The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order sustaining the Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Melvin Alston, is entitled to insurance coverage under the State of Florida Health Plan for services received at Miracle Hill Nursing Home.
Findings Of Fact Doris Alston, widow of Melvin Alston, is requesting payment for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. Melvin Alston died on December 31, 1985. Melvin Alston, as a retired state employee, became eligible for coverage under the State Health Plan on July 1, 1985. He was a professor and dean at Florida A&M University from 1946 until 1969, when he retired. Thereafter he became a professor at Southern Illinois University, from which he retired in 1976. Alston was admitted to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (TMRMC) in September, 1984, and was transferred to the extended care unit on September 20, 1984, because there were no available nursing home beds. On October 31, 1984, a bed became available at Goodwood Manor, a skilled nursing home facility, and Alston was admitted to Goodwood Manor from the TMRMC extended care unit. Alston remained at Goodwood Manor until August 22, 1985, when Mrs. Alston removed him and placed him at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. While at Goodwood Manor, Alston was receiving essentially custodial care. He had a routine diet and simply needed assistance with his activities of daily living, such as bathing and feeding. He was able to take his medications as they were given to him and he could leave the nursing home on a pass basis. While at Goodwood, Alston's medical orders were reviewed monthly and he was not seen daily by a physician. Alston received the same level of care at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In skilled nursing facilities, the range of services needed and provided goes from skilled through intermediate levels to custodial. Skilled care includes such services as injections or intravenous medications on a daily basis which must be administered by a nurse. Dr. C. E. Richardson became Alston's physician at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In the course of his deposition, Dr. Richardson testified that Alston received medical level care at Miracle Hill. However, Dr. Richardson stated several times that he did not know the level of care given to Alston under the definitions of the care levels available. He acknowledged that the levels of care ranged from skilled to custodial. Dr. Richardson also did not know the terms of the benefit document for the State Health Plan. Dr. Richardson only provided the medical care, which was the same no matter what level of nursing care he needed or received. According to Dr. Richardson, Alston was on a fairly routine diet, could engage in activities as tolerated, and could go out on a pass at will. One of Dr. Richardson's orders dated 11/27/85 shows that Dr. Richardson did not order a skilled level of care, but instead checked the level of care to be intermediate. Alston did not receive or need skilled nursing care at Miracle Hill. It is more appropriate to classify the level of care as custodial, as that term is defined in the State Health Plan Benefit Document. Alston's primary insurer was Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, based on coverage he had from his employment there. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois denied the claim for services at Miracle Hill because the services were custodial and were not covered by that plan. It also denied the claim because Miracle Hill's services did not fit its criteria for skilled nursing care. William Seaton is a State Benefits Analyst with the Department of Administration and his duties include assisting people who have a problem with the settlement of a claim with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, which administers the State Health Plan. After the claim was denied by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, Mr. Seaton assisted Mrs. Alston by filing a claim under the State Health Plan. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida concluded that no benefits were payable for facility charges at a nursing home and that an extended care or skilled nursing facilities would have limited coverage; however, because Alston was not transferred to Miracle Hill directly from an acute care hospital, no coverage existed. The pertinent provisions of the benefit document of the State Health Plan are as follows: I.G. "Custodial Care" means care which does not require skilled nursing care or rehabilitative services and is designed solely to assist the insured with the activities of daily living, such as: help in walking, getting in and out of bed, bathing, dressing, eating, and taking medications. * * * I.N. "Hospital", means a licensed institution engaged in providing medical care and treatment to a patient as a result of illness or accident on an inpatient/outpatient basis . . . and which fully meets all the tests set forth in ., 2., and 3. below: . . . In no event, however, shall such term include . . . an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest for care and treatment of the aged. * * * I.AH. "Skilled Nursing Care" means care which is furnished . . . to achieve the medically desired result and to insure the insured's safety. Skilled nursing care may be the rendering of direct care, when the ability to provide the service requires specialized (professional) training; or observation and assessment of the insured's medical needs; or supervision of a medical treatment plan involving multiple services where specialized health care knowledge must be applied in order to attain the desired medical results. * * * I.AI. "Skilled Nursing Facility" means a licensed institution, or a distinct part of a hospital, primarily engaged in providing to inpatients: skilled nursing care . . . or rehabilitation services . . . and other medically necessary related health services. Such care or services shall not include: the type of care which is considered custodial . . . . * * * II.E. Covered Skilled Nursing Facility Services. On or after August 1, 1984, when an insured is transferred from a hospital to a skilled nursing facility, the Plan will pay 80% of the charge for skilled nursing care . . . subject to the following: The insured must have been hospital confined for three consecutive days prior to the day of discharge before being transferred to a skilled nursing facility; Transfer to a skilled nursing facility is because the insured requires skilled care for a condition . . . which was treated in the hospital; The insured must be admitted to the skilled nursing facility immediately following discharge from the hospital; A physician must certify the need for skilled nursing care . . . and the insured must receive such care or services on a daily basis; . . . 6. Payment of services and supplies is limited to sixty (60) days of confinement per calendar year. * * * VII. No payment shall be made under the Plan for the following: * * * L. Services and supplies provided by . . . a skilled nursing facility or an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest facility for care and treatment of the aged. * * * N. any services in connection with custodial care . . . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying the request for benefits for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4674 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Melvin Alston 1 . Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5 are rejected as being subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Additionally, proposed findings of fact 3 and 5 contain argument which is rejected. 2. Proposed finding of fact 4 is irrelevant to the resolution of this matter. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Administration Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 4(2); 5(2); 6(11); 8(11); 9(12); 10(3 & 4); 11(5); 12(4); 14(5); 15(7); 19- 21(8 & 9) 23(13); and 24(13). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 16 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7, 13, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected as being irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17 and 22 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 2. Proposed finding of fact 25 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Mahorner Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 682 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrea Bateman Attorney-at-Law Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Villa, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue By its Administrative Complaint, dated October 14, 1980, Use Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 upon the Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner charges the Respondent with allegedly failing to provide patients in its nursing home with adequate care consistent with their right to receive adequate health care in accordance with the established and recognized practice standards in the community and with rules promulgated by the Department pursuant to Section 400.022 (1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner charges also that the Respondent failed to maintain its premises and equipment and conduct its operations in a safe and sanitary manner as required by Section 400.141(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is concomitantly charged with violations of Rules 10D-29.33(4) and 10D-29.38(1), and Rule 10D-29.52(4) Table (36), Florida Administrative Code, in the area of patient health care. A violation of Rule 10D-29.49(1), Florida Administrative Code is alleged on the ground that no effective maintenance plan was promulgated or implemented by the Respondent. The charges at issue relate to an August 22, 1980 complaint investigation and surveillance visit conducted by personnel from the Tampa Office of Licensure and Certification of Petitioner's Department. On that visit it is charged that the Petitioner's personnel observed a patient and her bed linens soiled with fecal material and another patient who had soil accumulations on the right hand and was in need of hand care. Additionally, the Petitioner's personnel allegedly observed nurse paging cords missing or not attached to beds in approximately twelve rooms and observed various fixtures and equipment in need of repair. The issues are thus whether the acts or omissions charged occurred, and whether they constitute violations of the above-cited legal authority and concomitantly, whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to Section 400.102(c) and Section 400.121(2), Florida Statutes. Two witnesses were called by the petitioner and five by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were introduced into evidence. The Respondent moved to dismiss the Administrative Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss will be treated in the Conclusions of Law hereinbelow. The Respondent has filed 248 proposed findings of fact and has requested separate rulings upon each. In that regard, the Hearing Officer has considered all proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant, dispositive or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings and conclusions herein, it is not credited.
Findings Of Fact The Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center, operates a nursing home facility in Tampa, Florida. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC), of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is responsible for the investigation of complaints about the operation of nursing facilities such as that of the Respondent, which are licensed by HRS. On August 22, 1980 a complaint investigation and surveillance of the Respondent's facility was conducted by O.L.C. employees Joel Montgomery and Muriel Holzberger. These individuals performed an inspection tour of the Respondent's facility accompanied by staff members of the Respondent to generally observe the level of health care accorded patients and the effectiveness of maintenance and repair operations carried out by the Respondent on its facilities and equipment. Ms. Holzberger, a registered nurse and accepted as an expert in the area of proper nursing care standards, personally observed at least 90 percent of the 176 patients resident at the Respondent's facility. In that connection, witness Holzberger observed patient A. W. who was bedridden at the time. This witness observed a brown stain approximately the size of a half dollar on the top sheet of patient A. W.`s bed. The witness described the stain as appearing to be the color of fecal material and it apparently was dry. She did not touch it, but made a determination by its visual appearance only. The stain only consisted of a brown coloration and no fecal material was observed adhering to the stained area. The sheet of this patient was raised by Nurse Holzberger who thereupon observed wet excrement on the patient's buttocks and on a waterproof pad that had been placed under the patient. Ms. Holzberger opined that at this point and time at least, the patient had not been cleaned. No dried excrement material was observed on the patient or on the waterproof pad however. Patient A. W. had a medical history of constant fecal incontinence and other bowel problems consisting generally of frequent impactions, coupled with constant oozing of fecal matter. Proper nursing care for such a patient was established to consist of changing sheets and washing the patient frequently to avoid the danger of skin breakdown in the anal and coccyx area which can be caused by frequent contact with fecal material. This witness, however, was unable to testify that patient A. W. had not been cleaned frequently inasmuch as she had a constant oozing of fecal material due to her inability to achieve sphincter control. The witness was similarly unable to establish that the wet excrement observed on the patient's buttocks and the waterproof pad beneath her had not been disposited there immediately before her observation of the patient. It was not shown that the patient had remained in a soiled condition for a significant period of time and indeed the witness acknowledged that allowing such a patient to remain in a soiled condition for a short period of time would not, on one or two occasions, affect that patient's health and safety. It is inferred that the soiling could just as likely have occurred immediately prior to Ms. Holzberger's observation inasmuch as it was described to be wet. Ms. Holzberger's observed no patients in the nursing home exhibiting skin breakdown or other ill effects caused by contact with excrement. Nurse Holzberger also observed patient C. M. who had severe contractures of the hands. Ms. Holzberger maintained that she observed soil accumulations in the right hand and the fingernails were in need of trimming. This witness described generally accepted hand care for contractured hands as consisting of washing or soaking in warm water at least daily and that if the contracture is severe, causing pain to open the hand, a washcloth should be wrapped on a tongue blade and inserted into the hand to clean it in that fashion. Drying is accomplished in a similar manner followed by insertion of a soft hand roll at least one inch in diameter to prevent indentation of the nails into the hand and to prevent build up of perspiration and to allow air to circulate. The nails should be trimmed as short as possible. Ms. Holzberger concluded, based primarily on the observance of the soil or stain in the hand, that it had been several days since hand care had been performed on this patient. Nurse Holzberger admitted that she knew nothing of the medical history of the patient C. M., a 97-year-old lady who suffers from severe degenerative arthritis and osteoporosis in both hands. The hand in question is so severely contractured as to be "in a ball." The witness acknowledged that no patient at the facility, including patient C. M., had any wounds caused by long nails, and that patient C. M. did have a gauze pad inserted into her hand. Witness Holzberger acknowledged that the brown stain on the patient's hand could have been due to the use of betadine which is a form of disinfectant medication and indeed Nurses Campanillo and Groves who testified for the Respondent, and were similarly accepted as experts, confirmed that the stain on patient C. M.`s hand was not caused by soil accumulation, but rather the betadine medication applied the day before in the course of regular hand care. Witness Holzberger testified that such hand care should be performed once a day and that she did not know whether it had been performed on the day of the inspection or not. The Respondent's witnesses confirmed that it had not been performed on that day at the time of her inspection shortly after 11:00 a.m., but that within the regular schedule of care for patients, it should be and was performed before 12:30 that day. Witness Holzberger admitted that there was no danger to the health and safety of the patient even if the hand was allowed to remain unclean for a reasonable period of time, which it was not. The Respondent thus demonstrated that the hand care was performed daily and that this patient could not tolerate a hand roll under her fingers to retard perspiration and indentation of the nails into the palm because it was extremely painful to even slide a tongue depresser with a washcloth under her fingers. Consequently, hand care was adequately accomplished on a daily basis by inserting a four inch gauze pad beneath her fingers and against her palm soaked with betadine solution and keeping her nails trimmed as short as possible. Witness Joel Montgomery was the hospital consultant on the Department's inspection team. Witness Montgomery observed a leaking air conditioner unit, a broken water closet tank cover, a leaking faucet in a janitor's closet, an inoperative water fountain and a missing baseboard in two of the rooms, as well as the allegation that nurse call cords were missing or not attached to the beds in approximately 12 rooms. The witness conceded that this is a large nursing home and such deficiencies are not unusual for a nursing home of this size and type, and that the staff of this nursing home had made sincere and continuing efforts to make repairs. He has seen improvements in maintenance over conditions existing at previous inspections. The witness was unable to state how many nurse paging cords were severed or missing, but that most of the 12 were simply not attached to the patients' beds. His testimony was not clear as to the existence of a requirement for attaching the paging cords to the beds, but the general tenor of his testimony was that that was the accepted procedure required by the Petitioner in regulating and overseeing patient care in nursing homes. The witness could not recall which, if any, beds were occupied in the rooms where he noticed the call cords were not attached to the beds. The witness also acknowledged that some of the cords were reattached to the beds in his presence, but he did not recall how many. The Respondent has a policy of detaching the cords from the beds when the patients are not in bed in order to change the linen, move the beds or to better allow ingress or egress by the patient from the bed. This witness did not establish that that policy conflicts with any Department policy or rule or constitutes an adverse influence on health care. The Respondent adduced evidence which established that only two call cords were actually inoperative during the inspection and that those were repaired during the inspection. The Respondent's witness to this effect Ann Killeen, the Administrator of the facility, made the inspection tour in the company of witness Montgomery for the Petitioner and corroborated the fact that the cords were clipped to the wall when patients are out of the beds or beds were being changed in order to prevent cords from breaking when the beds are moved, and that she was unaware that this violated any minimum standard promulgated by the Petitioner. The broken toilet tank cover was corrected while the inspector was on the premises, the leaking faucet in the janitor's closet sink was a slight drip causing no standing water inasmuch as the leaking water went down the drain. The leaking air conditioner drip pan was the only one of 89 air conditioners with such a problem. The testimony of this witness, as well as Respondent's witness Robert Cole, the employee of the facility in charge of maintenance, establishes that the inoperative call cords as well as the loose baseboards, the inoperative water fountain and broken water closet tank cover were repaired on the day of the inspection while the inspector was still on the premises with the exception of the air conditioner which was repaired within one week after the inspection and the baseboards which were repaired the day after the inspection. The water fountain was the subject of regular maintenance and had been repaired a number of times and the plumber was summoned to repair it once again after its deficiency was noted by Mr. Montgomery. None of the deficiencies with regard to the nurse call cords, the condensation dripping from the air conditioner, the broken water closet tank cover, the leaking faucet, the inoperative water fountain and the loose baseboards were shown to have been a recurring problem or problem existing for any significant period of time. The Petitioner did not show when these conditions occurred or how long they had been allowed to exist, nor did it show any resultant effect on the health or safety of the patients. The Respondent called Earnest H. Brown as an adverse witness. Mr. Brown is the Supervisor of the Tampa area Office of Licensure and Certification for the Petitioner. This witness admitted that he recommended a fine with regard to witness Holzberger's observance of patient A. W., who was fecally incontinent, because he believed fecal material had been found dried upon that patient's bed sheet. He relied on witness Holzberger's professional judgment in reporting to him. Witness Holzberger's testimony at the hearing, however, does not establish that any dried fecal material was found on patient A. W.`s bed sheet. With regard to his decision to recommend a fine concerning the deficient nurse calling cords, the witness admitted that this was predicated on the other observances of deficient call cords at the Respondent's facility on past inspections. The witness could not recall how many call cords, if any, had been observed to be inoperative or otherwise used improperly on past inspections. It should be noted parenthetically that the Administrative Complaint contains no allegation of such past deficiencies as a predicate to the charge regarding call cords in the Administrative Complaint stemming from the inspection of August 22, 1980 and in support of the fine which the Petitioner seeks to impose for this condition.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this cause should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard A. Gilbert, Esquire de la Parte & Butler, P.A. 403 Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 Steven R. Reininger, Esquire Tew, Critchlow, Sonberg, Traum & Friedbauer 10th Floor Flagship Center 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Case background and the parties: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing, revoking, or denying certificates of need for health care facilities or services. In that regard the Department has promulgated a rule for computing the need for new or additional community nursing home beds. The methodology of the rule (now Rule 10-5.036, Florida Administrative Code) calculates a specific number of beds anticipated to be needed for a given planning horizon. Once calculated, the Department publishes the calculated need for the district/subdistrict. Additional beds are generally not authorized if their approval would cause the total number of beds approved to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed under the rule. The Department is not, however, obligated to approve beds so that the total number of beds calculated to be needed are approved, i.e. the Department may, as in this case, approve only a portion of those beds thought to be needed. In this case, the Department published a projected need for 165 additional beds in Orange County, Florida. That bed pool was calculated for the January, 1993 planning horizon and was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 13, 1990. The calculated need published in this case has not been challenged and, therefore, was not at issue in these proceedings. At the time need was computed, there were 2,797 licensed beds in Orange County with an additional 505 approved nursing beds. The occupancy rate for the county was just under 93 percent. Following the publication of the need figures, letters of intent and applications were filed by health care providers seeking to obtain approvals for the available nursing beds. Coordinated Care, Inc. filed an application (CON #6287) for approval to develop a new, freestanding 120 bed community nursing home. The project was estimated to require a capital expenditure of $6,000,000 and would provide 24 beds in a subacute care unit. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. filed an application (CON #6292) for approval to develop a 60 bed addition to its existing facility known as Palm Garden of Orlando (CON #2991). If approved, the total number of nursing beds for that facility would then be 120 beds. The project cost for the expansion was estimated at $1,648,638. It was proposed that financing and management for the facility would be provided by National HealthCorp., Ltd. Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc. filed an application (CON #6290) for approval of a 39 bed community nursing home facility to be built as a component of a retirement community to be known as Brighton Gardens Nursing Center. The project cost for the Marriott proposal was $2,613,919. The Department's preliminary action in this case was to grant the CONs requested by Marriott and Florida Convalescent and to deny the application filed by Coordinated Care. Health Quest Management Corporation VII (Health Quest) operates an existing 120 bed nursing home in Orange County, Florida. That nursing home is known as Regents Park. Health Quest also operates Regents Woods, an adult congregate living facility, in Orange County. Health Quest opposes the proposed approval of CON #6290 for Marriott. Coordinated Care opposes the proposed approval of CON #6292 for Florida Convalescent and affirmatively alleges it is entitled, as the superior co-batched applicant, to the approval of its application. The petitions filed by Coordinated Care and Health Quest challenging the Department's preliminary action were timely. As to Case no. 90-7563: At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the following review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, were not at issue or were inapplicable to this case: Subsections 381.705(1)(d),(e),(f),(g),(j),(k),(m), and (2)(b) and (c). As to all other relevant criteria, Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care were comparatively reviewed for CON approval by the Department and are so reviewed in this order. Florida Convalescent is a nursing home company currently operating twelve nursing homes in Florida, including Palm Garden of Orlando (Palm Garden). Palm Garden is a 60 bed facility that was constructed according to a 120 bed prototype. The facility was designed to have three sections: two 60 bed patient wings and a center, nonliving area for the operations of the facility. The kitchen, dining room area, therapy spaces, office spaces and open areas have already been constructed and are currently utilized for the existing 60 bed unit. The approval of the CON here would allow the completion of the final 60 bed wing. Palm Garden is managed by National Healthcorp, Ltd. (National), a nursing home company headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National provides financial, developmental, and management services to nursing home companies in nine states. National prepared the CON application in this case on behalf of Florida Convalescent. If approved, National will continue to manage the Palm Garden facility in Orlando. As part of the 60 bed extension, Palm Garden will have specialized programs for Alzheimer's patients, subacute care, and special respite care. The approval of the 60 extension will allow these programs to be expanded and Florida Convalescent has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON an obligation to provide such special care programs. Currently, the profile of Palm Garden patients can be summarized as follows: 70 percent Medicaid, 25 percent private pay, and 5 percent Medicare. Florida Convalescent has agreed to commit to providing 58 percent of its services to Medicaid patients, and has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON such a provision. National has agreed to finance 1.6 million dollars of expenses for the Florida Convalescent proposal. The total project cost associated with the proposal is $3,333,119. Coordinated Care is a management company whose principals, Fred A. Lane and Patricia Lane, his wife, operate four nursing home facilities in Volusia County, Florida. If approved, Mr. Lane will administer Coordinated Care's facility in Orange County. It is proposed that the Coordinated Care facility will have 120 beds with a 24 bed subacute unit. The subacute unit will provide care for AIDS patients, ventilator dependent patients, and IV therapy. Additionally, the Coordinated Care proposal offers a program for mentally impaired patients including those with Alzheimer's and will also offer a respite care program. Coordinated Care is willing to accept as conditions on its certificate of need the following commitments: to exceed minimums on direct care staff to patient ratios by 10 percent; to provide service to AIDS patients; to offer 48 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare; and to provide the subacute programs previously described. The Department's District 7, subdistrict Orange County, has a need for additional nursing home beds. The District 7 Local Health Plan cites recommendations regarding new nursing home beds for the District. Those recommendations speak to the needs of the District as a whole and are not ranked by priority of interest. In this case, both applicants, Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent, will provide nursing services to AIDS patients. The Coordinated Care application recognized the need for a staff education program to provide AIDS training and committed the applicant to provide care for AIDS patients. The Florida Convalescent application did not address AIDS patients specifically because no AIDS patient has sought admission at the existing facility. Florida Convalescent will conduct staff education for AIDS patients, however, and will not deny admission to AIDS patients. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent will provide, and will commit to provide, specific levels of Medicaid patients. In this context, Florida Convalescent's history (63 percent) and proposed commitment (58 percent) to Medicaid utilization is greater than that offered by Coordinated Care (48 percent). With regard to indigent or charity care, Florida Convalescent currently provides such care at Palm Garden of Orlando. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated a commitment to high quality nursing home care. Palm Garden of Orlando is a superior rated nursing home and has, additionally, established a high quality service rating among homes managed by National. Similarly, the Lane family homes have experienced superior ratings and are committed to quality care. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated good track records for employee recruitment, training, and benefits. Additionally, the salary and bonus offers make both providers an attractive employer. Palm Garden of Orlando currently has ties to nursing programs in the Orlando area and is close geographically to Valencia Community College and the University of Central Florida. It is anticipated that Coordinated Care will be able to establish such ties in the Orlando area since it has done so in Volusia County. Both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have demonstrated that their proposals in Orange County meet the State Health Plan preferences. By virtue of it being an existing provider, it is anticipated that Florida Convalescent will lower its administrative costs with the addition of 60 beds since there is recognized an economy of scale at that level. There is no demonstrated problem related to availability, accessibility, extent of utilization, or adequacy of nursing care services in this case. It is likely that resources, including health care manpower, will be available for project accomplishment and operation. Both applicants have demonstrated the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposals. It is anticipated that the addition of 60 beds to the Florida Convalescent facility will have the least impact on the costs of providing health services and will promote cost-effectiveness. It is anticipated that the Florida Convalescent's proposal will best provide services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. The Florida Convalescent expansion is the most efficient and more appropriate alternative for providing nursing home services. The Florida Convalescent expansion will minimize the numbers of patients who were not admitted because of lack of beds at the Palm Garden facility. The Florida Convalescent expansion is consistent with other agencies and is in compliance with the local plans for providing long term care. The application submitted by Florida Convalescent was complete and its consolidated financial statement was consistent with the Department's rules and policies. The consolidated financial statement submitted by Florida Convalescent was prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is sufficient for all purposes for which such statements are required by the Department. Florida Convalescent has demonstrated it has the financial resources to accomplish the project expansion and that the methods of construction, including equipment costs, are reasonable. On balance, when comparatively reviewed, the application submitted by Florida Convalescent is superior to the proposal submitted by Coordinated Care. As to Case No. 90-7565 Marriott filed an application for a certificate of need, designated by the Department CON # 6290, to construct a 39 bed nursing unit to be built in conjunction with an 133 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Orange County, Florida. The Marriott proposal in this case is based upon a design it has utilized before and is commonly known as a "Brighton Gardens" project. In accordance with Department statutes and rules, a certificate of need (CON) is necessary in order for Marriott to pursue the nursing component of its project. A CON is not required for the ACLF component. The Marriott project will be financed by its parent company. That Marriott entity has $400 million in cash or cash equivalents, generates $600 million annually in cash flow, and can easily afford the project addressed by this application. The Marriott proposal substantially meets the preferences and recommendations of the State and Local Health Plans. The Marriott proposal specifies 30 percent of its patient days will be available for Medicaid patients. Marriott is able to provide a high quality of care. The Marriott proposal will establish links with the nursing school community so that recruitments and staffing may be enhanced. Additionally, Marriott will offer continuing education for staff with reasonable salary and benefit opportunities. The costs of construction for the Marriott proposal are reasonable, allocated appropriately between the nursing facility and the ACLF, and meet or exceed all applicable code requirements. Both as to the manner of allocation and costs of allocation, Marriott has disclosed sufficient detail to adequately assess the nursing component of its proposed development. Marriott's proposed project both in the immediate and long-term is financially feasible. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's ability to recruit personnel. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's rate of occupancy. If Health Quest's occupancy should decrease following the approval of Marriott's request, such result is not attributable to the approval since Health Quest currently has a lower than district average for occupancy and since Health Quest currently charges more than the average amount charged by other nursing facilities. The number of beds requested by Marriott represents approximately 1 percent of the total number of beds currently approved in Orange County. Marriott's application substantially complies with all review criteria set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order approving the applications filed by Marriott and Florida Convalescent, denying the application of Coordinated Care, and dismissing the petition filed by Health Quest. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-7563 and 90-7565 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted; the remainder of the paragraph is not a statement of fact. Paragraphs 7 through 13 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "well" in the last sentence, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY MARRIOTT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With the clarification that at most 120 beds are in dispute, paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that Marriott's application is consistent with the state and local health plans; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, it is rejected as argument or response to a position argued by Health Quest. The weight of the credible evidence showed that Marriott appropriately disclosed its projects and that it will be able to finance the project which is at issue. Paragraphs 10 through 19 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence which is accepted; paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 21 through 23 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 24 is accepted, the remainder rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant or argument. With the deletion of the words "by far" which are rejected as argument, paragraph 26 is accepted. With the deletion of the words "serious" and "numerous" which are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. It is not found, however, that Health Quest will suffer adversely from the approval of Marriott's application, to the contrary it will not. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraphs 35 and 36 are rejected as argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY HEALTH QUEST: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 (a) is accepted. Paragraphs 4 (b), 4 (c), and 4 (d) are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, it is rejected as irrelevant or argument; in this case Marriott has allocated and identified appropriately to establish the support areas needed for the nursing component of its proposal. Those areas have been computed in the cost and fairly and reasonably been considered in the financial feasibility of the project. To the extent addressed in the findings of fact or as accepted elsewhere in this appendix, paragraphs 8 through 36 are accepted, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. It is specifically found that Marriott appropriately and accurately disclosed and allocated costs of the nursing facility and that those costs fairly depict the expenses reasonably expected to be incurred by this project. As to the suggestion by Health Quest that Marriott's proposal could not survive as a stand alone facility, such suggestion is rejected as irrelevant given the total circumstances and financial disclosures made in this case. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, hearsay, or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraphs 39 through 147 are rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, argument, contrary to the weight of credible evidence or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 148 is accepted. Paragraph 149 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 150 through 169 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 170 through 179 are accepted. Paragraph 180 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 181 through 185 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 186 is accepted. Paragraph 187 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 188 is accepted. Paragraphs 189 through 199 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or argument. It is found that the allocations of space and costs in this case accurately describe the project and would allow for the financial feasibility of the nursing component. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY COORDINATED CARE: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4 it is accepted that the mathematical calculations are correct but such are not depositive of this case. Paragraph 5 is accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Contrasted to the management style of FCC, which does not manage any of its facilities," which is rejected as argument or irrelevant, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented, irrelevant, or unsupported by the record. Paragraphs 26 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 34 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 44 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or, where accurate as to fact, considered to be not dispositive of the issues of this case. Paragraph 45 is accepted. Paragraph 46 is accepted (assuming numbers have been rounded off). Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraphs 50 through 64 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence presented or argument. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraphs 67 through 72 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 21 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 and 26 are rejected to the extent that they suggest the Palm Garden facility enjoys a higher quality of care than the Lane family facilities. Both applicants provide a high quality of care and must be ranked equally in this regard. It is expected that the expansion of Palm Garden will assure that facility's continued high care and only to that extent has Palm Garden been considered the better applicant in this batch. Paragraph 27 is accepted to the extent it details the history of Florida Convalescent, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it suggests both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have established good recruitment and training programs, etc. To the extent that Florida Convalescent is already established in the Orlando community it is advantaged; but, it is expected that Coordinated Care will be able to duplicate its efforts and successes (as in Volusia) in the Orange County venue. It is because it has an established program that Florida Convalescent gets the nod in this category. Paragraphs 31 through 38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted to the extent that it states both applicants have superior programs and quality of care; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraphs 40 through 42 it is found that both applicants meet the preferences addressed in the state health plan and that neither ranks higher in the categories listed in these paragraphs. Paragraphs 43 through 45 are accepted. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 47 (all subparts) through 52 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 53 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 54 through 74 are accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 91 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 through 109 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay Theodore E. Mack Cobb Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McArthur Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas 101 N. Monroe Street Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles M. Loeser 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Darrell White Gerald B. Sternstein McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Donna Stinson Thomas M. Beason Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Guy Hendricks, III, R.Ph., is subject to discipline pursuant to Subsection 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for violating Rule 64B16-28.120(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent, Guy R. Hendricks, III, R.Ph., is a Florida-licensed registered pharmacist, so licensed in 1972; he was licensed as a consultant pharmacist in 1974. Registered pharmacists typically dispense medications at a community pharmacy, for example, Eckerds and Walgreen's. Consulting pharmacists oversee a pharmaceutical distribution system in a long-term care nursing home facility with a Class I institutional permit. In addition to his employment at the Arbors in Orange Park (the Arbors), Respondent is engaged in the development of "cutting edge consultant computer programs" and "research and development in the field of software platforms which will lead to a fully integrated consultant software package." (Respondent's vita, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On August 1, 1996, Respondent became the consulting pharmacist for the Arbors. The AHCA survey, which is the genesis of the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint in this case, was conducted later that same month. The Arbors is a sub-acute care facility which has a Class I institutional pharmacy permit. Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules restrict the type of medicinal drugs and drug preparations allowed in Class I institutional pharmacies. One of the consulting pharmacist's responsibilities is to see that the applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules are followed within the Class I institutional pharmacies, subject to pharmacist's control. The Arbors utilized a Baxter SureMed Dispensing Machine (SureMed machine) which is a computerized dispensing machine that stores medications and allows the pharmacist to track when medications are taken from the machine, by whom they are taken, what dosage is dispensed, and to whom the medication is administered. It has a complete computerized tracking system. It is a "modern tool of pharmacy" used to provide a high level of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents. Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules require that nursing homes, such as the Arbors, provide "reasonable and consistent quality of life for residents" and that "reasonable efforts be made to accommodate the needs and preferences of residents to enhance the quality of life in a nursing home." Florida Administrative Code rules allow the Arbors to adopt policies and procedures regarding drugs to meet the needs of residents and to maintain an Emergency Medical Kit(s), the contents of which shall be determined by the facility's medical director, director of nursing, and pharmacist, and "it (the medical kit) shall be in accordance with facility policy and procedures"; the "emergency medical kit" may contain medicinal drugs and drug preparations which are not otherwise allowed within Class I institutional pharmacies. Respondent testified that the SureMed machine was being used as one of the Emergency Medical Kits of the Arbors. The drugs contained in the SureMed machine were determined by the Arbors staff before Respondent was employed as consulting pharmacist. During the August 27-28, 1996, AHCA Survey, the surveyor concluded that the SureMed machine was being used inappropriately by the Arbors. The survey revealed that the SureMed dispensing unit was used as an emergency medication kit. Review of the SureMed Policy and Procedure stated "Medications stored in SureMed are intended for emergency stat orders, late admission first dose, new orders and missing doses" (part of Petitioner's Exhibit 5) contrary to the approved use of medicinal drugs used in facilities with a Class I Institutional Pharmacy Permit. An inventory list provided by the facility revealed in excess of 300 medications in the SureMed unit and this unit had been accessed 22 times in the 24 hours prior to surveyor review. Further review of the usage log revealed that an unsampled resident received Norixin from the SureMed unit on 8/26/96 at 23:04, 8/27/96 at 22:21 and 8/28/96 at 22:21 instead of receiving a resident specific labeled medication from the provider pharmacy. Respondent suggests that a "typographical error" may have occurred in the facility's SureMed policy and procedure in that, if the word "not" is inserted after the words "emergency stat orders," the policy and procedure would conform to the limitations proscribed for Class I institutional permitees. While this explanation is plausible, it is not accepted as credible. This portion of the Arbors' SureMed policy and procedure, referenced by the AHCA surveyor, does not follow Florida law. If the foregoing policy and procedure language is the only language considered, the surveyor's conclusions may be justified; however, the surveyor failed to note the following language which immediately follows the quote from the same SureMed policy and procedure. "SureMed is not intended to be a routine source of medication. The pharmacy must be informed of all new admissions, new orders, refill orders, and missing doses." When a nursing home resident is first admitted to the Arbors, the admittee does not bring medications but brings new prescription orders which must be filled by the provider or back-up pharmacy. Home Care Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida, provides medications to the Arbors; it is 140 miles from Orlando to Orange Park. Deliveries are made two times a day. There were occasions in 1996 when patients were out of medication or Home Care Pharmacy was not delivering as ordered. While the Arbors has only a Class I institutional permit which limits drugs readily available to residents, the facility accepts residents who are "sub-acute" care patients, for example, patients with chronic disease, post-surgical patients, and patients with "super" infections, all of whom require continuity of pharmaceutical therapy. Frank May, a registered pharmacist and certified HCFA surveyor for AHCA, testified that while the Arbors' SureMed policy and procedure were "out of compliance," nevertheless, it was appropriate to "take a drug out of the machine or out of the emergency medication kit if it cannot be provided by the provider pharmacy or if that provider pharmacy is a long way off or by a back-up pharmacy in a timely manner for the next dosage of that medication." May also testified that "there is nothing wrong" with utilizing the SureMed machine as an emergency medical kit or maintaining drugs, otherwise not permitted in a Class I institution permit, in the machine. May further testified that without examining each instance wherein the SureMed machine was accessed immediately prior to the AHCA survey, it would be impossible to determine whether or not an "emergency" existed warranting the use of the particular drug obtained from the SureMed machine. May testified that in 1996, the use of automated drug dispensing machines was becoming very prominent in nursing homes; and problems, such as addressed in this case, were "fairly prevalent." Respondent maintains that the facility's use of the SureMed machine was on a bona fide emergency basis only. The Arbors' SureMed policy and procedure were changed immediately following the August 1996 survey. Respondent sent AHCA a July 20, 1997, letter in response to the AHCA licensure investigation in which he identified the SureMed machine as a "computerized emergency system," a "modern tool of pharmacy," and "our only solution" "to treat our residents' sub acute conditions" when "some local pharmacies . . . could not provide medications." The SureMed machine was removed from the Arbors in November 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 28th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Hendericks, III Post Office Box 4173 Sebring, Florida 33871 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 John Taylor, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
