Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION, D/B/A SPRING HILL HEALTH vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-002206 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-002206 Latest Update: Apr. 01, 1985

The Issue The issue presented for determination herein is whether or not F.A.C. Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility (Petitioner) is entitled to a Certificate of Need to establish a 60-bed nursing home to serve Hernando County.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The application of First American Corporation d/b/a Spring Hill Health Facility for establishment of a 60-bed nursing home facility in Hernando County, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1985.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 1

TARPON SPRINGS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., D/B/A HELEN ELLIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 94-000958RU (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Feb. 23, 1994 Number: 94-000958RU Latest Update: Apr. 23, 1996

The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.036 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and; Whether the Agency's application form and scoring system utilized in the review of nursing home batch certificate of need applications constitute rules of the Agency as the term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), employed in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1993) and; Whether the disputed form and scoring system constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

Florida Laws (13) 120.52, 120.54, 120.56, 120.57, 120.68, 395.003, 400.071, 408.034, 408.035, 408.036, 408.039, 408.15, 651.118 Florida Administrative Code (3) 59C-1.008, 59C-1.036, 59C-1.037

# 2

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs RIVERWOOD NURSING CENTER, 08-005156 (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Oct. 14, 2008 Number: 08-005156 Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2024

# 3

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs THE HEALTH CENTER OF MERRITT ISLAND, 07-003939 (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Merritt Island, Florida Aug. 28, 2007 Number: 07-003939 Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2024

# 4

BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER - RIO PINAR vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 97-002017 (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Apr. 30, 1997 Number: 97-002017 Latest Update: Jul. 06, 1998

The Issue Whether the Petitioner was properly issued a conditional license on March 24, 1997.

Findings Of Fact Survey Background Rio Pinar (Petitioner) is a 180-bed nursing home in Orlando, Florida, licensed by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to its licensing authority the Respondent conducts surveys of nursing homes to determine compliance with statutes and regulatory standards that are established by the state, as well as the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 13, 1997, the agency conducted an annual re- certification survey of Petitioner. The multi-disciplinary survey team was comprised, in part, of Sharon Hudson, Zola Whitmore, James Lang, and Lisa Privett. The team met with facility staff, then toured the facility to develop a sample of residents on which to conduct an in-depth review. Two of the issues on which the team focused were falls and restorative care by patients. The information was obtained by the team from patient examinations, records' review, and discussions with staff. At the conclusion of the survey inspection, Respondent issues a survey report which sets forth the factual findings made by the surveyors (which are organized as deficiencies by Tag numbers), the applicable federal and state regulations which the surveyors believe have been violated by the facility, and a federal scope and severity rating and state class rating for each tag numbered deficiency. Respondent issues a nursing facility a conditional license anytime it finds a state Class I or II deficiency or anytime it finds a Class III deficiency that is not corrected within the time frame mandated by AHCA. (Section 400.023, Florida Statutes.) In each of the nine annual surveys preceding February 1997, Petitioner received a Superior licensure rating. Falls The nursing home is required to ensure that each patient receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. An accident is an unexpected, unintended event that can cause bodily injury. It does not include adverse side effects or reactions to drugs. The most common accidents in nursing homes are falls by patients. The facility is expected to provide the supervision necessary to prevent those falls, and each patient must be assessed for being at risk. Tag F324 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR s. 483.25(h)(2), which provides that a facility "must ensure that a resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents." Respondent's surveyors testified that 11 residents: residents numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, 27, and 30 identified under Tag F324 of the survey report did not receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents because the facility did not timely assess these residents for interventions to prevent falls. They also testified that one of the residents, Resident number 4, did not receive appropriate restorative training that could have prevented a fall suffered by that resident. Finally, Respondent alleged that the number of surveyed residents at Rio Pinar who had fallen was exceptionally high and reflected inappropriate care. Petitioner comprehensively assesses each of its residents for their risk for falls and, where appropriate, provides a preventive care plan for those residents. An assessment is a thought process designed to lead a care-giver to determine the appropriate plan of care for a resident. Each resident is assessed for his or her risk for falls through a variety of assessment mechanisms. Resident 1 fell on November 24, 1996, after having been admitted to the facility on October 28, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 1 was assessed by Petitioner upon admission for her risk for falls using the MDS assessment and Physical Therapy Assessments. She was determined to be independently ambulatory but cognitively impaired so that there was no care plan to prevent falls that could have been written or implemented for her other than "common sense" nursing. While sitting in a chair in her room, Resident 8 fell asleep, slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill next to her chair. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 8 had been comprehensively assessed for her risk of falls by Petitioner, was determined to be totally dependent upon the facility for assistance in transfers and ambulation, and had a written care plan in place to prevent falls at the time she slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill. The resident was not considered to be at risk for falls while sitting in her chair, and there were no care plan interventions written to address that risk. The use of a helmet would be highly intrusive and is not a viable preventative measure in this case. Resident 14 fell on January 15, 1997. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Prior to her January 15, 1997, fall, Resident 14 had been at Petitioner for four years and had not fallen. However, she had been assessed for her risk for falls and was determined to be independent in her ambulatory skills so that she needed no care plan to prevent falls. There was no evidence submitted by Respondent regarding Resident 30. Resident 5 fell on December 7 and December 17, 1996. Resident 5 had been assessed by Petitioner using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Physical Therapy Assessments. Like many of the other cited residents, she was independently ambulatory and had dementia. She had a tendency to wander and thus a specific care plan was in place to address that problem. However, her other conditions did not merit a specific care plan to prevent falls. Resident 5's fall on December 7, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found. However, because the Resident fractured her femur and suffered a decline, the facility re-assessed her and properly deemed her to be at risk for future falls. A care plan to prevent falls was drawn up by the physical therapy department that included providing the Resident with assistance in all transfers and ambulation, putting the side rails up while the Resident was in bed, and providing the Resident with a wheelchair and a walker. Her fall of December 17, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found, nor was there any supervision or assistive device that was lacking. Resident 11 did not fall during this period. Petitioner assessed Resident 11 for her risk for falls and had a care plan in place to address her need for assistance in transfers and ambulation. In addition, she was put on an ambulation program, was given a wheelchair and had a "lap buddy" to use to prevent falls from the wheelchair. Resident 3 fell twice over the course of four months, once on August 5, 1996, and once on November 10, 1996. Resident 3 was assessed by Rio Pinar when she was admitted to the facility and four days prior to her initial fall. Those assessments determined that the Resident was independent in ambulation and transfers and had dementia. Accordingly, there was no written care plan to prevent falls prior to August 5, 1996. After her fall on August 5, the incident was investigated and no preventable cause for the fall was identified. However, the facility prepared a written care plan to prevent falls that essentially emphasized common sense preventative measures because the Resident's assessed conditions did not merit additional supervision or assistive devices. Likewise, the November fall was investigated and no preventable cause was found that merited a change in this Resident's care plan. Resident 2 wore a halo device and was found sitting on her floor on December 4, 1996. The Resident's fall was investigated by nursing but the investigation did not identify any preventable cause that merited a change in the care plan approaches. The Resident had been assessed for falls and a care plan had been in place to prevent falls since November 19, 1996. That plan included physical therapy, a wheelchair and walker, assistance in ambulation, and side rails while in bed. Because the halo device was heavy, the Resident was also instructed to be careful; however, she would frequently ignore those warnings. Resident 10 was found sitting on the floor on January 21, 1997, and slipped on February 1, 1997. No preventable causes were identified for either fall. The first fall was caused by the Resident being startled by another resident in the facility. The second fall occurred because the Resident slipped while wearing shoes with slippery soles. Neither of the falls could have been prevented by Petitioner with interventions that were not already addressed in the Resident's plan of care. The Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls and, even though she was independent in her ambulation, had a care plan in place in September of 1996 to prevent falls. The facility was particularly concerned that the Resident, who was capable of dressing herself, would put on shoes that had slippery soles. Accordingly, the care plan provided that the facility would encourage the Resident to wear shoes with non-slip soles. The facility could do nothing more than encourage the Resident to wear appropriate shoes since the Resident could dress herself and her choices had to be respected by the facility. Resident 27 fell on December 8, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was identifiable. Resident 27 was assessed upon admission to the facility in November 1996, and was determined to be at high risk for falls. A care plan to address falls was developed for this Resident that included assistance with ambulation, a daily ambulation program and side rails up while the Resident was in bed. Resident 4 fell twice on February 1, 1997. The February 1st fall was investigated by nursing and was determined to have been caused when the Resident attempted to get in bed by herself and missed the bed. The Resident was cognizant enough to know that she should call for assistance when needed so that it was determined that there was no additional supervision or assistive device that could have prevented the fall that was not already in place. This Resident had a care plan in place to prevent falls that was based on common sense preventative measures. The common sense approach was used because the Resident was independent in ambulation. Because of that independence, there was never any recommendation made by physical therapy or nursing that the Resident receive gait or balance programs, and none was given. Resident 23 fell on January 29, 1997. The Resident fell while going to the bathroom. No preventable cause of the fall was determined. This Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls, and her fall on January 29, 1997, was thoroughly investigated. The Resident had been initially assessed as being at risk for falls, but that risk was addressed through physical therapy and restorative ambulation. Respondent suggested that deficient care was given at Rio Pinar to prevent falls because there was an unusually high number of residents at Rio Pinar who experienced falls. Respondent surveyed 30 residents at Rio Pinar and 12 of them -- 40 percent of the sample -- had fallen. However, the sample pool of residents was compiled from the files of residents who had fallen. The sample used by the surveyors -- and the percentage of residents who fell -- was not randomly created but produced a high percentage of residents who had fallen. Petitioner experiences approximately 360 falls per year by its residents. Three hundred and sixty falls a year by its residents is within the average number predicted by one clinical study. Respondent proposed that a facility must provide one- on-one care, 24-hours a day to residents who are at risk for falling if that is the only way to ensure that a resident will not fall. This type of staffing would significantly exceed the staffing requirements set forth in the state regulations and is unreasonable. Petitioner was not cited as being in violation of any minimum staffing requirements. Such a high level of supervision would require a tremendous increase in staff which would, in turn, result in a tremendous cost to the facility and its residents. Petitioner would be required to double its current staff. Providing that level of care is neither feasible nor consistent with generally accepted standards of care. Restorative Care Tag F311 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR 483.25(a)(2), which provides that a facility must ensure that "a resident is given appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve" his or her activities of daily living ("ADLs"). Specifically, Respondent alleged that five residents did not receive restorative ambulation programs, two residents did not receive bowel and bladder programs, and one resident did not receive a restorative feeding program. A resident's ADLs include ambulating, feeding, toileting, grooming and bathing. When a resident's ability to do these activities has declined, the facility will frequently implement a restorative care program to address the decline, or will implement a maintenance program to maintain the resident's status if the resident's decline cannot be improved. At Petitioner Rio Pinar restorative or maintenance programs are developed by one of the therapy departments in the facility after an assessment of the resident's needs by the appropriate therapist. The programs are implemented by the nursing staff based upon instruction from the therapist who developed the program. Programs dealing with ambulation are developed by the Physical Therapist. Programs dealing with feeding are developed by the Occupational Therapist. The bowel and bladder program at Petitioner is developed and implemented by the nursing staff. Most bowel or bladder programs which are implemented for residents in a nursing home are for residents who have suffered irreversible declines in their bowel or bladder functions. In these cases, there is little prospect that they can be restored to independent status. The objectives for those residents are preventing incontinent episodes from occurring, keeping the resident dry and free of skin breakdown, and maintaining the resident's dignity. At Petitioner, the preferred toileting program for incontinent residents is a program that requires a staff member to check on a resident every two hours and toilet the resident if appropriate. An alternative program for residents is a "patterning program" which attempts to determine the resident's bathroom pattern and uses that pattern to schedule when a resident should be toileted. Either of these programs can meet the needs of an incontinent resident, and neither program is a demonstrably better program than the other. Although the program of choice at Petitioner is the two-hour program, Petitioner does attempt to ascertain toileting patterns for residents, and will follow those patterns instead of the two-hour system where the patterns can be ascertained. Respondent alleged that three Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs") at Petitioner had not completed a restorative training course offered at the facility and implied that they were inadequately prepared to give restorative care. The training course the CNAs missed was only an in-house refresher course of restorative care techniques which the CNAs had previously been taught during their certification training. The course was not required by any state or federal regulation. Furthermore, the CNAs received individualized instruction for restorative care from the Physical Therapy department for each resident for whom restorative care was ordered. Respondent alleged that Resident 1 had an unsteady gait and did not receive any restorative ambulation program for that problem. This was based upon an assessment done when the Resident was admitted to the facility which indicated that the Resident's gait was "wide based." That assessment was interpreted to mean that the Resident was unsteady when she walked. Resident 1 was assessed by the Physical Therapy Department upon her admission to the facility and it was that Department which determined that the Resident had a wide-based gait. A wide-gait is a steady gait. Resident 1 was further assessed to be independent and at her optimal level of ambulation. No restorative ambulation program was needed by or ordered for the Resident. It was alleged that Resident 7 did not receive required restorative ambulation, and that he had family members who were concerned about their ability to ambulate this Resident as a result of the absence of that program. Resident 7's ambulation program was daily ambulation with hand-held assistance from the nursing staff. It was not a restorative program but was designed to maintain the Resident's ambulatory abilities because he was ambulating at his highest capability. Resident 17 was admitted to Petitioner with orders for physical and occupational therapy. She began taking her occupational therapy; however, due to a bad experience she had with physical therapy while in the hospital, she refused to take physical therapy while in the hospital. She also refused to take physical therapy at Petitioner. She was given a psychiatric evaluation which recommended that the physical therapist go by and say "hello" to the Resident to try and help increase the Resident's confidence. Petitioner was required to honor the Resident's choice not to participate in physical therapy. It was alleged that there was no evidence to indicate that the physical therapist acted on the psychiatrist's recommendation. Going by and saying hello to a resident is not part of physical therapy or restorative care. Nonetheless, the physical therapist went by and visited with Resident 17 in an effort to build rapport with her. Because she was not giving physical therapy to this Resident, the physical therapist did not document these visits in her notes. Furthermore, the Resident's restorative needs were being met by the Occupational Therapy department at Petitioner. The Resident was in need of upper body strengthening, and the therapy provided by the Occupational Therapist was addressing that need. The Resident was not deprived of any ADL by her failure to participate in a physical therapy program. Resident 28 had declined, but maintained some ability to feed himself with assistance. He was discharged to a restorative self-feeding program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the program was ever implemented for this Resident. Resident 28 had only minimal ability to feed himself, and the Occupational Therapist who developed his restorative feeding program was not optimistic that the program could improve the resident because he had declining dementia. The prescribed program was started but had to be discontinued almost immediately. The Resident suffered a significant weight loss, and the nurses were instructed to discontinue the feeding program in that event. Thereafter, the program was not re-started because the Resident suffered a further decline due to his dementia and could not have any of his feeding abilities improved. In the brief time between the implementation of the program and its termination, the Resident's wife attempted to feed the Resident by herself. This act, motivated out of an understandable difficulty in watching her husband struggle to feed himself in the restorative program, was counter-productive to the goal of the program that the Resident learn to feed himself. The wife had been involved in the training instructions for the program and had been reminded frequently of the need for the Resident to feed himself, but she fed him anyway. The Occupational Therapist was not interviewed prior to citing this deficiency. There was no deficiency if the Occupational Therapist determined that the Restorative Program for this Resident should be discontinued. The Occupational Therapist made that determination for this Resident. Resident 27 was discharged from physical therapy to a restorative ambulation program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the ambulation program was administered in December. However, the program was given for 14 of the 17 days that the Resident was in the facility. Respondent claimed that Residents 19 and 30 suffered declines in bowel and bladder functions and were not further assessed to determine if they could be placed in a retraining program. The Residents were not observed to be wet or otherwise unattended regarding their toileting needs. Both Residents were assessed using the MDS, which contains a comprehensive assessment (including a RAP key) for incontinence. Neither Resident could be restored to continence or independent status. They were both placed on a two-hour toileting program.

Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter its Final Order granting Petitioner's request to change its conditional license rating for the period contemplated by the February 1997 survey. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 11300 DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308

CFR (2) 42 CFR 483.25(a)(2), 42 CFR 483.25(h)(2) Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 400.023, 400.23 Florida Administrative Code (1) 59A-4.128

# 5

WILLIAM CRANE GRAY INN, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 85-002758 (1985)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-002758 Latest Update: Mar. 14, 1986

The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.

Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.

Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 651.022

# 6

BROOKWOOD-JACKSON COUNTY CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC. (I) vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 88-001890 (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-001890 Latest Update: Sep. 07, 1988

The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.

Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 90.202

# 7

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs THE HEALTH CENTER OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., 06-002645 (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Daytona Beach, Florida Jul. 20, 2006 Number: 06-002645 Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2024

# 8

MAPLE LEAF OF LEE COUNTY HEALTH CARE, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-000693 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-000693 Latest Update: Nov. 22, 1988

The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November, 1987.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 651.118

# 9

AMEDEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-000713 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-000713 Latest Update: Feb. 25, 1988

Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of February, 1988.

# 10