Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON 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 a. 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. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the application for certificate of need filed by Forum be Denied. DONE AND ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0704 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 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Sentence 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as misleading and/or subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation it was agreed and it is found that Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing to contest Respondent's initial decision to deny its application was timely filed. On July 15, 1986, Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Need application to construct a 60 bed community nursing home in Collier County, Florida. In December, 1986, this application was denied by the Respondent because of its determination that there was insufficient numeric need according to the rule bed need methodology and because of the low utilization rate of existing facilities in Collier County. The initial intent to deny was appealed by Petitioner which filed a request for formal administrative hearing. Before the matter could be heard, however, Intervenor, Lakeside, filed a Petition for Intervention which was granted by the former Hearing Officer. After the case was set for hearing, Respondent, DHRS, and Petitioner, Surrey, entered into a stipulation and agreement in which DHRS agreed to reverse its position and support Surrey's application at the final hearing and, pursuant to that agreement, on May 14, 1987, DHRS filed a Notice of Change of Agency Position. Health Care Associates was formed in May, 1977, by Dr. John A. McCoy, PhD, in conjunction with an associate, Stanford L. Hoye, each of whom owns 50 percent of the business. This company which, upon approval, will develop and manage the Surrey project, has been involved in the development of several nursing homes in Florida, all but two of which have been managed by the corporation upon development. At the present time, in addition to the instant project, Petitioner is developing three other nursing home projects in Florida at Live Oak, Bradenton, and Crystal River. Dr. McCoy was instrumental in obtaining Certificates of Need for nine of the nursing homes developed by his company. Two of those have not yet been licensed and of the seven remaining facilities, five have been sold by the corporation to other unrelated organizations. In each case, Dr. McCoy personally realized a profit on the sale. Petitioner proposes to build a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County at a projected project cost of $1,600,000.00. Approximately $250,000.00 of that figure will be utilized for land acquisition and site costs; $150,000.00 for furniture, fixtures, and equipment; $100,000.00 for architectural fees; and $1,100,000.00 for construction costs, insurance, non- movable equipment, and other items. The initial state agency action report on the application, rendered in late November, 1986, recommended the project be denied on the basis there was insufficient bed need shown and because of the low utilization of currently licensed and operating facilities. Nonetheless, on May 6, 1987, the Department changed its position and entered into a stipulation and agreement with the Petitioner, in which it agreed that no CON approved nursing home beds exist in Collier County; the District Health Plan indicates a need for an additional 143 beds in that county in the applicable planning horizon; the bed to population ratio in Collier County for the 65 and older population is the lowest in the Health Care District; and the age 75 and over population is expected to increase by 24 percent within the next three years. On the basis of these factors and others outlined in the stipulation, the Department concluded, inter alia, that Petitioner proposed the lowest total project cost and the highest Medicare and Medicaid commitment, and determined that Petitioner's application should be approved. Petitioner has identified two potential sites for construction of the facility, both located in North Naples. Both sites carry an asking price substantially in excess of the land acquisition estimates outlined in the application, and neither is currently zoned for the operation of a nursing home. Zoning changes or variances are available, but the cost of securing them may be high and time consuming. Albeit each site would be utilized for construction of not only the proposed nursing home facility but also its related personal care unit, Petitioner estimates that 60 percent of the cost of land acquisition would be apportioned to the nursing home component and 40 percent to the personal care unit. That being the case, one of the parcels would fall within the proposed land acquisition figure cited. DHRS District VIII has been divided into subdistricts for the purposes of planning for community nursing home beds. Subdistrict 2 of District VIII consists of Collier County, Florida. The methodology used by DHRS to determine the need for community nursing home beds in Florida is found in Rule-10-5.011, F.A.C. and it provides, among other things, that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined based on a planning horizon three years in the future from date of application. In this case, the appropriate planning horizon is July, 1989, three years after Petitioner's application was filed. The population figures relied upon by DHRS for ages 65 through 74 and ages 75 and above for the period July, 1986 and July, 1989 as of the date of the filing of the application were: 131,642 and 79,661 as well as 148, 229 and 96,142, respectively. The need formula contained in the F.A.C. also requires that the application submitted for July batching cycles be based upon the number of licensed beds in the District as of the preceding June 1. On June 1, 1986, District VIII showed 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds of which there were 473 licensed community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 2. As of November 26, 1986, however, there were no approved community nursing home beds in Collier County, a portion of Subdistrict 2. Another factor to be considered in the methodology is the occupancy rate within the district. As of the application period, the occupancy rate in Collier County was 84.44 percent including the occupancy data for Moorings Park. Petitioner and DHRS urge that it is DHRS policy to utilize at the de novo hearing the latest population figures available at the time of the initial application. These figures, cited above, reflect a 55 bed need in Collier county for the period July, 1989. There is, in addition, a factor which Petitioner urges relating to the licensure report submitted by Americana Nursing Home, located in Collier County, which indicates that a number of that facility's semiprivate rooms were converted to private rooms, thereby reducing the number of beds available for use in District VIII during the relevant time period. When this factor is incorporated into the calculations, a higher occupancy rate is indicated which results in a bed need of 66 rather than 55. Intervenor contests any adjustment made on the basis of Americana's conversion of some of its rooms from semiprivate to private rooms and a resultant decrease in the bed inventory thereby. It points out, and properly so, that former semiprivate rooms can be reconstituted as such in a very short period of time if needed and though the beds may not be set up when the room is a single room, the facility is capable of providing those additional beds without further approval when necessary. The removal of those beds, therefore, from the inventory, as a result of a temporary conversion is not an appropriate methodology. It has not been followed by DHRS in the past nor is it provided for in the rule and it should not be done here. Turning to the question of the population estimates and projections appropriate to make the proper calculation of numeric need for the area at the proper time, Intervenor objects to Petitioner's and DHRS' use of the pertinent population projections existing at the time of application on the basis that at a de novo hearing, the proper and most appropriate approach to bed need analysis and calculation would require the use of the most current available statistics. Utilizing the most current population projections for the July, 1989 planning horizon results in a net numeric need for July, 1989 of 21 beds with an error possible to 22 beds. In addition, the occupancy rate would be reduced and in that regard, evidence indicates that occupancy rates in Collier County have been low since 1982. However, there has been a steady and continuous rise in that figure since that time and as of July, 1987, it was 91.1 percent. The date upon which licensed beds are to be counted is provided for specifically in the rule defining need methodology, but the date upon which approved beds are to be counted is not stated in the rule. Similarly, the times for which population data are to be considered is contained in the rule methodology, but the release date of official estimates and projections to be utilized is not specified. Likewise, though the time period for which occupancy rates of existing facilities are to be considered is specifically set out, the input to be utilized when calculating "average occupancy rate" within that time period is not specifically established. In any case, the average occupancy rate as stipulated in the rule methodology for the area has been, until recently, consistently lower than 90 percent which is the figure identified in the rule methodology. Based on all the above, then, it must be found that the more accurate and pragmatic calculation of need utilizing the most current projections and discounting the agency policy for which the agency has not established any firm rationale or justifiable basis, indicates no numeric need for additional beds in the District during the period set forth in the planning horizon. Even if use of the rule methodology does not result in a mathematical showing of bed need sufficient to justify award of a certificate of need, nonetheless such a certificate can be awarded if other conditions and other circumstances establish a need that requires satisfaction within the area and the planning horizon. There was some dispute regarding poverty rates within Collier County and evidence presented at the hearing tends to indicate that the poverty rate in Collier County for the 65 and older population group is generally the lowest in the state. Low poverty rates among the elderly generally coincide with low nursing home utilization since wealthier patients generally have available to them alternatives to inpatient nursing home care. Intervenor urges, and there is no evidence to contradict it, that there are currently available alternatives to nursing home care for wealthy patients not only in Collier County but within District VIII as a whole. The Health Services and Facilities consultant for DHRS who initially reviewed Petitioner's application felt approval was not appropriate at the time he did his analysis. However, since that time additional information has caused him to conclude the application should be granted. He has subsequently learned that two of the four nursing homes in Collier County, which account for more than 50 percent of the beds licensed, have "conditional" quality ratings and there are currently no beds approved for construction in the county even though the county is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. On the basis of this information, he now agrees with the agency's determination to approve a certificate of need for 60 beds for Petitioner. Based on what Mr. May knows of the three applicants, in his opinion Petitioner is the most appropriate applicant to receive the award. In the Stipulation entered into between Petitioner and the agency, the parties adopted the District VIII Health Council projection of 143 beds needed for Collier County for the 1986 planning horizon. The quarterly nursing home report for the period April through June, 1987, reflects the status of previously issued certificate of needs and includes all reported approved beds up to the date of issuance. This report shows that as of June 30, 1987, two applicants from prior batches received a total of 81 beds which, when subtracted from the 143 identified bed need, still leaves a 62 bed net need. Turning from the question of numeric need to other considerations regarding the applicant in issue, there can be little doubt that the estimates for the design of the proposed facility and construction are appropriate. The figures in Tables 18 and 19 of the application are also appropriate and reasonable. The costs for the project appear to be accurate and appropriate and the completion forecast timetable appears to be more than ample. Mr. Philips, the Vice President in charge of construction lending for the mortgage company which proposes to finance construction of the facility, is familiar with not only the applicant's corporate financial statement, but also those of the two principals, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye. In his opinion, both are capable of providing the initial financing and their operations statements show a history of successful business operation. The 11 percent proposed as an interest rate for the loan supporting the construction is reasonable if not liberal, and the 25 year duration of the loan is also reasonable as is the loan origination fee of two points. If the certificate of need is approved, the lender is ready, willing, and able to lend the applicant sufficient funds to complete construction. Intervenor's expert in nursing home budgeting and financial feasibility analysis, testifying in contravention of Petitioner's experts, believes that approval of Petitioner's operation would have a severe financial impact on the Intervenor's operation as a current provider resulting in a first year bottom line loss of approximately $235,000 and a second year bottom line loss of almost $300,000. It should be noted here, however, that these are not actual operating losses but a projected reduction in profit. These estimates are based on August, 1987 figures adjusted forward for inflation. In short, while the opening of Petitioner's facility may have a negative impact on existing facilities, it would not necessarily result in a deficit operation for any existing provider. This expert also has some difficulty with Petitioner's projections of financial feasibility in its own facility. For example, he questions the 15 percent census of Medicare patients based on the fact that currently Intervenor does not have any Medicare patients though it does accept them. He also considers the estimate of a 96 percent occupancy by the end of six months to be unreasonable, especially in Collier County. He believes Petitioner's proposed expenses are understated and there are inconsistencies between the staffing table and labor costs in that the nursing expense is understated and the hourly rates projected to be paid are much too low. He believes that the projected cash flow is overstated since there is no provision for a reduction of principal. There are, also, other possible negative aspects to approval of Petitioner's application. Intervenor's regional director, who is an expert in nursing home administration, believes that approval of Petitioner's application will have a direct adverse reaction on Intervenor's Lakeside operation in regard to services provided, staffing, and its own financial feasibility. With regard to staffing, there is currently a critical shortage of nurses in Collier County and this factor was confirmed by a representative of another facility in the area. Approval of Petitioner's facility might well worsen the problem. Other service personnel are also in short supply and approval of Petitioner's application will worsen this as well. If these personnel shortages materialize, it may result in a reduction of quality of care, but this is speculative and there is no direct evidence that this would happen. Lakeside's current license is rated as "standard" as opposed to "superior" and this is claimed to be directly related to the nursing shortage which resulted in the facility's inability to attract sufficient nursing personnel to merit a "superior" rating. The witness identified other apparent deficiencies in applicant's submission, but these are either of a minor nature or the subject of opinion or conjecture. In short, the only substantive objection sustainable is the prospective adverse effect on the cost of attracting qualified nursing personnel. Certain other projections by the applicant are considered to be unreasonable by Americana's Director of Operations, such as the 15 percent projection for Medicare patients. Currently Americana, which generally has between 13 and 23 beds open at any time, has 2 Medicare patients and this witness also feels that a 96 per cent fill up rate in 6 months is unreasonable. Based on his experience, Collier County had even a slower than normal fill up rate when compared to other areas of the state. Notwithstanding the negative testimony, there can be little question, and it is so found, that Petitioner would be able to provide quality care if its application were approved. Turning to the question of the relationship of this application to State and Local health plans, the bed need calculation has already been discussed above. That calculation is based on the state methodology. However, the state methodology may be substantially different than a need developed by reference to the local health plan. The local plan looks at need from the county/subdistrict basis whereas the state looks at the district as a whole for establishment of need and then distributes beds on the basis of current bed census. When the smaller counties with fewer existing beds grow faster than the larger counties with a greater number of existing beds, they tend to be caught in a squeeze in that they get fewer beds because they are smaller, while their actual need may be greater than that of the larger county which, by virtue of its size, gets the larger number of beds. This state need rule, which calls for a 90 percent occupancy rate is felt by some to be less valid and less accurate a basis for evaluating the need in reality. As to the question of alternatives, there appear to be none for the vast majority of people in the county. Hospices or internal acute care bed or ambulatory facilities are not truly alternatives to nursing homes. In summary, Petitioner's expert believes that the Department's projected need for 43 beds could justifiably result in an approval of an application for 60 beds because: There were no approved beds at review time, Population trends, growth, and utilization trends indicate a need for new beds, The bed to population ratio in the county is one of the lowest in the district and in the state, (16 or 17/1,000 vs 27/1,000 normal for 65 plus) and the situation has not changed, Although the 65 plus population is used to determine need, the greatest use of nursing home facilities comes from the 75 plus population which is expected to increase in Collier County by July, 1989 by 32 percent, double the statewide average, At the time of application review, no existing facility was rated "superior" (there are now), showing a need for options. The applicant has a record of "superior" ratings statewide, The district health plan shows a bed need exceeding 60 beds for Collier County, The granting of a 60 bed nursing home is not inconsistent with previous actions by the Department when a mathematical need less a bed showed than 60 number. The project also is consistent with the rule criteria as well as statutory criteria, and Given DHRS's methodology and considering the adjustments due to Americana's change, there can be shown a mathematical need greater than the 43 shown by DHRS. Whether the need is 43 or 66 is really not important. The need is there. There is much to be said for these conclusions and they are adopted as findings herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, approving Petitioner, Health Care Associates, Inc., d/b/a Surrey Place of Collier County' application for a certificate of Need to establish and operated a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0691 The following constitutes my specifics rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT JOINT SUBMISSION 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted as a statement of DHRS policy and the resultant figures determined thereunder but rejected as the appropriate source of information. 17 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's and Respondent's calculation but rejected as bearing in the Issue of bed need. Rejected as not reducing the number of available beds. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24 - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32 - 34. Accepted. 35 - 50. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 53 - 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55 - 56. Accepted. 57. Accepted. 58 - 59. Accepted. 60. Accepted. 61 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Accepted. FOR INTERVENOR 1 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. First sentence is rejected. Occupancy rates of other local facilities are not necessarily determinative of the expected occupancy rates of Petitioner in the absence of a showing of similarity of other factors. 16 - 19. Rejected as based on other than the best evidence. No original source was presented. 20. Accepted. 21 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28 - 29(b). Accepted. 30 - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein - except for that portion of paragraph 34 indicating the approval of Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with local health plan. Accepted but not determinative. Accepted but not determinative. First sentence rejected as argumentative. Remainder accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. 40-42. Accepted except for the last sentence of paragraph 40 which is rejected. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. Mr. May was unaware of possible charges during lag time. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than fact. 52 - 53. Irrelevant in light of 53. which is accepted. 54 - 55. Irrelevant in light of Intervenors' paragraph 55 which is accepted. 56 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60 - 64. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as biased. Accepted. Accepted as to the fact that a reduction in Lakeside's income might occur, but rejected as to its severity. Intervenor presents a "worst case" picture based on speculation and conjecture. Accepted that Petitioner's projected site is near that of Intervenor. Remainder rejected as conjecture. 70 - 71. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip F. Blank, Esquire Reynold Meyer, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Asst. General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented for determination herein is whether or not F.A.C. Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility (Petitioner) is entitled to a Certificate of Need to establish a 60-bed nursing home to serve Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing, including the pre-hearing stipulation, the following relevant facts are found. F.A.C. Health Care, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First American Corporation. First American Corporation has owned, operated and developed approximately 75 long-term care and retirement facilities over the past 15 years. These operations are primarily located in the southeastern United States. At present, First American Corporation operates 20 facilities and has seven Certificates of Need in the developmental stages. (TR. 35, Fulmer) On January 14, 1984, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a community nursing home in the City of Spring Hill in Hernando County, at a total cost of $3,180,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The letter of denial accompanying the state agency action report dated April 30, 1984, noted the basis for denial as follows: Existing and approved bed capacity in Citrus/Hernando Counties is sufficient to satisfy projected need for 1986. There are 60 nursing home beds that have been approved but have not been constructed at the present time, which, when added to the existing nursing home bed supply in Citrus/Hernando Counties, will serve to satisfy a portion of the projected need for skilled nursing home beds in the sub-district through 1986. The proposed 120 beds are in excess of the 37 beds needed to reduce the prospective base utilization rate to a reasonable level by 1986. (TR. 36, Fulmer; Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On September 26, 1984, Petitioner amended its original application to reflect a reduction from 120 to 60 nursing home beds. Documents reflecting the corresponding reduction in project costs from 53,180,000 to 51,780,000 were submitted with the amended proposal. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SPRING HILL FACILITY The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of a project is one criteria considered during the Certificate of Need review process. Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes. The total cost of the project of 51,780,000 appears reasonable and in line with similar projects. Funds for full 100 per cent financing of the project are available through industrial revenue bonds at 14 per cent interest over 30 years. In order to acquire an industrial revenue bond application, Petitioner would maintain a $150.000 debt service reserve fund. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Other methods of financing available to finance the subject project include conventional financing, syndicated equity programs and insurance investment programs. (Testimony of Fulmer at TR. 39-40) Due to the largely rural setting, projected utilization for the first year would be 81 per cent Medicaid, 5 per cent Medicare and 14 per cent private pay. Occupancy is projected to reach 97 per cent by the fifth full month of operation and would be supported in part by the increased utilization of nursing home beds as a direct result of the implementation of diagnostic related groupings. Pro forma statements for the first and second years of operation show a net operating profit beginning in the ninth month and continuing through the second year. The equipment costs, staffing patterns and personnel budget also appear reasonable for this type of project. METHODS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Another issue in this proceeding was whether Spring Hill satisfied the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c)13., Florida Statutes, regarding the cost and methods of construction. Spring Hill's proposed facility will provide 11,981 square feet devoted to patient care and 9,710 square feet for administrative and common service areas at a construction cost of $41.50 per square foot. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Proposed construction costs and methods of construction efficiently minimize square footage space requirements and related construction costs and will permit the most efficient operation of the facility at a low per diem cost. The construction cost appears reasonable and is also supportive of a primarily Medicaid based facility. Finally, Respondent offered no evidence to controvert the reasonableness of construction costs and methods proposed by Petitioner. IMPACT ON HEALTH CARE COSTS Section 381.494(6)(c)12., Florida Statutes provides that as part of the Certificate of Need review, probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing health care services be considered. Petitioner's expert, Fulmer, urges that there would either be no impact on the cost of care or due to the availability of additional Medicaid beds, costs would be reduced since the private pay demands of family and relatives having to pay for the care of an individual rather than participating in the Medicaid program would reduce the costs of health care to the community rather than increase the financial burden. In this regard, Petitioner offered no evidence to substantiate the claim that the demand for Medicaid beds exceeded the supply, or that Medicaid patients had been refused health services by the available Medicaid health care providers. AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF EXISTING SERVICES Hernando County lies within HRS District III which is composed of 16 counties in north-central Florida, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico north of Tampa to the Georgia border. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The District is further divided into sub-districts. Hernando County represents a separate sub-district. Petitioner's facility is proposed to be located in the City of Spring Hill, located in the fastest growing area of Hernando County. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) The latest bulletin (No. 69) from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, shows a 90 per cent projected growth between 1980 and 1990. Much of the population in the Spring Hill area falls in the 65 and older age bracket. County age group projections released by HRS on September 24, 1984, reveal that the elderly population of 65 and over in Hernando County in 1985 is projected as 17,616, or approximately 27 per cent of total population. By 1990, those projections will grow to 24,887 or approximately 29 per cent of total population. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) The growth trend in Hernando County is an extension of the rapid coastline development occurring in the New Port Richey- Clearwater areas and the counties to the south of Hernando. Previously, the only major development in Hernando County was centered in Brooksville, the middle of the county. Consequently, the existing community nursing home services in Hernando County are concentrated in the Brooksville area. Although Petitioner, through its expert (Konrad) testified that there is a mal-distribution of existing beds and community nursing home services which renders them neither available nor accessible to the rapidly growing elderly population in the southwestern Hernando County corridor and that high occupancy rates in existing community nursing homes in the area and the existence of waiting lists corroborates the lack of availability and accessibility of community nursing home services in the area, the evidence introduced herein failed to establish either the existence of waiting lists or that the existing community nursing homes in the area were overcrowded. SHELTERED VERSUS COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS Petitioner contends that certain nursing home beds associated with the adult congregate living facility at Evergreen Woods in the Spring Hill area are not actually available and accessible to the general public but instead are functioning as sheltered nursing home beds. Respondent, on the other hand, considers the 60 nursing home beds associated with Evergreen Woods to be available and accessible to the general public. A review of the entire record compiled herein failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim that those beds at Evergreen Woods are unavailable and/or inaccessible to the general public. DETERMINATION OF NEED, SECTION 381.494(6)(c)1., FLORIDA STATUTES. In determining need for nursing home beds, a Certificate of Need project is reviewed on a 3-year planning horizon. In this case, predicted need for nursing home beds in District III and the sub-district of Hernando County is calculated through 1987. Hernando County is a single county sub-district located within in HRS planning District III in north central Florida. HRS has determined the overall nursing home bed need for District III as well as sub-district allocations by applying the uniform nursing home bed need methodology for community nursing home services contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.11(21). (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Respondent provided a step-by-step application of the community nursing home bed need rule and introduced their exhibits supporting the calculation period (Testimony of expert medical facilities consultant, R. Jaffe and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2). Briefly stated, application of the pertinent rules reveals an extrapolated need for 31 beds which are available for CON approval based on data available to Respondent on June 29, 1984 and that 36 beds are available based on later data released on September 24, 1984. (TR. 91, Conrad; TR. 130, Jaffe and Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The census report applicable herein reflects that there were 360 licensed beds in the Hernando sub-districts and no approved beds for a total of 360 beds. 2/ Application of the nursing home bed need methodology is not the sole factor used in determining whether a CON application should be granted. Other factors, such as access, high occupancy rates, chronically underserved population and high Medicaid utilization are definite factors in approval of additional beds in cases where the rule shows either no need or only slight need. Respondent has, on several occasions, granted 60-bed applications where accessibility issues justified the grant of a minimum-sized facility in spite of the lesser numerical need indicated under the rules. 3/ Petitioner referred to instances wherein Respondent had granted approval for CON's in other districts where there were unusual circumstances such as accessibility issues as referred to herein above. A review of those cases reveals that a departure from the usual bed-need methodology is warranted in cases of extremely high occupancy rates (95 per cent or higher) or the facilities with lower occupancy rates, e.g. 85.7 per cent for homes in Sarasota County, which were located in inaccessible distances away from the population concentration. Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient basis herein to warrant a departure from the usual bed need rule methodology. The instances wherein a departure from the usual bed need rule methodology has occurred are distinguishable, inasmuch as in the instant case, there are three existing facilities presently in Hernando County offering 360 nursing home beds. Current occupancy rate has been shown to be reasonable and is standing at or below average for District III. Additionally, Respondent introduced a "Stipulation of Settlement" dated September 28, 1984 which was entered into by and between Evergreen Woods Health Care Center and Respondent. The substance of that stipulation reveals that during October of 1983, Evergreen Woods Health Care Center (EWHCC) as Petitioner, filed an application with Respondent for a Certificate of Need to add 60 beds to its existing 60-bed nursing home located in Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida. The application sought 45 community beds and 15 sheltered beds. As a means of amicably resolving that proceeding and based on available need data based on applicable quarterly census reports and application of the need criteria, EWHCC, as Petitioner in that proceeding, amended its Certificate of Need application filed October, 1983, to add a total of 60 beds to its existing facility; 31 beds to be designated as community beds and 29 to be designated as sheltered beds. A review of the public records reveal that the Certificate of Need has been issued (amended CON No. 2959 issued early October, 1984) pursuant to that stipulation of settlement. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The application of First American Corporation d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility for establishment of a 60-bed nursing home facility in Hernando County, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 14th day of February, 1985.
The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 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 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration issue a Final Order approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 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 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 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 NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact FMCC's application is to provide a 102-bed long-term care nursing facility in Fort Myers, Florida, while AHC's and HSI's applications are to provide 120-bed long-term nursing care facilities. When each of these applications was presented to the south Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. (HSA), the application of FMCC was approved and forwarded to Respondent recommending approval and the other two applications were disapproved and so forwarded. The primary reason given by HSA for disapproving HSI's application was lack of firm financing and for disapproving AHC's application was cost of construction. Trained personnel to man the proposed facilities are in short supply in Lee County. Applicants' plans to import personnel, if necessary, from other parts of the country were supported by no evidence to indicate such personnel would be amenable to move to Lee County. All applications were disapproved by Respondent and each applicant requested a hearing which resulted in this consolidated hearing. At present there are 741 existing or approved long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County, Florida. A 120-bed facility at Cape Coral became operative in February, 1979 and a 60-bed addition to Beacon-Donegan Manor nursing home has also been approved. Prior to the opening of the newest 120-bed facility at Cape Coral, the occupancy rate for the other long-term care nursing homes was greater than 90 percent. Due to its recent opening, no evidence was presented as to the occupancy rate in Lee County following the opening of the Cape Coral facility. The population of Lee County in 1978 was 184,841 with 41,984 more than 65 years old, which is less than 23 percent of the population. This is in line with the population forecasts by the University of Florida and validates the estimated 1980 population figures which were used by all parties in submitting their applications. In 1978 Respondent proposed a State Health Plan which included a determination that the long-term care nursing home bed needs were 27 per 1,000 population greater than 65 years old. This determination was unacceptable to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) whose decision is binding on Respondent. In refusing to accept this standard, HEW reaffirmed the requirement that the formula contained in the Hill-Burton Act be utilized in determining certificates of need. Following the Hill-Burton formula results in no additional long-term care nursing home beds needed in Lee County. Modification of the results produced by use of the Hill-Burton formula when extenuating and mitigating circumstances exist is authorized by the Florida Medical Facilities Plan. Accordingly, when use of Hill-Burton formula produces results contrary to obvious facts, such as a showing of no need for additional facilities when occupancy rates are high and long waiting lists for admission exists, these extenuating circumstances are considered and a finding of need is made. The parties stipulated that extenuating circumstances, notably the greater than 90 percent occupancy rate in nursing homes in 1977 and most of 1978 and the existing waiting lists created need for 100 to 120 additional beds. No evidence was presented establishing a need for more than 100-120 additional long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County. In fact, no evidence was presented showing the current occupancy rate, current waiting lists, or any other information not previously submitted to the Health Systems Agency was here presented other than the latest Census Report, which merely confirmed the accuracy of the forecasts. Even if the 27 beds per 1,000 population greater than 65 which was proposed by the South Central Florida Health Systems Agency were used to establish the number of beds needed, their limitation, that no more than 50 percent be added in the two-year planning period, would preclude approving more than one additional nursing home at this time. Absent evidence showing a need for more than one additional nursing home, the only issue remaining is which of the applicants is best qualified to provide the best service at the lowest cost for the stipulated need. HSI submitted proposed construction costs and patient charges in line with those submitted by FMCC. However, although their application states, and the Health Systems Agency apparently accepted, their allegation that an option to lease had been obtained on the property on which the proposed facility was to be erected, testimony at the hearing disclosed that only an oral agreement to lease the property had been obtained by HSI. An oral agreement affecting a long-term lease of real property comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. This fact alone renders all cost estimates submitted by HSI suspect. Further, the financing proposed by HSI to construct the facility shows less than $200,000 equity capital available and a requirement to borrow $1,300,000. One ground noted by the Health Systems Agency for disapproving this application was the inadequacy of their financing. No evidence presented at this hearing contradicted this Health System Agency's finding. AHC operates some 50 nursing homes in 14 states with two nursing homes in the Orlando area. A certificate of need has been obtained for a third nursing home in Jacksonville. Florida Living Care, Inc., the parent corporation of FMCC, manages some 44 nursing homes and owns 25. It has certificates of need for 6 nursing homes in Florida, one of which is completed and in operation, while 3 are under construction. AHC proposes to finance 87 percent of the cost of the 120-bed project, or $2,160,000, in a 40-year loan at 8.5 percent interest. FMCC proposes to finance 80 percent of the cost of a 102-bed project, or $1,000,000, in a 25-year loan at 9.5 percent interest. Although no testimony regarding the current status of mortgage money was presented, it is recognized that interest rates are at historically high levels and that FMCC is more likely to get financing on the terms it proposed than is AHC on the terms the latter proposed. HSI proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.16 per patient per day. FMCC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.96 per patient per day. AHC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $34.40 per patient per day. No significant difference exists in the services proposed by each of the applicants. Savings from combined purchasing can result when numerous facilities are operated. Both AHC and FMCC are in a better position in this regard than is HSI. Additional savings in group food purchasing can result when facilities are within 200 miles of each other. The facilities FMCC's parent corporation is opening in Sebring and Port Charlotte are close enough to Fort Myers to allow group food purchasing for these facilities. AHC's construction costs are approximately 50 percent higher per bed than are the costs submitted by FMCC and HSI. This factor must result in higher charges to amortize these higher construction costs.
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 28th day of January, 1985.
