes to provide a total of 37,263 square feet for the 88 bed facility, or 423 square feet per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest estimates that the project will need 3 to 4 acres of land, and projects that it can acquire the land for about $320,000. H.Q. Ex. 2; 634. This estimate is reasonable in comparison to the estimates of all other applicants. Health Quest has constructed three nursing homes in Florida, and others in Indiana and Illinois, and thus has substantial experience in construction. Photographs of the nursing homes constructed and now operated by Health Quest show that those nursing homes are reasonably attractive and appear to be hospitable places in which to live. H.Q. Ex. 22. Availability of resources Health Quest has access to sufficient funds to construct the project and initially operate it. T. 586-87. Financial feasibility The Health Quest proposal is financially feasible in the short term and the long term. T. 593 Summary of comparative data The space and costs associated with the four proposals may be compared as follows: Appl. Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Careage $34,583 214 306 $162 $113 Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The proposed staffing of the four proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant Total FTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Beds Careage 96.0 11.9 7.4 42.1 120 Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: TotalFTE Applicant Per Bed PN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Careage .80 .10 .16 .51 Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 Comparison of the Careage staffing to other applicants is difficult because Careage proposes primarily to serve patients needing skilled nursing care who thus require more nursing staff per bed. Forum Group, Hillsborough Healthcare, and Health Quest are relatively the same with respect to anticipated efficiencies and continuity of care due to the association of adult congregate living facility beds with the proposed nursing home. Forum Group plans only 30 ACLF beds, but also plans 120 independent living apartments. Hillsborough proposes to provide 60 ACLF beds, and Health Quest proposes to have 124 ACLF beds. There is no evidence in the record to determine the optimum mix of ACLF beds to nursing home beds. Conclusions of Law The Division of Administrative hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. The Department's free form preliminary decision The free form decision of the agency is ordinarily not dispositive since a formal administrative hearing is intended to formulate agency action, and is not intended to review prior action. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The reasoning of the agency in its free form decision, however, ordinarily is a significant matter to be considered in the formal hearing. Findings of fact with respect to the free form decision-making upon the applications in this batching cycle have been made for two reasons: the assertion that the free form decision was influenced by considerations other than objective merit of the applications, and therefore not entitled to any persuasive effect upon this formal hearing, and representations in the free form stage made by Careage relevant to evaluation of the application of Careage. The free form decision in this case had the appearance of having been influenced in part by considerations other than the objective merit of the applications. For this reason, the free form decision with respect to these applicants has been disregarded as having no persuasive weight. Need calculated pursuant to rule 10-5.001(1)(k)2 Need for community nursing home beds is calculated pursuant to the need methodology set forth in rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)2, Fla. Admin. Code. The text of the rule is not in evidence, but comparison of the text of the rule referenced in proposed recommended orders indicates that the parties appear to agree that the rule promulgated on November 24, 1986, should govern this case. It is that rule that will be used in this recommended order. All parties agree that July 1, 1989, is the date upon which subdistrict need for community nursing home beds is to be determined. The first step in the need calculation pursuant to the rule is to determine BA. BA is defined by subparagraph 2a of the rule as the estimated bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district. Subparagraph 2b of the rule provides: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. LB is at least 5,964, and is 6,060 if the 96 beds at the Home Association are, on this record, classified as community nursing home beds. Section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987) provides in part: This section shall not preclude a continuing care provider form applying to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a certificate of need for community nursing home beds or a combination of community and sheltered nursing home beds. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility that is or has been issued for nonrestrictive use shall retain its legal status as a community nursing home bed unless the provider requests a change in status. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community bed. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may require continuing care facilities to submit bed utilization reports for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents. (E.S.) The first sentence of this statutory section does not apply to the Home Association because it has not applied for a certificate of need. The second sentence does not apply because there is no evidence in the record that the nursing home beds at the Home Association were "issued" by anyone. The third sentence applies because the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association were "not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979." The Home Association has existed since 1899 with its 96 nursing home beds, and never had a certificate of need. There was no statutory authority or definition for the issuance of a "sheltered nursing home" prior to 1979. By operation of law (the third sentence quoted above), the 96 beds are community nursing home beds. The fourth sentence appears to be directly in conflict with the third sentence. The fourth sentence states that HRS can conduct a study of historical utilization "for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents." The third sentence automatically confers community nursing home bed status upon certain beds based solely upon three criteria (located in a continuing care facility, located there before 1979, and not "issued" as a sheltered nursing home bed). Community nursing home bed status is thus conferred solely upon the three criteria, and historical utilization is irrelevant to the third sentence. If that is so, the fourth sentence, which allows HRS to "determine" community nursing home status based only upon historical utilization, is in direct conflict with the third sentence. This seemingly irreconcilable dilemma is not at issue in this case, however, because there is insufficient credible evidence in the record as to the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association. As discussed in the findings of fact, there is no credible evidence in this record as to how the 96 beds at the Home Association have in fact been "utilized" since 1899. Indeed, the only logical inference on this ambiguous record is that the Home Association has not felt itself constrained by any definitional categories, given its longevity in the Tampa Bay area. It thus is concluded as a matter of law, pursuant to the third sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987), that the 96 beds at the Home Association are community nursing home beds, and thus should be counted in the licensed beds in the district and subdistrict, LB and LBD. Thus, the correct value for LB in this case as of June 1, 1986, is 6,060. Next, the values of POPC and POPD must be determined Two issues arise with respect to ascertainment of the values of POPC and POPD. The first is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined on January 1, 1986, or on July 1, 1986. The second is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined based upon the Governor's estimates and projections of populations released on July 1, 1986, or on May 12, 1987. The first issue is governed by the clear language of the existing rule. The second issue has no clear guidance in the existing rule, and thus depends upon analysis of the record basis of the agency's incipient policy. With respect to the first issue, the parties urge that POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, rather than on July 1, 1986. The basis of this argument is the inconsistent behavior of HRS over the last three years and in the January, 1987, batching cycle, wherein the values of POPC and POPD were often effectively determined on a date six months prior to the commencement of the batching cycle, a date which was the midpoint in the occupancy rate months. Notwithstanding the inconsistent manner in which HRS has interpreted its rules, a fundamental principle of law is that if the rule is clear, the agency must follow it. Kearse v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 474 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987);. There is no deference to the agency's interpretation of law (in this case, the conflicting interpretation of the office of comprehensive health planning) where the construction is based upon common meanings. Schoettle v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 513 So.2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Roberts v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 509 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case the Department has elected to follow the clear mandate of its own rule. This is not an occasion where the inconsistency of the agency with respect to incipient policy implicates questions of fairness to those regulated. Here, despite the arguable unfairness to the applicants in this batching cycle, the agency should follow its own clear rules. The populations POPC and POPD are clearly intended by the rule to be determined as of the date of the applications for certificate of need and the date of commencement of the batching cycle. The rule unequivocally calls for a projection of need "three years" into the future. T. 1254, 1250. There is no disagreement that the end date of that projection is July 1, 1989. What ends must have had a beginning. A three year period that ends on June 1, 1989, begins on July 1, 1986. Moreover, the rule clearly establishes the value of LB, licensed beds, as of June 1, 1986. The bedrate, the driving force in determining need, is the ratio of licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, to POPC and POPD, populations of elderly persons assumed to be using the beds. If LB was determined on June 1, 1986, but POPC and POPD determined on January 1, 1986, the ratio would be incongruent. The Department undoubtedly intended there to be a correlation between beds and people in existence at the same time since the result is supposed to be a model of need. Selection of the numerator from one date and the denominator for another date results in a fractured reality having little bearing upon the issue of whether the elderly in Hillsborough County will have enough or too may nursing home beds in July, 1989. Finally, the definition "current" populations POPC and POPD was established by the final order in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051. The final order in that case, entered on February 7, 1987, determined that POPC and POPD must be the populations current on the date of application for the certificate of need. For these reasons, POPC and POPD should be the populations on July 1, 1986. The next issue is the source of those population estimates. HRS argues that POPC and POPD must be derived from the July 1, 1986, release of the Governor's estimates and projections of populations. HRS has failed to establish guidance in this area by rule, and instead has chosen to rely upon evolving agency policy as the basis for selecting the source off POPC and POPD. An agency need not adopt all policy as a rule, but to the extent that it relies upon non-rule incipient policy as a basis for decision and that decision is challenged in a formal administrative hearing, the agency has the burden to establish in the record "adequate support for its decision." Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1980); Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, et al., 475 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 582-584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The only support offered by HRS for its incipient policy to use population releases available at the time of certificate of need application was that those releases were the only ones available at such time, and thus necessarily the agency's preliminary decision had to be based upon the earlier release. This may be a permissible construction of the enabling statutes, and might pass muster as an agency rule, but HRS has in this case elected to defend its policy on a case by case basis. On this record, it is clear that the policy has not been adequately supported and is unreasonable. While reliance upon the population release available at this time of preliminary agency action is obviously reasonable at that time, since it is then the most current release, the mere fact that it is the only release-then available is an inadequate reason for continuing to use that release at the de novo formal administrative hearing that follows. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, the inadequacy of HRS's basis for its incipient policy has been demonstrated in this record. The May 12, 1987, release is substantially more accurate than the release a year earlier. The May 12, 1987, release is much closer to observed population growth in the subdistrict than the earlier release. These facts were not rebutted. To underscore the inadequacy of HRS's incipient policy, it bears repeating that use of the July 1, 1986, population release underestimates the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County in July, 1989, by 100 percent. This indicates that something is dramatically wrong with the incipient policy. For these reasons, the values of POPC and POPD should be taken from the May 12, 1987, release of population estimates. POPC is 134,968 and POPD is 94,402. The calculation of the bed rate, BA, thus is as follows: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) BA= 6,060/134,968 + (6 X 94,402)) BA= 0.0086401 The next step in the calculation is to calculate BB, which is defined as the estimated bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district. The calculation is provided in subparagraph 2c of the rule: BB= 6 X BA BB= 6 X 0.0086401 BB= 0.0518406 Subparagraph 2a of the rule then requires calculation of A, which is gross need for the horizon year: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) Where: A is the district's projected age-adjusted total number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made. POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. For the reasons discussed with respect to selection of the date of the proper release of Governor's population estimates and projections with respect to POPC and POPD, POPA and POPB should be obtained from the May 12, 1987, Governor's release. POPA is 149,771 and POPB is 108,400. Therefore, continuing the calculation: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) A= (149,771 X 0.0086401) + (108,400 X 0.0518406) A= 1,294.0364 + 5,619.521 A= 6,913.5574 The next step is to calculate SA, which is the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds pursuant to paragraph 2d of the rule: SA A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: * * * LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of the applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months October- March preceding that cycle . . . * * * LBD is 2,708 since the 96 beds at the Home Association were community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County on June 1, 1986. OR is 94.29 Therefore, SA is calculated: SA= A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 x (2,708/6,060) x (.9429/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 X 0.4468646 X 1.0476666 SA= 3,236.6863 SA= 3,237 In the last sentence of subparagraph 2 of the rule, the "poverty adjustment" is described as follows: "In districts with a high proportion of elderly residents living in poverty, the methodology specifies a minimum bed rate." In this case, all parties agree that when the numbers are assigned to the values in the formula contained in subparagraph 2e of the rule, the poverty adjustment operates to reduce rather than enlarge the net bed need. Thus, in this case, strict application of the A formula found in subparagraph 2e fails to produce the intended "minimum" bed rate. HRS construes the rule, in this instance, to mean that the poverty adjustment does not apply, T. 1280, and all parties agree. This will be treated as a stipulation by all parties that the poverty adjustment is not an issue in this case. For this reason, the poverty adjustment will not be used in the calculations in this recommended order. The final step in the need calculation is defined by subparagraph 2i of the rule, and that is to calculate the net bed allocation for the subdistrict. Subparagraph 2i provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs through I. unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. All parties agree that the number of licensed beds within the subdistrict is determined as of June 1, 1986, for this batching cycle. That number for purposes of determining net need is 2,708. The number of approved beds for purposes of determining net need is 368. Net need for community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for July 1, 1989, is thus determined: Net Need = SA - (LBD + (.9 X AB)) Net Need = 3,237 - (2,708 + (.9 X 368)) Net Need = 3,237 - 3,039.2 Net Need = 197.8 Net Need = 198 Thus, on July 1, 1989, the subdistrict, Hillsborough County, will need 198 community nursing home beds. Evidence of "not normal" need Rule 10-5.011(k)2.j. provides criteria for approval of community nursing home certificates of need "in the event that the net bed allocation [pursuant to the rule formula] is zero . . ." The net bed allocation pursuant to the rule method is not zero in this case. Subparagraph 2j thus does not apply. The Petitioners did not present any evidence of need pursuant to the special criteria of subparagraph 2j of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(k)1. Provides: 1. Department Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds in the subdistricts designated by local health councils. (E.S.) Many other HRS need rules have the same "not normal" loophole, and in all of these other cases, the applicants are thereby given the opportunity to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of additional beds by consideration of various aspects of the statutory criteria. Since subparagraph 2j does not apply, the provisions of subparagraph 1 do apply to grant a similar opportunity. The only other credible or competent evidence presented by the Petitioners as to a "not normal" condition of need was evidence concerning the numbers of elderly residents in the subdistrict and the occupancy rates of existing community nursing homes. These factors have already been accounted for in the rule formula, and cannot be counted again. Health Quest Realty, XII v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 477 So.2d 576, 578-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) Amendment or update of applications Rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that "[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Office of Health Planning and Development, no further information or amendment will be accepted by the Department." (E.S.) The rule states that the Department will accept no information after the application is deemed complete. The words used are not ambiguous or unclear. Thus, if normal rules of construction were to be followed, the conclusion would be drawn that the Department is bound by its own clear rule, and cannot, by interpretation, add exceptions. But an equally valid rule of construction is that absurd results must be avoided. Certificate of need cases, particular ones like the case at bar, are highly competitive and complicated. The review of these applications by HRS was delayed for months beyond the normal review period. Further delay has occurred in discovery and preparation for the lengthy formal administrative hearing. Time changes all, and over this period of time, new data has come to the attention of all parties. It would be absurd `to require the applicants to prove applications that have become erroneous due to the passage of time. It is highly probable that rule 10-5.008(3) was originally drafted with only the free form review of an application for a certificate of need in mind, and that the application (or non-application) of the rule to an administrative hearing a year or more later was not considered by those who drafted the rule. Indeed, prior to August, 1985, the Department and all litigants uniformly followed the McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) principle of Florida administrative law that formal administrative hearings are de novo, and that new information pertaining to the application is admissible. In August, 1985, the case of Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) was decided. While the Gulf Court decision was concerned only with the competitive status of applicants with respect to bed need, in the aftermath of that decision, the Department elected to construe rule 10- 5.008(3) as forbidding practically all new information, even information that had nothing to do with bed need. This undoubtedly was an overreaction to the Gulf Court decision, but the Department, after all, has always had the authority to establish rules governing the processing of applications for certificates of need, including the number and timing of amendments to such applications. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Given the fact that the rule is so clear, the better route would have been to amend the rule. As discussed above, conventional rules of statutory construction could easily support the legal conclusion that the rule must be applied as it is written, without further interpretation. Nonetheless, the Department for this case has chosen the other route, to interpret rather than to amend its rule. While the question is a close one, the Hearing Officer has concluded that it would be better to ignore the clear words of the rule, and attempt to apply the evolving interpretative policy of the Department to avoid an absurd result. The following appear to be the existing final orders of the Department interpreting rule 10-5.008(3), and its predecessor, published in the Florida Administrative Law Reports. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, 8 F.A.L.R. 4650 (September 24, 1986); Arbor Health Care Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Health Center, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 709 (October 13, 1986); Mease Hospital and Clinic v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 159 (October 13, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Collier County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 5883 (December 8, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Nursing Center of Highlands County, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1081 (December 8, 1986); Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1430 (February 2, 1987); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborough, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1630 (February 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1628 (March 2, 1987); Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc., d/b/a Psychiatric Institute of Orlando v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1626a (March 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2139 (March 24, 1987); Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2110 (April 17, 1987); Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2363 (May 1, 1987); Palms Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 1425 (February 15, 1988) These final orders contain the following statements concerning the Department's interpretation of rule 10-5.008(3) and its evolving policy with respect to changes to applications for certificates of need during section proceedings and admissibility of new information not contained in the original applications: Health Care and Retirement, supra, 8 F.A.L.R. at 4651: During 120.57 proceedings, an application may be updated to address facts extrinsic to the application such as interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories. An applicant is not allowed to update by adding additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS. Manatee Mental Health Center, supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1431: . . . HRS has authority by statute to issue a CON for an identifiable portion of project. Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes. MMHC's "amended" proposal reduced the number of beds sought, and was properly considered during the 120.57 proceedings. Manor Care. Inc., supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 2141-42: The amended applications [amended to address needs of Alzheimer's disease patients] changed the scope and character of the proposed facilities and services and thus, must be reviewed initially at HRS . . . [Gulf Court] . . . limited the de novo concept by requiring that evidence of changed circumstances be considered only if relevant to the application. Hialeah Hospital, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. at 2366: It is recognized that more than a year may pass between the free form decision by HRS and the final 120.57 hearing and this passage of time may require updating an application by evidence of changed circumstances such as the effect of inflation on interest and construction costs. For the sake of clarity HRS would avoid the use of the word "amendment" to describe such updating. Such evidence of changed circumstances beyond the control of the applicant is relevant to the original application and is admissible at the 120.57 hearing. Taking the easiest first, those items explicitly listed by the Department in the first Health Care and Retirement case, "interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories," which change after the application is initially filed, are permitted. Not permitted are "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS." The remainder of the Department's incipient policy, as presently articulated, is extremely obscure. The word "extrinsic" without the list of examples is of little guidance. The application is only an idea on paper. Anything new, other than the bare words on the paper as originally filed, is literally "extrinsic" thereto. The concept of whether the new information changes the "scope and character of the facilities and services" originally reviewed in free form action by the Department is similarly of little guidance because the phrase "scope and character" can mean practically anything. Of fundamental difficulty is whether this phrase is intended to select substantial changes to the original application, or all changes. For example, if the original application proposes separate shower stalls and tubs for double rooms, but the amended application proposes a combination shower and tub, has the "scope and character" of the "facilities and services" changed? The phrase "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS" is similarly vague. What is a service or construction or a concept not originally reviewed? Would this include the change in bathing equipment discussed above? The concept of "control" of the applicant over the information that goes into the original application is the only phrase that gives applicants any guidance. The word "control" probably is intended as a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard. If the applicant reasonably should have known about the information and should have provided the Department with the information as a part of its original application, then the new information cannot be considered during the formal administrative hearing. The Hearing Officer will be guided, thus, by the explicit list of items provided by the Department in the Health Care and Retirement case, and by the concept of "control" provided by the Hialeah case. New information submitted by Forum Group Table 7 of the Forum Group update is for the second year of operation. There was no projection of utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation in Forum Group's original application, and Forum Group presented no evidence to explain why its original application did not or could not forecast utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation. Table 7 of the update, F.G. Ex. 6, thus constitutes an attempt to add matters to the original application which could have been a part of the original application as filed. Pursuant to rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, it is now excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant. Table 8 of the Forum Group update was not proven by Forum Group to be based upon ordinary inflation. It appears that the revised charges in table 8 were based in part upon a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes conducted after Forum Group filed its original application. Forum Group did not prove that it could not reasonably have conducted such a telephone survey before it filed its original application. Thus, table 8 of F.G. Ex. 6 contravenes rule 10-5.008(3) and now is excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant to the original application. Table 10 of the Forum Group update was precisely the kind of new information allowed by the incipient policy of the Department. The old table 10 had an opening date of January, 1988, a date that was obviously in error due to the delay in decision in these cases. The new information was simply the old information altered by current occupancy and fillup rates in the subdistrict, data that could not have been acquired when the original application was filed. "Current occupancies" is explicitly listed by HRS as permissible new data in the Health Care and Retirement case, supra. Table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, is admitted into evidence. The revised table 11 contains positions for a dietary supervisor, maintenance supervisor, and utility workers, all of which could have been reported in the original table 11. These portions of table 11 are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in the FTE's for registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. These changes could have been in the original table 11 and are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in salaries that were adequately shown to be the result of inflation and new market data not available at the time the application was deemed complete. These portions of revised table 11 are admitted into evidence. Table 25 of the revised application, F.G. Ex. 6, which summarizes estimated project costs, including construction costs, contains new information permitted by the Department's evolving policy. The new table contains no changes of substance except changes caused by inflation and current construction experience. The bottom line, except to that extent, has not changed in substance. Table 25 of F.G. Ex. 6 is admitted into evidence in its entirety. Revisions to tables 17-20, F.G. Ex. 6, were driven entirely by inflation in construction costs. Surely if the Department allows an applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new costs, the Department's policy would also allow the applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new methods to reduce new costs caused by inflation. These revisions are admitted into evidence. The revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First, the revision was explained as being based upon changes in utilization by class of pay, but that data, table 7 of the revision, was not admitted into evidence. Moreover, the changes in total operating expenses resulted from impermissible changes in the numbers of FTE's which have been excluded from evidence. It is not possible on this record to determine how much of the revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has been shown to be a credible projection, given the lack of these fundamental sources of the projection. Moreover, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, has not been credibly shown to be based upon matters that Forum Group could not have known at the time it originally filed its application. This conclusion flows from the fact that the original application did not project utilization by class of pay in year 2. Absent this projection, the revision of total operating expenses must necessarily be based upon data that was absent from the original application. The same is true with respect to changes in FTE's in the revision. For these reasons, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, constitutes an impermissible offer of new data precluded by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Health Quest Table 8 of the revised application of Health Quest, H.Q. Ex. 3, was based upon information that Health Quest could have obtained when it filed its original application. Table 8 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is thus excluded from evidence. Table 11 of the revised application was based upon the actual experience acquired after the original application was filed. Table 11 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is admitted into evidence. Table 17 of the original application projected that the facility would have six three-bed rooms, but the revised application deleted all 3 bed rooms. Since Health Quest failed to show that this new information would have been unavailable to it when it filed its original application, the change as to 3 rooms is not admissible. The ineluctable result, therefore, is that all of revised table 17 is inadmissible since the proper mix of beds has not been proven. The change of square footage of 1 bed room to 216 in the revised table 18 is inadmissible because it contravenes rule 10-5.008(3). Evidence as to the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is admissible as matters which did not exist and could not have been a part of the original application. The objections to that testimony, T. 579- 80, are overruled. New information submitted by Careage The changes to the Careage application, C. Exs. 18-23 and 24-25, were shown to be based upon information not reasonably obtainable by Careage when it filed its original application, and thus are admitted into evidence over the objections made that these exhibits were barred by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. Comparative review of the applications Careage failed to prove two essential portions of its application. It did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it would in fact operate the proposed facility if the certificate of need were granted, and it did not prove by credible evidence that it would provide care of good quality. For these reasons, the Careage application should be denied. The other applicants proved by credible evidence all essential portions of their applications. The only remaining task, therefore, is to determine the proper allocation of the 198 beds needed in July, 1989, among these three applicants. The space and costs associated with the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Appli Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/Bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The cost per net square foot per bed (Cost/NetFtBed) is derived by dividing the cost per bed by the net square feet of living space per bed. Likewise, the cost by total square feet (gross) per bed (Cost/TotFtBed) is derived by the same division. Health Quest is preferable to the other two applicants when these cost and space figures are considered. It provides more space at a lower cost per square foot. The differences between Hillsborough Healthcare and Forum Group are not sufficiently significant to give one preference over the other. Hillsborough Healthcare is the less expensive proposal, but suffers from being the least spacious proposal in comparison to Forum Group. Moreover, the record does not contain guiding policies to determine whether there is a need in Hillsborough County for cheaper, less spacious, nursing homes, or for more expensive, more spacious nursing homes. The proposed staffing of the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant TotalFTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Bed Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: Total FTE Applicant Per Bed RN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 The total nursing FTE per bed for each applicant is relatively equal, with Hillsborough Healthcare having the highest ratio and Health Quest the lowest. Forum Group has significantly more RN's and LPN's per bed than Health Quest, but the overall nursing staffing is comparable. Hillsborough Healthcare is the lowest when only RN's and LPN's are considered, and the lowest total FTE per bed. The differences noted in staffing do not appear to be sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. Hillsborough Healthcare's facility may be staffed at a less costly level, but whether this is due to substitution of nursing assistants for RN's and LPN's, or a result of efficiencies due to the larger number of beds (120), or reflects less than optimum staffing cannot be determined on this record. Hillsborough did not present evidence as to staffing patterns for a 60 bed facility. Other features of the proposals of the three applicants provide little to distinguish or rank them in priority. All three propose to associate the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility, resulting in cost efficiencies and better continuity of care. All three have a substantial track record in the operation of a nursing homes, and can be expected to provide care of good quality. All three have very substantial resources and prior experience in the development and initial operation of a nursing home. If any distinction were to be made, perhaps it would be to favor the Hillsborough Healthcare application over the Forum Group application. Hillsborough Healthcare plans to serve the needs of Alzheimer's patients, and Forum Group does not. Hillsborough Healthcare's application is, relative to the Forum Group proposal, less expensive. On the other hand, the Alzheimer's disease unit is only a marginal factor since there is no qualified evidence in this record of need for that type of unit in 1989 in Hillsborough County. One can only infer that the need is probably going to be there, and it might be better to prefer Hillsborough over Forum Group for that reason. The "luxury" vs. "austerity" comparison is similarly not of ultimate persuasive weight since, as discussed above, there is no credible evidence in the record as to what the proper mix should be. Of course, it is safe to conclude that the need for less expensive nursing care is greater than the need for care that only a few can afford, but that conclusion does not necessarily result in the total denial of the Forum Group application. In summary, with respect to the question as to which applicant should be favored with approval of the most number of beds from the projected bed need, there is no major issue to adequately distinguish between the three applicants. For this reason, each applicant should be treated as equally as possible consistent with the application it submitted and the evidence it presented in support of that application. The Department appears to have several relatively reasonable ways to allocate bed need among the three applicants. It might simply divide the beds equally among the three. This alternative is less reasonable because it would ignore the detailed proof that has been presented by both Forum Group and Health Quest in support of proposed facilities of 60 beds and 88 beds respectively, and would result in implementation of facilities having staffing and design configuration that would be altered from that proof. A second alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award full approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 120 beds, and to deny the application of Forum Group. A third alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award partial approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 beds, and to award full approval to Forum Group for 60 beds. This third alternative is more reasonable and will be recommended by this order. This alternative has the advantage of fostering the most future competition in Hillsborough County by approving three competitors rather than two. Of the three applicants, Health Quest proposed the most space, relatively speaking, for the least cost. The staffing proposed by Health Quest is reasonable in comparison to the other two applicants. Reduction of the Health Quest proposal to 78 beds from 88 beds is a relatively minor reduction; stated another way, the proof provided by Health Quest as to the specifics of an 88 bed facility is likely to be changed only slightly for a 78 bed facility. Forum Group proved all of the details of its 60 bed proposal, and thus approval of those beds would be entirely consistent with its application and proof in this record. Hillsborough Healthcare did not prove the specifics of a 60 bed partially approved facility except that such a facility would contain the full sized Alzheimer's patient unit proposed in its 120 bed facility. It would be fairer to approve Hillsborough for that 60 bed facility than to approve Hillsborough for 120 beds, leaving Forum Group with denial of its application, given the lack of a compelling clear choice between the two applicants. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order partially granting the application of Health Quest for 78 community nursing home beds, partially granting the application of Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 community nursing home beds, fully granting the application of Forum Group for 60 community nursing home beds, and denying the application of Careage. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 87-0670, 87-0671, and 87-0774 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact contained in this appendix are adopted as findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 1-2. These proposed findings of fact are' subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The classification of the Home Association beds has been thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The correct population figures are discussed in the findings of fact. 9-13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 15. The changes to table 7 were not the result of a telephone survey. T. 51. 17. Defining "extrinsic circumstances" as not inclusive of economic or market changes that occurred after the original application was deemed to have been complete, or otherwise not reasonably obtainable or knowable by the applicant when the original application was filed, is contrary to HRS policy embodied in final orders, sketchy as it may be. 18, 23-25. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. 26, 28. Rejected with respect to table 11 as explained in the findings of fact. 30. This finding of fact, while true, is not made because Health Quest made no such change to its 88 bed application. Rule 10-5.008(1) simply states that the application for a certificate of need must be filed on form 1455. Table 12 of the form has no instructions for what must be contained therein. Since HRS has not demonstrated on this record that table 12 in the original application was supposed to have listed these items, it cannot be said that the listing of these items in the new table 12 is a change. It is noted that spaces to take showers, baths, store linen, and for nursing stations would be assumed for any nursing home, and ought not be presumed to have been excluded by the failure of an applicant to list them. Moreover, it is further noted that from a review of the original application H.Q. Ex. 1 that table 12 does include nursing administrative space, patient lounges, a central supply space, general storage, housekeeping, and laundry. Moreover, the amendment, H.Q. Ex. 2, shows the following spaces on the space diagram: laundry, shower, patient lounge, and medication room (med). Any bed room could be used for isolation. Table 20 does include a chapel. H.Q. Ex. 1. Not supported by the record cited. Findings of fact proposed by Forum Group: 1-4, 9, 13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 5. LB of 5,964, as proposed by the Department, is most credible as the beginning figure, without considering the beds at the Home Association. 7-8, 10. Incorrect value for LB. 11. OR should be 94.29 with the Home Association beds. 18. Incorrect values for LB and OR. 21. The denial occurred orally in January, 1987. The update has been discussed in findings of fact and conclusions of law. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. It is true that there is need and the need must be satisfied. 29-33. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 34. The phrase "homelike atmosphere" is too vague to be a finding of fact. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to make a finding as to the history of Forum Group with respect to the quality of care provided at Forum Group facilities. 49-50. The update with respect to financial feasibility is not relevant since essential parts of the update with respect to financial feasibility were not admitted into evidence. 60, 65, 67, 68, 74, and 80. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 66. This is not relevant. Ms. Kennedy testified that she had authority from Hillsborough Healthcare to accept a certificate of need for a 60 bed nursing home. There is no credible evidence to contradict this statement under oath. The lack of a written partnership authorization in evidence does not negate this statement. 76. Had there been any credible evidence in theme cases that the amount of need in Hillsborough County was minimal and that, consequently, the pro formas for 60 bed nursing-homes must be closely scrutinized for long term financial feasibility, then it would be relevant that CSI did not explain in detail the pro forma for a 60 bed nursing home. CSI did, however, present expert opinion that a 60 bed nursing home would be financially feasible, and on this record, the opinion is very credible. Forum Group and Health Quest have shown the long term financial feasibility of a 60 bed nursing home, and there is a large amount of need. Moreover, existing nursing homes are experiencing very high occupancy rates and fill up rates. For these reasons, this proposed finding of fact, while true, is not relevant. Hillsborough did show that its design was modular. Scaling down the project simply means deletion of one wing. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The witness specifically addressed two portions of the state health plan. T. 777. The testimony was competent and substantial evidence. The inference that the certificate of need was "about to expire" is inappropriate since the witness's testimony leads to the inference that Health Quest intends to proceed with that project. T. 641. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 98-99. These proposed findings of fact are true, but insufficient to support a finding that Health Quest lacks the resources to construct and operate this project in the short term. 101, 105-07. These proposed findings of fact are true, but do not lead to the conclusion that the construction cost estimates are unreasonable. See T. 590. Mr. Krisher had sufficient expertise in health planning, nursing home development, and financial feasibility, to testify generally as to these matters. T. 501-516. No party presented any independent evidence to seriously question these estimates. 102. This proposed finding of fact is incorrect since the expected Medicaid rate in Boca Raton is different from the expected rate in Tampa. T. 785. 111. Not supported by the record cited. 114-116, 118-120. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. True, but insufficient to show lack of resources to make the project financially feasible in the short term. Irrelevant. The existence of lines of credit was proved by Mr. Gentle. Irrelevant. The staffing was shown to be reasonable by the testimony of other competent witnesses. 125-27. True, but insufficient to show back of financial feasibility. 129. True, but irrelevant. It would be unreasonable and a waste of health care resources for an applicant to have to buy five expensive acres of urban land to be qualified to apply for a certificate of need. 130-31. Irrelevant. The delay and inflation rates are negligible. Findings of fact proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare: 1. This is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 5. The phrasing of the first and second sentences is rejected for lack of evidence. 7. The evidence is not sufficient to show actual bias by a preponderance of the evidence. 8-9, 19-20, 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 21. Irrelevant. 24. True, but not relevant. These matters are covered by the numeric need rule. 29. The evidence does not show that CSI managed facilities offer "superior" activities. 32, 33 (fifth and sixth sentences), 35 (last sentence), 38(a)-(i), 40,42 (first sentence), 39, 45 (second and third sentences), 46 (all but the first sentence), 49 (first two sentences), 53, 56 (all but the first two sentences), and 60-72. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact ace true, however, and are adopted by reference. 51. The preponderance of the evidence does not credibly show that the floor plan promotes patient safety and convenience, or that travel distances are minimal. 54. Not supported by the record cited. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. A finding of fact that the criminal offense of perjury was committed cannot be made since there is no evidence of a criminal conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. The testimony of Ms. Etten was not limited to those programs. The documents used in cross examination were never properly authenticated, and are hearsay. Thus, a finding of fact that the documents are in fact surveys of Careage facilities by other agencies in other states cannot be made based upon the documents. For this reason, the remainder of the proposed finding is not relevant. Ms. Etten credibly testified that nursing staffing was generally adequate. Her opinion was not ultimately limited to special programs. T. 1216. The inability of other witnesses to testify on this point is not relevant. The ability of Careage to recruit staff was adequately proved by other parties. There is no credible evidence in this record to believe that any applicant fail to recruit adequate staff. The recruitment plans of Careage appear to be quite reasonable. T. 1562-64. On pages 1686-87 of the transcript, the Hearing Officer ruled that the expert opinion of Ms. Krueger would be allowed even though it was based on hearsay. This was a correct ruling. Section 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1987). The sentence immediately following that ruling is incorrect as stated, and directly contradicts the initial correct ruling. That is, an expert opinion is admissible and may be relied upon even though based upon evidence, such as hearsay, which in itself may not be admissible. Further, the opinion of an expert in an administrative proceeding is a proper basis for a finding of fact even though the opinion is based upon hearsay, and even though hearsay alone in an administrative hearing, absent nonhearsay evidence on the point, is not sufficient as a basis for a finding of fact. The second sentence in the transcript was intended to state that hearsay evidence alone will not be the basis of a finding of fact, setting aside for the moment the issue of expert opinion. For these reasons, these proposed findings of fact are rejected to the extent that they urge that short term financial feasibility was not established because the opinion was premised upon hearsay evidence. With respect to the unaudited financial statement question, Ms. Krueger was not asked whether experts in her field reasonably rely upon unaudited financial statements. She was only asked which type was more worthy of belief and whether her profession feels they can rely on audited statements. She was never asked whether her profession feels it cannot rely upon unaudited statements. Ms. Krueger stated that she was aware of the existence of fraudulent audited statements, implying that the question leads to answers that are not that useful. T. 1652. In fact, Ms. Krueger, who was a thoroughly credible witness, explaining her opinions in a lucid and reasonable manner, relied upon unaudited statements, as well as her conversations with several of the chief executive officers of Careage. Based on this record, a finding cannot be made that experts in this field do not reasonably rely from time to time upon unaudited financial statements. The authenticity of the letter from SeaFirst is irrelevant since that line of credit was established by the direct testimony of Mr. Gentle. T. 1576. Ms. Krueger's lack of personal knowledge as to the existence of a binding commitment for a loan for this project is irrelevant due to Mr. Gentle's direct testimony. The evidence in the record from all parties indicates that land is generally available in Hillsborough County in the 3 to 5 acre range, that 3 to 5 acres is about what is needed for any of the projects, and that the cost is from $300,000 to $600,000. The Careage facility will bring in over $3 million in gross revenue per year in all years beyond the first few. A few hundred thousand dollars can be amortized over the life of a nursing home, and will not be a significant factor in long range financial feasibility. All of the applicants have access to credit to buy land at market rates. There is essentially no reasonable dispute as to land acquisition and cost in this case. The testimony related to equipment , not floor space, for technology dependent children. Those children would be served in the subacute beds. Space for Alzheimer's patients was included in the floor plan and the 45,500 square feet. T. 1136-37. Mr. Cushing testified that the Means reference book might project a cost per square foot in the "60's." He did not adopt that as his opinion. T. 1185-86. Delay in construction for 8 months is not such delay as to necessarily result in substantial increases in construction cost. The last sentence is true but does not account for the fact that Mr. Cushing consulted the Means reference book for labor rates. That is sufficient. The remainder of the reasoning of this proposed finding of fact was rejected in paragraph 85 above. Rejected as described in the preceding paragraphs. Ms. Krueger's expertise with respect to salaries was established perhaps more completely than any other expert witness. She not only had first hand knowledge from her work reviewing salaries in nearby counties, but she consulted expert reference materials. Her inability to remember the name of the book referenced does not seriously undermine her expertise. The ruling at T. 1324 sustained an objection to a question. It was not a ruling upon the admissibility of portions of the document. Ms. Krueger prepared the long range plan section of C. Ex. 3, P. 3-7, and the under served groups section, p. 3-8, in conjunction with Mr. Gentle. T. 1322. This is sufficient predicate for her testimony as to these matters. 91-92. The telephone survey was not a needs survey. It only surveyed existing services. The survey has essentially been discounted because of lack of response and lack of statistical reliability. These proposed findings ace adopted by reference. Since none of this testimony has been relied upon in this recommended order, the proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The testimony as to lines of credit and resources of the Lynns was enough to establish the availability of working capital. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. 101. The continuing objection was allowed, not granted. T. 595-96. Otherwise, these proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 102-103. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 104. Essentially irrelevant as explained with respect to proposed findings of fact concerning the land acquisition and preparation costs of other applicants. 105-107. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference, except the last clause of the last sentence of proposed finding of fact 105. Absent quantitative data and a study of salaries showing the estimates to be substantially in error, the foregoing proposed findings of fact are not sufficient to show an error affecting financial feasibility. 108-109. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since the 60 bed application was not a permissible amendment. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since these are different health districts having different patient payor mixes. Findings of fact proposed by Health Quest: 4, 5, 7-10. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 11-17. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The rationality of the OCHP's policy is irrelevant since it conflicts with the rule and other policies are also rational. A finding of a consistent pattern with respect to base date populations in the award of certificates of need cannot be made as discussed in the findings of fact. Mr. Sharp understood his position, and Mr. Jaffe well understood the inconsistencies. 22-23. True but irrelevant. Disadvantage often occurs to some person when the law is correctly applied. 24-28. Rejected as discussed at length elsewhere in this order. 33. Not supported by the record cited. 36.a. Mr. Gentle did not work with Careage in these years and could not be expected to have detailed memory on these points. He named seven such facilities. 38. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 40.b. (ii). There is no evidence that CHP is the same as Careage. 40.c.(v). Health Quest has operated since 1969. 42. Both could be true. 43.a.(ii). Mr. Gentle was not sure because this was not within his area of responsibility. T. 1603. 44. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Dr. Etten's unfamiliarity with the fact that the Health Quest facility in Jacksonville provides IV therapy and total parenteral nutrition does not demonstrate exaggeration or lack of expertise. The record does not clearly demonstrate that other Health Quest nursing homes provide these specific services. The evidence is only that services are generally the same. T. 1077. The testimony concerning Medicaid patients in the subacute unit was elicited on cross examination, and was not presented by the witness as an intended representation by Careage on direct. Ms. Krueger's understanding simply was wrong, not misleading. T. 1367. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is similarly a red herring. Careage did not project anything more than 37 percent Medicaid utilization. C. Ex. 3, table 7B. It is one thing to expect 37 percent utilization, and another thing to represent that the facility will not discriminate. A promise to not discriminate inherently contains the caveat that a facility will not pursue that noble goal to bankruptcy. The Hearing Officer would not find that to be the case with respect to Careage any more than with respect to Health Quest. Mr. Gentle did not testify that the number of nurses aides in the Alzheimer's unit would be higher in comparison to other sections of the facility. He testified that the number would be "higher" in comparison to professional licensed staff, which would be lesser. T. 1525. 54. Irrelevant. Mr. Gentle said that day care would probably be at a location nearby. T. 1593. 57. None of the parties addressed site size with the specificity proposed by these findings of fact. Lack of such specificity has no real bearing on credibility. The record cited, T. 1526, does not support the proposed finding that equipment for technology dependent children is "substantial and expensive." Thus, the remainder of these proposed findings are rejected. It is true, however, that the application fails to itemize such equipment, and that the contingency is relied upon. There is no evidence that Careage proposes to employ a gerontological nurse practitioner. C. Ex. 3, table 11. The testimony of Dr. Etten simply describe the skills of that form of nurse practitioner. She was never asked whether such professional would be employed by Careage. T. 1217-19. The failure to tie in the testimony is only a human error, and does not show a lack of credibility. Proposed finding of fact 62.a. is not supported by the record. Dr. Etten was not asked to describe the care given an Alzheimer's patient in an ACLF. She was asked to describe the care given a "resident" of an adult congregate living facility. Her comment about such residents not being "bed patients for any period of time" is not a dodge of a question about an Alzheimer's disease patient. Moreover, she credibly and directly testified that Alzheimer's disease manifests itself so many different ways she could not say whether it would be appropriate to have such patients living in an adult congregate living facility. Next, Mr. Gentle's testimony as to the medical characteristics and needs of Alzheimer's patients is insufficient as a basis for findings of fact because Mr. Gentle was not accepted as a medical expert. Health Quest presented no credible evidence to show that an Alzheimer's patient can be treated either in an adult congregate living facility or a conventional nursing home. Absent such evidence, the failure of other parties to rebut the nonexistent negative, given the clear affirmative evidence that Alzheimer's disease patients greatly benefit from special care, is unpersuasive. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These children would be served as subacute care patients. Precise identification of the area set aside for these children would have been only of marginal relevance. To the extent not adopted elsewhere in this recommended order, these proposed findings are adopted by reference. Careage's expert was clearly aware of the need to review site specific conditions in the preparation of construction plans. T. 1177. He has built nursing homes in many states. His competence to prepare adequate construction plans for Hillsborough County conditions was clearly established in the record. It is true that he had not yet prepared the final construction plans. But no party has presented final construction plans, and thus the lack of such plans is irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant. The amount of working capital is well within the resources available to Careage. There is no evidence in the record that a variation one way or the other by $100,000 would make the project not financially feasible. Careage's credibility was not discredited by the fact that Ms. Krueger was not aware of the mix of skilled and intermediate beds. True, but irrelevant. There is no evidence that such expenses were not accounted for, or if missing, the amount and importance. The staffing was shown by expert opinion to be adequate. T. 1216. One presumes that adequacy refers to adequate health care since the witness was only qualified in that area of expertise. The Careage design was not unique. The Careage use of the word "unique" to describe its design has been disregarded in this order. 78.c.(i)-(iii). These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 78.c.(vi). Not supported by the record cited. 78.c.(vii). The testimony cited is not competent opinion. There was no predicate for testimony as to the knowledge of Mr. Haben, and the objection to a similar question just preceding was sustained on that basis. 87-96, 100-101, 103-128. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant for the reasons stated in Health Quest's proposed finding of fact 76. 135. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 146. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 149. Without evidence as to what is included in the definition of "subacute" care, a finding as to "virtually all" cannot be made. 151 and 158. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 166, 169, 170 and 172. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 168. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of fact proposed by Careage: The first sentence implies that Careage has operated nursing homes for 25 years. Careage has built nursing homes fob that length of time for operation by others, for the most part. The second sentence is true, but subordinate, and is adopted by reference. Mr. Griffin testified that the decision to adhere to the recommendations made by staff before he assumed his duties at HRS was not his decision. T. 705-06, 703. His testimony reflect very little personal participation in the evaluation of the competing applications. T. 697-705. 6. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 8. There was no credible evidence in this record as to how many Alzheimer's patients need specialized services. The evidence was simply that if such patients exist, such patients need specialized services. Thus, the first sentence is rejected. 8 (second sentence) -12. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. A comparison of staffing is not possible since Careage intends to serve primarily persons in need of skilled nursing care, and hence it cannot be determined if Careage in fact has proposed nursing staff that is more generous relative to patient need than Hillsborough. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility, this finding of fact is rejected. The proposed finding concerning intent to provide adult day care is not supported by the record cited. 19-20. Irrelevant since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility. 21. The first sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 22-23, 25 (all but first sentence), 26, 17 (third, fourth, and seventh sentences), 29. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 24. It is concluded that associating a nursing home with an adult congregate living facility will in fact result in cost efficiencies. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact, noting the relatively higher costs of Health Quest compared to Careage, is true, but does not disprove the conclusion that cost efficiencies would exist. It is true that the Hillsborough Healthcare Medicare mix projection may be somewhat high, but the fiscal consequences of that conclusion was not demonstrated. The second sentence is rejected because Ms. Krueger was not accepted as an expert with respect to appropriate levels of staffing. T. 1686-88. 31. The second sentence is based upon hearsay. It is also based upon the opinion of Mr. Gentle which was inadmissible. T. 1577. The fourth and fifth sentences are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 32-33. These portions of the Forum Group amended application, F.G. EX. 6, were not admitted into evidence, and thus these proposed findings of fact are not relevant. 36. Irrelevant since the Health Quest 60 bed application is an impermissible amended application. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 DEPARTMENT OF HRS Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire Guyte P. McCord, III, Esquire McFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CAREAGE HOUSE HEALTH Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben and Associates Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 FORUM GROUP, INC. R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 11188 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 HILLSBOROUGH HEALTHCARE LTD. W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 HEALTH QUEST CORP. Charles N. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
Findings Of Fact Valerie Humphrey is a Licensed Practical Nurse holding License No. 27860-1 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Notice of the formal hearing in the above style cause was provided to the parties in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On October 25, 1975 Valerie Humphrey was employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Florida Convalescent Home, Melbourne, Florida. On that date, Valerie Humphrey was observed by Alma Bourne, then employed as a Nurses' Aide at Florida Convalescent Home, attempting to give medication, to wit, an aspirin, to a patient at said convalescent home. When the patient refused to take the medication, Mrs. Humphrey took the patient's walker away from her. The patient was eighty (80) years old and needed the walker to move about. On the same date, Mrs. Bourne observed Valerie Humphrey attempt to administer a laxative to a male patient, Ernest Price, who spit out the laxative twice, whereupon Valerie Humphrey slapped him hard enough to bring a welt to the side of his face. After striking the patient, Humphrey did not try to administer the laxative again. The Director of Nursing at Florida, Convalescent Home testified that physical injury and intimidation were not necessary or appropriate to force medications on patients at the nursing home. Other means of administering the medications to include giving them in combination with foods or drinks, were generally used with uncooperative patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Valerie Humphrey, L.P.N., License Number 27860-1, be suspended for a period not to exceed six (6) months; further, that the order of the Florida State Board of Nursing be communicated to any other State or territory of these United States in which Valerie Humphrey is also licensed. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Valerie E. Marsh Humphrey, L.P.N.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Board of Nursing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of nurses and the regulation of the nursing profession in Florida. Respondent, Drema G. M. Servoss, was licensed as a registered nurse holding license number 1918522. Ms. Servoss holds both an Associate and a Bachelor’s degree in Nursing from the University of Tampa, and is currently completing work on a Master’s degree in family nurse practice, also from the University of Tampa. For several years, she worked weekends at University General Hospital (University), in Tampa, in special care nursing. When she started back to school to earn her Master’s degree, in September 1995, she transferred to the home care unit at University, then identified as Community Home Care Professionals, (CHCP). For the one year leading up to the job change that led to the incident in question, Ms. Servoss worked at CHCP as the weekend scheduler of home health personnel, but made no home visits herself. Finally, because she had worked every weekend for the preceding five years, and wanted to spend more time with her family, and since the remaining classes she needed for her Master’s degree were offered primarily at night, she applied for a weekday field nurse position. She was selected for the position. Though the normal orientation period for new home health nurses normally lasted for approximately two weeks, depending on staffing needs, a part of which included a preceptorship, Ms. Servoss was provided with only four days of orientation, of which two days consisted of following another nurse around. On the Friday before Labor Day, 1996, she was given an assignment of six patients to see starting on Monday, September 2, 1996, which was Labor Day. However, on the Sunday evening preceding Labor Day, when she returned from a weekend trip, Respondent found a message waiting on her answering machine advising her of three more patients to be added to her list. Feeling that nine patients were too many for a new home health nurse, she attempted to contact Ms. Tisdale, her supervisor, to inform her of that and to also advise that Respondent’s husband, Christopher, also a registered nurse and a part-time home health nurse for CHCP, might see some of the nine patients on Labor Day. Ms. Servoss also tried to reach Ms. Watkins, the weekend scheduler, but neither could be reached. Respondent left word for Ms. Watkins to please call her back, but she did not do so, and Watkins did not have a pager through which she could be reached. Respondent’s first patient on September 2, 1997, was P.W., who was to receive medication through an IV medport three times a day. Respondent’s visit was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and the visit included changing the needle in the medport. She did not know how to do this, so she called her husband at home. He worked as a nurse on an intensive care unit and had all the skills required to see the patient received the care she needed. When he arrived at P.W.’s home, Christopher showed Respondent how to do the medport access, which she did, and while she performed the treatment required, he filled out the nursing notes. It was not unusual for this division of labor to take place. Respondent had done it before during her orientation when following Ms. Tisdale. After completing the required treatment on P.W., Respondent assigned her husband several other of her patients to see. She then went to the company office to talk with the supervisor on duty, but it was closed for the holiday. This was a change from previous practice prior to the buyout of the company by Columbia Health Care System. Prior to that, it was company policy to have the office open on holidays. Finding the office closed, she thought about what to do for a while. Mindful of the warning she had received to stay within the boundaries permitted a field nurse and not to act as a supervisor, she decided to visit those patients on her list which she had assigned to her husband. At each of the three patients’ homes, Respondent explained that she was the regular nurse who should have come to see them that day, and that the male nurse who had previously been there, though a nurse, was not the assigned nurse. She assured each patient that they would not be double-billed, but did not leave a second copy of the nursing clinical notes signed by her as required. Aside from B.K., who objected to being seen by a male nurse because of the nature of her problem, none complained about being seen by Christopher or that Respondent made a second visit that day. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not make the visits as she claims, and in support of that position, presented the testimony of B.K. who did not recall Respondent’s being at her home that day. None of the other three patients in issue were present to testify nor were they deposed. In addition, the record of client/family teaching, left with each patient and reflecting the date and subject of each visit, and by whom it was made, which was left with B.K. for the period August 31 through October 14, 1996, fails to reflect a visit by Respondent or any other nurse. By the same token, however, it does not reflect a visit each day, and there is an extended and unexplained hiatus between September 25, 1996 and October 14, 1996. For this reason, it is not given much probative weight. In addition, Respondent described what she said were the residences of each of the patients in issue, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner to dispute this, save the testimony of B.K. Based on the state of the evidence, it is found that she made the repeat visits as claimed. That evening, after completing all nine visits, Respondent completed the paperwork for the visits she had made on Labor Day, including those patients previously seen by Christopher. In doing so, she utilized the information contained on Christopher’s copies of the unsigned nursing clinical notes, the yellow copies of which he had, as required, left at the house. She supplemented that information with her own memory. Two days later, on September 4, 1996, as Respondent was getting ready to leave for the day, she was paged by Joyce Kovacs, the clinical home care supervisor, who took her to the office of the director of professional services, Ms. Bilgutay. There, Respondent was accused of assigning patients to her husband, which was out of her area of authority. She was also accused of not making any of those visits, and was informed right away that she was fired. Because she was afraid her husband would leave his job in protest over her treatment, she initially did not indicate she had also made the visits. She was humiliated by the way she was treated, and in order to get out of the room as quickly as possible, she did not strenuously contest what her accusers said. During that encounter, nothing was said to her about her signing the nursing notes allegedly prepared by her husband. Later, however, she was again called in and asked to reimburse the company for the tuition assistance she had previously received because, it was alleged, she had fraudulently signed the notes. She was also threatened that the matter might be referred to the Board of Nursing. It was. Several months later Respondent was interviewed by David Berry, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration. During this interview, the investigator would not release to Respondent the names and addresses of the patients in issue. She, therefore, requested he visit the patients and refresh their memories regarding her subsequent visit. During the course of his investigation, on February 21, 1997, in excess of five months after the date in issue, Mr. Berry spoke with three of the four patients to whom the allegations herein relate. All are elderly. Though two of them, including B.W., professed to remember that only a male nurse came to see them on September 2, 1996, neither could identify Christopher from the photograph presented. The third could remember very little of the incident. Only B.W. was present to testify. D.D. could not remember much of the incident, and S.W. declined to appear voluntarily at the hearing. He claimed he was too elderly, and, besides, the day was scheduled for his golfing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the misconduct alleged and dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Cynthia A. Mikos, Esquire A. S. Weekley, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight 510 Vonderburg Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewod Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marylin Bloss Executive Director Board of Nursing 4080 Woodcock Drive Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
