Findings Of Fact On December 18, 1978, the Petitioner, using the name "Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc." filed its application for certificate of need with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc. This application was deemed complete on April 20, 1979. The application as originally filed indicated that healthcare services were to be made available on a 24 hour a day basis, seven days a week, with an admission criteria based on the patient's need for home health care, his ability to make available financial resources and the Petitioner's ability to provide the services required. Services were to be provided from a central location in Pensacola, Florida, which is in Escambia County, Florida; to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. The application was subsequently amended to indicate the willingness of the Petitioner to aid Medicare and Medicaid patients in the named counties. The Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "Upjohn", operating as Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of the Upjohn company, having forty-Seven certified home health agencies in the United States. The organization has twenty-one offices in the State of Florida and one of those offices is located in Pensacola, Florida. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to evaluate the applications for certificate of need and to issue such certificates as would be appropriate under the terms of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede. This application for certificate of need and that of the companion case of Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool, hereinafter referred to "Personnel Pool", are also considered in accordance with the Health Systems plan for the Florida Panhandle effective December 15, 1978. A copy of that document may be found as the Joint Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The project review committee of the Northwest Florida District recommended to the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Advisory Council that the certificate of need be granted and this action was taken on May 2, 1979. A public hearing was held on May 8, 1979, and on Nay, 17, 1979, the Northwest Florida Subdistrict recommended the disapproval of the project. This disapproval followed a staff report by the staff of the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency which suggested that the certificate of need be denied. The application was then presented to the Regional Council, Florida panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc., and on May 25, 1979, the Regional Council recommended the approval of the certificate of need to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, with the proviso that services be offered Medicare and Medicaid patients. On June 29, 1979, the Respondent in the person of Art Forehand, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, attempted to apprise the Petitioner that the request for a certificate of need had been denied; however, this correspondence was misaddressed and it was not until July 9, 1979, that a letter was forwarded to an official of Petitioner's organization and received by that official. On July 31, 1979, the Petitioner appealed the decision of denial of the certificate of need and the case was later assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration which resulted in the hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. (The details of the various items discussed in developing the chronology of this application may be found in the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) In offering its proof to demonstrate the entitlement to a certificate of need, the Petitioner essentially attempted to refute the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', hereinafter referred to as "Department", letter of notification of denial. That letter gave five reasons for denying the certificate of need, those reasons being: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency 1979 Health Systems Plan policy guide regarding physical location of a home health agency in the area it intends to serve. The proposal is not consistent with standards and criteria established in Chapter 10-5.11(14), Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Extenuating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in approving a certificate of need for a new home health agency have not been adequately demonstrated. There are other available and adequate home health care service providers in the proposed service area which could serve as an alternative to the proposed project and prevent unnecessary duplication of resources. Financial feasibility data do not clearly reflect the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The initial reason for denial deals with the claim that the Health Systems Plan for the Florida Panhandle, adopted December 15, 1978, does not allow service of three counties from one central office in Pensacola, Florida. The disputed language in that document is found in Chapter IV at page 216, and it states: No home health agency may be issued a license to operate in a Florida county without having applied for and been granted a certificate of need. The Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services considers the recommendation of the Health Systems Agency and established criteria in determining need. Certificates are now issued for a single-county service area, but prior to legislation passed in 1977, an agency could obtain a certificate for several counties. This inconsistency has created considerable confusion in determining need. Although the comment in the document is reluctantly made, it does establish the necessity for the issuance of certificates of need for single-county service areas. This determination is reached, notwithstanding the Petitioner's argument that there is existing precedence for serving more than one county out of a single office. Although there are circumstances in Florida where this approach has been utilized, such service of a multi-county area from a single office would not be allowed on the occasion of the current application. The second reason for denying the certificate of need involves Rule 10- 5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (14)(a) A Certificate of Need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit shall not be issued until the daily census of each of the existing home health agencies or subunits providing services within the health service area of the proposed new home health agency or subunit has reached an average of 300 patients for the immediate preceding calendar quarter unless the need for the proposed new home health agency or subunit can be demonstrated by application of the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in rule 10-5.11(14)(b) herein. (b) Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service are is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The Petitioner, in the course of this presentation, took issue with the survey method used by the employee who conducted the staff review of the application. Upjohn claimed that the data gathered on the question of the requirement for a 300 average daily patient census was incomplete and inaccurate. The Petitioner also questioned whether the rule as cited above could be followed in this hearing or should the prior rule which spoke in terms of the daily census of the aggregate of the existing home health agencies or subunits in determining the count of 300 patients be used. The current rule became effective on June 5, 1979, and that rule has application because it was effective at the time of this hearing. Turning again to the question of the formula in deriving the number of patients in the census of the proposed service area, even assuming incompleteness or inaccuracies in the staff evaluation performed by the Health System Agency, the proof offered by the Petitioner in the bearing does not show utilization in excess of the 300-patient census. There are two health agencies now delivering home health care in Escambia County. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., is one of those agencies and in its last complete reporting quarter prior to the hearing, there is an indicated patient census for April, which was 71; for May it was 77; and for June it was 73, totaling 221 patients, thereby constituting an average census of 74. This statement of census was established through the testimony of Arthur Long, Executive Director of Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. (His organization serves only patients who are enrolled with his service group.) Ms. Marian Humphrey, a public health nursing supervisor for the Escambia County Health Department, established the census in Escambia County for that Health Department as serviced by the Visiting Nurses Association, Inc. Beginning in January, 1979, the census was 101 Medicare patients; 14 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAD-PUS patients; 9 private patients and 71 free patients, the latter category being patients who do not pay for services. In February, 1979, there were 164 Medicare patients; 16 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 72 free patients. In March, 1979, there were 128 Medicare patients; 9 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 11 private patients. In April, 1979, there were 147 Medicare patients; 13 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 9 private patients. In May, 1979, there were 165 Medicare patients; 12 Medicaid patients; 3 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 88 free patients. In June, 1979, there were 148 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 61 free patients. In July, 1979, there were 150 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 77 free patients. In August, 1979, there were 134 Medicare patients; 11 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 14 private patients and 96 free patients. The above-cited statistics demonstrate that the two current servicing agencies in Escambia County, Florida, in the preceding full quarter of 1979 which would have been April, May and June, considered separately do not exceed the average of 300 patients for that calendar quarter, nor did the statistics show excess of 300 in other reported quarters. By its Exhibit No. 8, the Petitioner presented statistics on the patient census in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County. These statistics were gathered by Blue Cross of Florida. The statistics of the Blue Cross survey show the patient Census services rendered by the Okaloosa County Health Department. These statistics only deal with the years 1977 and 1978 and are, therefore, not current. The most recent quarter in the report on Okaloosa County Health Department shows that in the last quarter of 1978, in-October the patient census was 9; November, the patient census was 14, and in December the patient census was 21. There is a provision in the Blue Cross report which deals with the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc.; however, these findings of fact defer to the testimony of Mr. Long which showed that in 1979, there was a patient census in April of 36; in May, a patient census of 38 and in June, a patient census of 40, for an average census of 38. The Blue Cross report shows that Santa Rosa County Health Department is the only home health care provider in that county. The most recent census reflected in that report is for January, February and March of 1979. In January the patient census was 41, in February the patient census was 35, and in March the patient census was 33. Analyzing this statistical data provided dealing with Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, although some of the information is not current, it does demonstrate that the census did not exceed the average of 300 patients for the quarters that were reported in either county. In closing out an examination of the discussion of point 2 of the reasons for denial, it is noted that the Blue Cross report deals with the patient census of the Escambia County Health Department but this report is not as current as the presentation by Ms. Humphrey and the Humphrey report is accepted in lieu of the Blue Cross report. Reason 3 for denying the certificate of need talks about the failure of the Petitioner to demonstrate extenuating and mitigating circum stances which would allow a certificate to be issued, notwithstanding the fact that the current service agencies do not exceed the average census of 300 patients for the calendar quarter. Again, that provision of Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Statutes, states: Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service area is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The first provision under that subsection deals with the inability of the existing health agency to provide services to persons in need of home health care. In examining the question of the ability of the current organizations to provide the necessary health care, Escambia County will be reviewed first. In Escambia County, the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., requires that their patients be registered with the organization and their office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and on the weekends, a registered nurse is on call through the utilization of a "beeper" system. These services only apply to Medicare patients enrolled with the organization. To be enrolled it is necessary for the enrollment to have been achieved through a request by a physician. The Escambia County Health Department is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and serves all classes of patients. There are on- call nurses who work on weekends. The nurses are called by the utilization of the Nurses Directory for Escambia County. The exception to these statements is that two days a year the services of the Escambia County Health Department are not available due to holidays. At night during the week those persons who are patients of the Escambia County Health Department are instructed to arrange for emergency treatment in the Emergency Room or ambulatory care at West Florida Hospital, assuming those patients cannot wait until the following morning for attention. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., services Okaloosa County from an office in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The exact nature of those services is as set out in the discussion of the services provided to patients in Escambia County. The exact details of other current services offered in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County were not presented by the Petitioner. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether those services are adequate. The only evidence that touched on the issue of adequacy of services was testimony offered by one Ruby Savage, who is a volunteer member of the Regional Board of the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Council and a participant in project reviews. She stated that in her opinion there was a need for 24-hour service in Santa Rosa County. This testimony standing alone was insufficient to identify the need for further home health care services. The Petitioner has asserted that the services spoken of in the preceding paragraphs are not sufficient and examples of the lack of available services, according to the Petitioner, are shown on pages 65 through 68 of the transcript of the hearing. Therein are cited several examples of persons unable to receive necessary care of the type which the Petitioner desires to deliver. These examples are accounts given by Ms. Krumel from information purportedly given to her on the subject of the lack of service. Ms. Krumel in the course of the hearing made further comments to the effect that the individuals involved in the project review felt that the services in the question area were insufficient. Those opinions, while they may be true, are not the quality of evidence needed to sustain the Petitioner's contention that there is a need for further health care service in the area in question. The Petitioner made no further presentation on the question of lack of service and on balance the Petitioner has failed to show lack of service. The Petitioner offered testimony on the possibility of the utilization of population increases in the area as a criterion for increasing home health care services. While this criterion formerly appeared in Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code, under the provisions of extenuating and mitigating circumstances, it is not found in the current statement of that rule and may not be used as a criterion for gaining the certificate of need. In discussing the issue of cost containment as outlined in the above- cited rule, the Petitioner made a general comment that if further services are not provided, patients will be required to receive services at emergency rooms, thereby voiding the possibility of cost containment which could be offered by granting the certificate of need to this Petitioner, who is willing to provide 24-hour home health care services. This statement standing alone is insufficient to show that the granting of the certificate of need to the Petitioner will foster cost containment. Finally, the fifth reason for denying the certificate of need was premised upon the failure of the Petitioner to provide financial feasibility data reflecting the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The requirement for such data is found in Rule 10-5.09(5), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (5) Documentation showing that the project is financially feasible and can be accommodated without unreasonable charges for services rendered to include a projection of income and expense on a pro forma basis for the first two years of operation after completion of the project. Petitioner claimed at the hearing that it has failed to include this data because the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid patients in its proposed services was a last minute item and no one in the evaluation process told them that they had to comply with this provision. At the time of the hearing the data was yet to be provided. Upjohn and Personnel Pool were afforded an opportunity to offer their testimony to establish in what respects they might be superior to the other applicant for a certificate of need, assuming that only one certificate of need was to be granted. The two Petitioners did not wish to make any direct attack on the special qualifications of the collateral Petitioner. Both parties proceeded on the basis of offering their remarks to be available for comparison if the contingency were realized which required that only one certificate of need be issued. It is not necessary to detail the special qualifications of these Petitioners, because no certificate of need will be recommended for issuance in Escambia County, Florida, the location in which Upjohn and Personnel Pool are potential competitors for a sole certificate of need. Nonetheless, the facts offered in support of the special qualifications of Upjohn may be found in the transcript of record, pages 187 through 190. The testimony on Personnel Pool's special qualifications may be found in the transcript of the hearing on pages 228 and 251 through 256.
Recommendation This recommendation is being entered in view of the Facts and Conclusions of Law in this case and those Facts and Conclusions of Law in the companion case, D.O.A.H. No. 79-1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Upon consideration of the Facts herein and the Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency be denied its request for a certificate of need to serve Escambia, Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. It is further recommended that the agency in entering its final order do so by a process of simultaneous review of this Recommended Order and the Recommended Order entered in D.O.A.H. Case No. 79- 1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that final orders be entered on the same date with copies to be served on the representatives of each applicant in this case and in the companion case mentioned above. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Krumel, R.N. Mr. Art Forchand, Administrator Service Director Office of Community Medical Facil. Upjohn Healthcare Services Department of Health and 15 West Strong Street Rehabilitative Services Old Townhouse Square 1323 Winewood Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Owens Mr. Joe Dowless Zone Manager, West Florida Office of Licensure and Cert. Upjohn Health Care Services Department of Health and 3118 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Rehabilitative Services Clearwater, Florida 33519 Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Departnt of Health and Mr. Herbert E. Straughn Rehabilitative Services Office of Cozmunity Medical Facil. 1323 Winewood Boulevard Department of Health and Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherrill E. Phelps Governmental Affairs Representative Personnel Pool of America, Inc. 303 Southeast 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Thomas S. Siler Owner/Administrator Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. 1800 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") concerning the denial of the Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10234, filed by North Brevard County Hospital District d/b/a Parrish Medical Center (“Parrish”). 1. On December 5, 2014, the Agency issued a State Agency Action Report (“SAAR”) preliminarily denying CON Application 10234 seeking to establish a new 20-bed comprehensive rehabilitation unit in District 7, Brevard County. The decision was published in Filed March 10, 2015 3:06 PM Division of Administrative Hearings the Florida Administrative Register on December 8, 2014. Exhibit 1. 2. On December 29, 2014, Parrish petitioned for a formal administrative proceeding to appeal the Agency’s initial denial of its CON application. The case was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 15-0133. 3. On December 29, 2014, Healthsouth of Sea Pines Limited Partnership, d/b/a Heaithsouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital (“HealthSouth Sea Pines”) petitioned for a formal administrative proceeding in support of the Agency’s preliminary denial of CON Application No. 10234. The case was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 15-0132. 4. On January 26, 2015, Parrish filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Case No. 15-0133. Exhibit 2. 5. On January 26, 2015, HealthSouth Sea Pines filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Case No. 15-0132. Exhibit 3. It is therefore ORDERED: 6. The denial of Parrish’s CON Application No. 10234 is UPHELD. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this /O day on Liat ch, 2015. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- _— named persons by the method designated on this bike of Ltt , 2015. Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings www.doah.state.fl.us (Electronic Mail) Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Lorraine.novak(@ahca.myflorida.com (Electronic Mail) David C. Ashburn, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire M. Hope Keating, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ashburnd‘@gtlaw.com chernigam@gtlaw.com keatingh@gtlaw.com R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Turigsby@penningtonlaw.com Brian@penningtonlaw.com (Electronic Mail) Marisol Fitch Health Services & Facilities Consultant Certificate of Need Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Marisol .fitch@ahea.myflorida.com (Electronic Mail) Page 3 of 3 Miscellaneous AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Certificate of Need DECISIONS ON BATCHED APPLICATIONS The Agency for Health Care Administration made the following decisions on Certificate of Need applications for Hospital Beds and Facilities batching cycle with an application due date of September 3, 2014: County: Brevard Service District: 7 CON #10233 Decision Date: 12/5/2014 Decision: A Applicant/Facility/Project: Indian River Behavioral Health, LLC Project Description: Establish a 74-bed child/adolescent psychiatric hospital Approved Cost: $16,737,262 County: Brevard Service District: 7 CON #10234 Decision Date: 12/5/2014 Decision: D Facility/Project: Parrish Medical Center Applicant: North Brevard County Hospital District Project Description: Establish a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit County: Broward Service District: 10-] CON #10235 Decision Date: 12/5/2014 Decision: A Facility/Project: Plantation General Hospital Applicant: Plantation General Hospital Limited Partnership Project Description: Establish a 200-bed replacement acute care hospital Approved Cost: $0 A request for administrative hearing, if any, must be made in writing and must be actually received by this department within 21 days of the first day of publication of this notice in the Florida Administrative Register pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59C-1, Florida Administrative Code. EXHIBIT 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BEARINGS NORTH BREVARD COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Parrish Medical Center, CASE NO.,: 15-0133CON CON NO. 10234 Petitioner, Vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION. Respondents. / NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL North Brevard County Hospital District d/b/a Parrish Medical Center. by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby provides notice of its voluntary dismissal of its Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, by which it initiated Case No. 05-0133CON on January 8, 2015. Respectfully submitted this 26" day of January, 2015. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 ‘Velephone: (850) 222-6891 Facsimile: (850) 681-0207 MICHAEL {CHERNIGA Florida Bar No. 328014 chernigam@gtlaw.com Counsel for North Brevard County Hospital District d/b/a Parrish Medical Center EXHIBIT 2 Filed January 26, 2015 12:39 PM Division of Administrative Hearings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed by eALJ with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, and copy furnished 1o the following by electronic delivery this 26th day of January, 2015: Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lorraine. Novak @ahca.myflorida.com Michael J. Chédiga _ TAL 451937932v1 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS HEALTHSOUTH OF SEA PINES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a HEALTHSOUTH SEA PINES REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, Petitioner, Case No. 15-0132CON VS. NORTH BREVARD COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER and AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Respondents. HEALTHSOUTH OF SEA PINES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a HEALTHSOUTH SEA PINES REHABILITATION HOSPITAL’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Petitioner. HealthSouth of Sea Pines Limited Partnership, d/b/a HealthSouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses its petition in the above-styled proceedings. Respectfully submitted this Lo day of January, 2015. (a R. am RRY Y RIGSB Y Florida Bar Number: a BRIAN A. NEWMAN Florida Bar Number: 0004758 PENNINGTON, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 (32302-2095) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: 850-222-3533 Facsimile: 850-222-2126 nie: cerati . EXHIBIT 3 Filed January 26, 2015 1:45 PM Division of Administrative Hearings E-Mail: — trigsby‘@penningtoniaw.com brian’@penningtonlaw.com Attorneys for HealthSouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed with by eALJ with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The DeSoto Building. 1230 Apalachee Parkway. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, and copy furnished to the following by electronic delivery this ¢ day of January, 2015: Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive. Suite 3431 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Lorraine. Novak ‘wahca.myflorida.com ae aaa in =f d — ATTORNEY oP 7D
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to establish a hospice with a six (6) bed component to be located in Dade County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Since 1975, Petitioner, Comprehensive Home Health Care, Inc., has been serving the elderly population of Dade County, primarily working with the Hispanic community to provide skilled nursing services and the services of physical therapy, speech pathology, occupational therapy, home health aide and medical social services. Petitioner currently provides its services as a home health care agency licensed by the Department. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), is a state agency which is responsible for administering Section 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for certificates of need (CON) are filed, reviewed and either granted or denied by the Department. Petitioner currently does not participate in an approved hospice program. Two hospice programs are licensed by the Department to serve Dade County: Catholic Hospice, Inc., and Hospice, Inc. Neither entity chose to intervene in the instant proceeding. The Application On or about March 27, 1989, Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement a six (6) bed hospice service in Dade County, Florida, with no capital expenditure. The application was designated as CON Number 5871. No public hearing was requested. After the submittal of an omissions response, the Department deemed the application complete on May 16, 1989. The application was reviewed as the sole applicant in its batching cycle After review of the application, the Department issued its intent to deny the application in its state agency action report (SAAR) on June 29, 1989. In the application, Petitioner proposes to establish a not-for-profit, full service hospice which includes a six (6) bed inpatient component with beds to be located in the Northwest, Central West and Southwest Dade County, Florida, in three of the following hospitals: AMI Kendall Regional Medical Center Coral Gables Hospital North Gables Hospital Palmetto Hospital Pan American Hospital Westchester Hospital In addition to relying on its application as meeting pertinent statutory and rule criteria- Petitioner asserts that the application demonstrates mitigating and extenuating circumstances which would allow the approval of the application even if the numeric need prescribed by rule were not demonstrated by the application. Further, the application states that Hospice, Inc., as the only provider in Dade County, has a monopoly on the market in Dade County. Petitioner also intends to concentrate on providing service to the Hispanic population and those individuals suffering from AIDS. The application was not presented in the format which the Department usually receives applications for certificate of need. The usual format was not made part of the record in this proceeding. However, the application, as supported at hearing, shows Petitioner's desire to provide hospice services to the residents of Western Dade County. The witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner were Teresa Corba Rodriguez, Roger Lane and Rose Marie Marty. Ms. Rodriguez is an experienced registered nurse who worked for Hospice, Inc., from November, 1987, through June, 1989. She is currently employed at Victoria Hospital. Mr. Lane is the director of information and referral at Health Crisis Network in Miami, and Ms. Marty is the Vice President of Petitioner. The Department's primary bases for issuance of its intent to deny the application were the lack of need for additional inpatient hospice beds, and the failure to document sufficiently certain statutory and rule criteria, as discussed in the following paragraphs. The Department offered the testimony of Elizabeth Dudek, who is an employee of the Department, and is an expert in health planning. Compliance with Statutory Criteria In its proposed recommended order, the Department acknowledged that only six statutory criteria in Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes (1987) are at issue, in addition to Rule 10-5.011(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. State Health Plan Although the State Health Plan was not offered into evidence, the Department through testimony and the SAAR indicates that the Application conforms to the State Health Plan. Local Health Plan The applicable Local Health Plan is represented by the plan entitled, "1988 District XI Certificate of Need Allocation Factors", adopted on March 3, 1988. This plan, as it relates to hospice services, is composed of a Subsystem Description, a statement of Issues and of Recommendations. The SAAR chose to base its determination of Petitioner's compliance with the local health plan on an evaluation of whether the application fulfilled the several preferences within the recommendations portion of this plan. In so doing, the Department determined in its SAAR that the Petitioner was in partial compliance. The first preference reads as follows "Preference should be given to applicants having a workable plan for training and maintaining a corps of volunteers." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by utilizing volunteers who are bilingual and who will assist in performing the clerical, visitation, counseling, public relations and community awareness aspects of the program. Petitioner also intends to rely on the volunteer efforts of the servicing hospital, churches, schools, community functions, educational efforts and media to enhance community awareness about the program. The second preference reads as follows, "Preference should be given to those applicants who propose to provide care for the indigent and medically needy." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by proposing to provide ten (10) percent of its total patient day for Medicaid recipients, and five (5) percent of its total patient days to the medically indigent, at least, during the first year of operation. The third preference reads as follows, "Preference should be given to those applicants who propose a commitment to serving persons with AIDS." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by stating both in the application and through the testimony of its witnesses that it intends to serve the ever-increasing number of patients diagnosed with AIDS. Further, it is one of Petitioner's long range objectives to seek funding sources and grants to provide additional services to AIDS patients. The fourth preference reads as follows: "Preference should be given to those applicants who can demonstrate or have entered contractual agreements with other community agencies to ensure a continuum of care far those in need." Petitioner's application is consistent with this preference by its claim that the hospitals set forth in paragraph 6 intend to participate in the program, and should supplement the home health care system which Petitioner currently maintains. However, no competent proof was offered in support of the proposed arrangements. The fifth preference reads as follows: "Preference should be given to those applicants who have developed specialized innovative services to special sub-population in need within the District." Petitioner demonstrated its partial consistency with this preference by showing its intent to service patients with AIDS, the elderly and the Hispanic sub-populations of Dade County. However, Petitioner failed to show that the service it would provide was different from the service provided by the existing hospices in Dade County, other than the intended geographical location of Petitioner's proposal. Siting in Western Dade County on its own was not shown to be a specialized, innovative offering. The sixth preference reads as follows: "Preference should be given to those applicants who will address specific needs of the culturally diverse minority populations in the District." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by showing that it intends to serve the elderly, ethnic minorities, victims of AIDS, and the indigent populations of Dade County. Each of the groups Petitioner has singled out are indeed minority population groups within Dade County, and are elements of, and contribute to the cultural diversity of the area. The seventh preference reads as follows: "Preference should be given to those applicants who propose to have health care personnel on call during night and weekend hours." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by showing its intent to provide for home care up to24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to control its patients' symptoms and respond to emergencies as needed. The eighth preference reads as follows: "Preference should be given to applicants who build quality assurance methods into the proposed program." Petitioner demonstrated its consistency with this preference by expressing its plan to install a quality assurance program which will include clinical records review by a registered nurse, ongoing clinical record review, and utilization review. On balance, the Petitioner's application is consistent with the Local Health Plan. Availability, Accessibility and Extent of Utilization Currently there are two hospices that serve the District. The two are located in the Eastern portions of the County. Petitioner intends to locate its beds in the Northwest and Southwest portions of Dade County, whereas the existing beds are housed in the Northeast and Southeast parts of the County. Thus, Petitioner's proposed beds are more geographically accessible to the residents of Western Dade County, which the application asserts is the fastest growing area of the County. By providing beds in the Western portion of the District, and in locations different from the existing beds, Petitioner would make the hospice services in the District more geographically accessible. Hospice, Inc., is currently licensed for twenty- five (25) beds, of which only between fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) are operable. The record is silent as to the availability of the thirty (30) beds approved for Catholic Hospice, Inc. The record does not indicate why the approved beds are not in service, or how the beds requested by Petitioner would improve the availability of hospice service in the District. Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness and Adequacy The Application suggested that patients suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) are underserved, and that Petitioner will fulfill that need. Testimony offered by Petitioner sought to establish that some patients suffering from AIDS, and those of Hispanic origin, had been refused service by the existing hospices, and made vague reference to some credit problems which Hospice, Inc., had experienced If proven, the statements might impact on the quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy; however, without a more direct showing this testimony is not considered, substantial, or credible. As to other references concerning the quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy, the record is again silent. Availability and Best Use of Resources Petitioner currently operates as a home health care agency. The hospice program would be an extension of the existing service offered by Petitioner and targeted to serve the Hispanic, elderly and terminally ill patients within the District, utilizing existing and voluntary personnel. Without demonstrating more about the current operations, and proof of the market demand for the proposed services, a determination of the best use of resources cannot be made. Financial Feasibility The application projects a financially sound forecast in the short-term through 1991 starting with $75,000 available. The Department through testimony and in the SAAR recognized the short- term financial feasibility of the project. However, the record is silent on financial projections past 1991. Accordingly, a determination of the long-term financial feasibility of the proposal has not been shown. Effects on Competition Petitioner asserted that eligible patients were not being served by the existing facilities, as discussed in above paragraph 24. To the extent these underserved patients exist and were to be provided for by the proposed program, the offering might have an impact on the costs of providing health services in the District. However, as discussed in paragraph 24, the evidence presented did not support Petitioner's claim. Compliance with Rule Criteria Rule 10-5.011(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for hospice services within a particular service area. Dade County is the pertinent service area for the evaluation of the application. The methodology provides a formula by which the total number of hospice patients for the planning horizon, in this case January, 1991, are to be estimated. The formula takes the cancer mortality rate in the district, and factors in a certain percentage to allow for any other types of deaths, and then factors in considerations of both long-term, and short-term hospital stays to yield the projected number of beds which will be needed in the horizon year. For the batching cycle in which Petitioner's application was reviewed, the projected bed need is fifty-nine (59). From that figure, the number of approved beds is subtracted. At the time Petitioner submitted its letter of intent, the inventory of licensed beds in the District indicated that Catholic Hospice, Inc. was approved for thirty (30) beds, and Hospice, Inc., for twenty-five (25) beds. In other words, the inventory of licensed approved beds applicable to this application is fifty-five (55) beds. Thus, the numeric need for the pertinent batching cycle is four (4) beds. As referenced in paragraph 5, Petitioner requested approval for six (6) hospice beds. The application contains no request for approval of less than six (6) beds, nor did Petitioner raise the issue of a partial award. The Department does not normally approve an application when numeric need is not met unless, in the instance of a request for hospice services, mitigating and extenuating circumstances are proven by demonstrating the following: (1) documentation that the population of the service area is being denied access to existing hospices because the existing hospices are unable to provide service to all persons in need of hospice care and service, and, (2) documentation that the proposed hospice would foster cost containment, discourage regional monopolies and promote competition for all providers in the health service area. Hospice Inc., frequently maintains a waiting list for its hospice beds; however, the reason or reasons for the list was not demonstrated. The census of the hospice beds at Catholic Hospice, Inc., was not discussed at the hearing, or in the application. All of Petitioner's witnessed testified that they believed that the existing hospices were unavailable to potential patients in need of hospice service who lived in the Western portion of the District because the existing hospices were located in the Eastern portion of the District. The travel time from the Southern portion of the District to the Northernmost existing facility can require up to two and one-half hours. The witnesses asserted that the patients and their families do not wish to travel for that period of time to receive the services or to visit patients in the existing hospices. However, no patient or family member testified that the travel time or location of the existing hospice were a hindrance to care. The testimony presented concerning the patients and their families is not competent or corroborated by competent evidence. Further, Petitioner's witnesses asserted that doctors who had treated patients eligible for hospice service had told the witnesses that the physicians hesitated to refer the patients to the existing hospices because the doctors might not have staff privileges at the hospitals which house the existing beds. Again, no physicians were available to corroborate the statements of the witnesses or offer competent testimony in support of these assertions. Although Hospice, Inc., is Licensed for twenty- five (25) beds, it has chosen to operate only between fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) of those beds. The reasons Hospice, Inc., has chosen not to operate all of its licensed beds were not offered in the record. The District has the largest number of AIDS diagnosed cases of any county in Florida. The number of cases in the District is doubling, more or less on a yearly basis. The incidence of AIDS cases adds to the number of person in need of hospice care in the District. Rule 10-5.011(1)(j) does not single out AIDS-related deaths in its calculation; however, deaths from other than cancer are factored into the formula. Again, no competent testimony was presented that the existing hospices were unable to serve patients suffering from AIDS. The methodology set out in Rule 10-5.011(1)(j) determines the initial need for hospice within the District. Once a hospice has been approved, it can increase the number of beds that it has without certificate of need approval as long as the hospice keeps a patient mix of twenty (20) percent inpatient to eighty (80) percent outpatient. The factors asserted in findings 33-37 would go to show mitigating and extenuating circumstances, if proven by competent substantial proof. However, from the evidence presented, it cannot be determined that the existing hospices are unable to provide service to those in need of hospice care. The evidence presented to document that the proposal would foster cost containment, discourage regional monopolies, and promote competition is discussed in paragraphs 25-28 above, and is lacking in substance to show the premise raised here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order which denies CON Application Number 5871. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida,, this 13th day of February, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 13th day of February, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency") concerning the denial of the Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10234, filed by North Brevard County Hospital District d/b/a Parrish Medical Center (“Parrish”). 1. On December 5, 2014, the Agency issued a State Agency Action Report (“SAAR”) preliminarily denying CON Application 10234 seeking to establish a new 20-bed comprehensive rehabilitation unit in District 7, Brevard County. The decision was published in Filed March 10, 2015 3:05 PM Division of Administrative Hearings the Florida Administrative Register on December 8, 2014. Exhibit 1. 2. On December 29, 2014, Parrish petitioned for a formal administrative proceeding to appeal the Agency’s initial denial of its CON application. The case was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 15-0133. 3. On December 29, 2014, Healthsouth of Sea Pines Limited Partnership, d/b/a Heaithsouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital (“HealthSouth Sea Pines”) petitioned for a formal administrative proceeding in support of the Agency’s preliminary denial of CON Application No. 10234. The case was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 15-0132. 4. On January 26, 2015, Parrish filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Case No. 15-0133. Exhibit 2. 5. On January 26, 2015, HealthSouth Sea Pines filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Case No. 15-0132. Exhibit 3. It is therefore ORDERED: 6. The denial of Parrish’s CON Application No. 10234 is UPHELD. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this /O day on Liat ch, 2015. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Care Administration
