Findings Of Fact By Stipulation it was agreed and it is found that Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing to contest Respondent's initial decision to deny its application was timely filed. On July 15, 1986, Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Need application to construct a 60 bed community nursing home in Collier County, Florida. In December, 1986, this application was denied by the Respondent because of its determination that there was insufficient numeric need according to the rule bed need methodology and because of the low utilization rate of existing facilities in Collier County. The initial intent to deny was appealed by Petitioner which filed a request for formal administrative hearing. Before the matter could be heard, however, Intervenor, Lakeside, filed a Petition for Intervention which was granted by the former Hearing Officer. After the case was set for hearing, Respondent, DHRS, and Petitioner, Surrey, entered into a stipulation and agreement in which DHRS agreed to reverse its position and support Surrey's application at the final hearing and, pursuant to that agreement, on May 14, 1987, DHRS filed a Notice of Change of Agency Position. Health Care Associates was formed in May, 1977, by Dr. John A. McCoy, PhD, in conjunction with an associate, Stanford L. Hoye, each of whom owns 50 percent of the business. This company which, upon approval, will develop and manage the Surrey project, has been involved in the development of several nursing homes in Florida, all but two of which have been managed by the corporation upon development. At the present time, in addition to the instant project, Petitioner is developing three other nursing home projects in Florida at Live Oak, Bradenton, and Crystal River. Dr. McCoy was instrumental in obtaining Certificates of Need for nine of the nursing homes developed by his company. Two of those have not yet been licensed and of the seven remaining facilities, five have been sold by the corporation to other unrelated organizations. In each case, Dr. McCoy personally realized a profit on the sale. Petitioner proposes to build a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County at a projected project cost of $1,600,000.00. Approximately $250,000.00 of that figure will be utilized for land acquisition and site costs; $150,000.00 for furniture, fixtures, and equipment; $100,000.00 for architectural fees; and $1,100,000.00 for construction costs, insurance, non- movable equipment, and other items. The initial state agency action report on the application, rendered in late November, 1986, recommended the project be denied on the basis there was insufficient bed need shown and because of the low utilization of currently licensed and operating facilities. Nonetheless, on May 6, 1987, the Department changed its position and entered into a stipulation and agreement with the Petitioner, in which it agreed that no CON approved nursing home beds exist in Collier County; the District Health Plan indicates a need for an additional 143 beds in that county in the applicable planning horizon; the bed to population ratio in Collier County for the 65 and older population is the lowest in the Health Care District; and the age 75 and over population is expected to increase by 24 percent within the next three years. On the basis of these factors and others outlined in the stipulation, the Department concluded, inter alia, that Petitioner proposed the lowest total project cost and the highest Medicare and Medicaid commitment, and determined that Petitioner's application should be approved. Petitioner has identified two potential sites for construction of the facility, both located in North Naples. Both sites carry an asking price substantially in excess of the land acquisition estimates outlined in the application, and neither is currently zoned for the operation of a nursing home. Zoning changes or variances are available, but the cost of securing them may be high and time consuming. Albeit each site would be utilized for construction of not only the proposed nursing home facility but also its related personal care unit, Petitioner estimates that 60 percent of the cost of land acquisition would be apportioned to the nursing home component and 40 percent to the personal care unit. That being the case, one of the parcels would fall within the proposed land acquisition figure cited. DHRS District VIII has been divided into subdistricts for the purposes of planning for community nursing home beds. Subdistrict 2 of District VIII consists of Collier County, Florida. The methodology used by DHRS to determine the need for community nursing home beds in Florida is found in Rule-10-5.011, F.A.C. and it provides, among other things, that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined based on a planning horizon three years in the future from date of application. In this case, the appropriate planning horizon is July, 1989, three years after Petitioner's application was filed. The population figures relied upon by DHRS for ages 65 through 74 and ages 75 and above for the period July, 1986 and July, 1989 as of the date of the filing of the application were: 131,642 and 79,661 as well as 148, 229 and 96,142, respectively. The need formula contained in the F.A.C. also requires that the application submitted for July batching cycles be based upon the number of licensed beds in the District as of the preceding June 1. On June 1, 1986, District VIII showed 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds of which there were 473 licensed community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 2. As of November 26, 1986, however, there were no approved community nursing home beds in Collier County, a portion of Subdistrict 2. Another factor to be considered in the methodology is the occupancy rate within the district. As of the application period, the occupancy rate in Collier County was 84.44 percent including the occupancy data for Moorings Park. Petitioner and DHRS urge that it is DHRS policy to utilize at the de novo hearing the latest population figures available at the time of the initial application. These figures, cited above, reflect a 55 bed need in Collier county for the period July, 1989. There is, in addition, a factor which Petitioner urges relating to the licensure report submitted by Americana Nursing Home, located in Collier County, which indicates that a number of that facility's semiprivate rooms were converted to private rooms, thereby reducing the number of beds available for use in District VIII during the relevant time period. When this factor is incorporated into the calculations, a higher occupancy rate is indicated which results in a bed need of 66 rather than 55. Intervenor contests any adjustment made on the basis of Americana's conversion of some of its rooms from semiprivate to private rooms and a resultant decrease in the bed inventory thereby. It points out, and properly so, that former semiprivate rooms can be reconstituted as such in a very short period of time if needed and though the beds may not be set up when the room is a single room, the facility is capable of providing those additional beds without further approval when necessary. The removal of those beds, therefore, from the inventory, as a result of a temporary conversion is not an appropriate methodology. It has not been followed by DHRS in the past nor is it provided for in the rule and it should not be done here. Turning to the question of the population estimates and projections appropriate to make the proper calculation of numeric need for the area at the proper time, Intervenor objects to Petitioner's and DHRS' use of the pertinent population projections existing at the time of application on the basis that at a de novo hearing, the proper and most appropriate approach to bed need analysis and calculation would require the use of the most current available statistics. Utilizing the most current population projections for the July, 1989 planning horizon results in a net numeric need for July, 1989 of 21 beds with an error possible to 22 beds. In addition, the occupancy rate would be reduced and in that regard, evidence indicates that occupancy rates in Collier County have been low since 1982. However, there has been a steady and continuous rise in that figure since that time and as of July, 1987, it was 91.1 percent. The date upon which licensed beds are to be counted is provided for specifically in the rule defining need methodology, but the date upon which approved beds are to be counted is not stated in the rule. Similarly, the times for which population data are to be considered is contained in the rule methodology, but the release date of official estimates and projections to be utilized is not specified. Likewise, though the time period for which occupancy rates of existing facilities are to be considered is specifically set out, the input to be utilized when calculating "average occupancy rate" within that time period is not specifically established. In any case, the average occupancy rate as stipulated in the rule methodology for the area has been, until recently, consistently lower than 90 percent which is the figure identified in the rule methodology. Based on all the above, then, it must be found that the more accurate and pragmatic calculation of need utilizing the most current projections and discounting the agency policy for which the agency has not established any firm rationale or justifiable basis, indicates no numeric need for additional beds in the District during the period set forth in the planning horizon. Even if use of the rule methodology does not result in a mathematical showing of bed need sufficient to justify award of a certificate of need, nonetheless such a certificate can be awarded if other conditions and other circumstances establish a need that requires satisfaction within the area and the planning horizon. There was some dispute regarding poverty rates within Collier County and evidence presented at the hearing tends to indicate that the poverty rate in Collier County for the 65 and older population group is generally the lowest in the state. Low poverty rates among the elderly generally coincide with low nursing home utilization since wealthier patients generally have available to them alternatives to inpatient nursing home care. Intervenor urges, and there is no evidence to contradict it, that there are currently available alternatives to nursing home care for wealthy patients not only in Collier County but within District VIII as a whole. The Health Services and Facilities consultant for DHRS who initially reviewed Petitioner's application felt approval was not appropriate at the time he did his analysis. However, since that time additional information has caused him to conclude the application should be granted. He has subsequently learned that two of the four nursing homes in Collier County, which account for more than 50 percent of the beds licensed, have "conditional" quality ratings and there are currently no beds approved for construction in the county even though the county is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. On the basis of this information, he now agrees with the agency's determination to approve a certificate of need for 60 beds for Petitioner. Based on what Mr. May knows of the three applicants, in his opinion Petitioner is the most appropriate applicant to receive the award. In the Stipulation entered into between Petitioner and the agency, the parties adopted the District VIII Health Council projection of 143 beds needed for Collier County for the 1986 planning horizon. The quarterly nursing home report for the period April through June, 1987, reflects the status of previously issued certificate of needs and includes all reported approved beds up to the date of issuance. This report shows that as of June 30, 1987, two applicants from prior batches received a total of 81 beds which, when subtracted from the 143 identified bed need, still leaves a 62 bed net need. Turning from the question of numeric need to other considerations regarding the applicant in issue, there can be little doubt that the estimates for the design of the proposed facility and construction are appropriate. The figures in Tables 18 and 19 of the application are also appropriate and reasonable. The costs for the project appear to be accurate and appropriate and the completion forecast timetable appears to be more than ample. Mr. Philips, the Vice President in charge of construction lending for the mortgage company which proposes to finance construction of the facility, is familiar with not only the applicant's corporate financial statement, but also those of the two principals, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye. In his opinion, both are capable of providing the initial financing and their operations statements show a history of successful business operation. The 11 percent proposed as an interest rate for the loan supporting the construction is reasonable if not liberal, and the 25 year duration of the loan is also reasonable as is the loan origination fee of two points. If the certificate of need is approved, the lender is ready, willing, and able to lend the applicant sufficient funds to complete construction. Intervenor's expert in nursing home budgeting and financial feasibility analysis, testifying in contravention of Petitioner's experts, believes that approval of Petitioner's operation would have a severe financial impact on the Intervenor's operation as a current provider resulting in a first year bottom line loss of approximately $235,000 and a second year bottom line loss of almost $300,000. It should be noted here, however, that these are not actual operating losses but a projected reduction in profit. These estimates are based on August, 1987 figures adjusted forward for inflation. In short, while the opening of Petitioner's facility may have a negative impact on existing facilities, it would not necessarily result in a deficit operation for any existing provider. This expert also has some difficulty with Petitioner's projections of financial feasibility in its own facility. For example, he questions the 15 percent census of Medicare patients based on the fact that currently Intervenor does not have any Medicare patients though it does accept them. He also considers the estimate of a 96 percent occupancy by the end of six months to be unreasonable, especially in Collier County. He believes Petitioner's proposed expenses are understated and there are inconsistencies between the staffing table and labor costs in that the nursing expense is understated and the hourly rates projected to be paid are much too low. He believes that the projected cash flow is overstated since there is no provision for a reduction of principal. There are, also, other possible negative aspects to approval of Petitioner's application. Intervenor's regional director, who is an expert in nursing home administration, believes that approval of Petitioner's application will have a direct adverse reaction on Intervenor's Lakeside operation in regard to services provided, staffing, and its own financial feasibility. With regard to staffing, there is currently a critical shortage of nurses in Collier County and this factor was confirmed by a representative of another facility in the area. Approval of Petitioner's facility might well worsen the problem. Other service personnel are also in short supply and approval of Petitioner's application will worsen this as well. If these personnel shortages materialize, it may result in a reduction of quality of care, but this is speculative and there is no direct evidence that this would happen. Lakeside's current license is rated as "standard" as opposed to "superior" and this is claimed to be directly related to the nursing shortage which resulted in the facility's inability to attract sufficient nursing personnel to merit a "superior" rating. The witness identified other apparent deficiencies in applicant's submission, but these are either of a minor nature or the subject of opinion or conjecture. In short, the only substantive objection sustainable is the prospective adverse effect on the cost of attracting qualified nursing personnel. Certain other projections by the applicant are considered to be unreasonable by Americana's Director of Operations, such as the 15 percent projection for Medicare patients. Currently Americana, which generally has between 13 and 23 beds open at any time, has 2 Medicare patients and this witness also feels that a 96 per cent fill up rate in 6 months is unreasonable. Based on his experience, Collier County had even a slower than normal fill up rate when compared to other areas of the state. Notwithstanding the negative testimony, there can be little question, and it is so found, that Petitioner would be able to provide quality care if its application were approved. Turning to the question of the relationship of this application to State and Local health plans, the bed need calculation has already been discussed above. That calculation is based on the state methodology. However, the state methodology may be substantially different than a need developed by reference to the local health plan. The local plan looks at need from the county/subdistrict basis whereas the state looks at the district as a whole for establishment of need and then distributes beds on the basis of current bed census. When the smaller counties with fewer existing beds grow faster than the larger counties with a greater number of existing beds, they tend to be caught in a squeeze in that they get fewer beds because they are smaller, while their actual need may be greater than that of the larger county which, by virtue of its size, gets the larger number of beds. This state need rule, which calls for a 90 percent occupancy rate is felt by some to be less valid and less accurate a basis for evaluating the need in reality. As to the question of alternatives, there appear to be none for the vast majority of people in the county. Hospices or internal acute care bed or ambulatory facilities are not truly alternatives to nursing homes. In summary, Petitioner's expert believes that the Department's projected need for 43 beds could justifiably result in an approval of an application for 60 beds because: There were no approved beds at review time, Population trends, growth, and utilization trends indicate a need for new beds, The bed to population ratio in the county is one of the lowest in the district and in the state, (16 or 17/1,000 vs 27/1,000 normal for 65 plus) and the situation has not changed, Although the 65 plus population is used to determine need, the greatest use of nursing home facilities comes from the 75 plus population which is expected to increase in Collier County by July, 1989 by 32 percent, double the statewide average, At the time of application review, no existing facility was rated "superior" (there are now), showing a need for options. The applicant has a record of "superior" ratings statewide, The district health plan shows a bed need exceeding 60 beds for Collier County, The granting of a 60 bed nursing home is not inconsistent with previous actions by the Department when a mathematical need less a bed showed than 60 number. The project also is consistent with the rule criteria as well as statutory criteria, and Given DHRS's methodology and considering the adjustments due to Americana's change, there can be shown a mathematical need greater than the 43 shown by DHRS. Whether the need is 43 or 66 is really not important. The need is there. There is much to be said for these conclusions and they are adopted as findings herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, approving Petitioner, Health Care Associates, Inc., d/b/a Surrey Place of Collier County' application for a certificate of Need to establish and operated a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0691 The following constitutes my specifics rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT JOINT SUBMISSION 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted as a statement of DHRS policy and the resultant figures determined thereunder but rejected as the appropriate source of information. 17 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's and Respondent's calculation but rejected as bearing in the Issue of bed need. Rejected as not reducing the number of available beds. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24 - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32 - 34. Accepted. 35 - 50. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 53 - 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55 - 56. Accepted. 57. Accepted. 58 - 59. Accepted. 60. Accepted. 61 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Accepted. FOR INTERVENOR 1 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. First sentence is rejected. Occupancy rates of other local facilities are not necessarily determinative of the expected occupancy rates of Petitioner in the absence of a showing of similarity of other factors. 16 - 19. Rejected as based on other than the best evidence. No original source was presented. 20. Accepted. 21 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28 - 29(b). Accepted. 30 - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein - except for that portion of paragraph 34 indicating the approval of Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with local health plan. Accepted but not determinative. Accepted but not determinative. First sentence rejected as argumentative. Remainder accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. 40-42. Accepted except for the last sentence of paragraph 40 which is rejected. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. Mr. May was unaware of possible charges during lag time. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than fact. 52 - 53. Irrelevant in light of 53. which is accepted. 54 - 55. Irrelevant in light of Intervenors' paragraph 55 which is accepted. 56 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60 - 64. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as biased. Accepted. Accepted as to the fact that a reduction in Lakeside's income might occur, but rejected as to its severity. Intervenor presents a "worst case" picture based on speculation and conjecture. Accepted that Petitioner's projected site is near that of Intervenor. Remainder rejected as conjecture. 70 - 71. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip F. Blank, Esquire Reynold Meyer, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Asst. General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
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 issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. 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, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. 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; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) 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 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. 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 in the district. 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), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or 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. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half 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 deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 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 in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 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 homes 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 department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 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 need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 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, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--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 calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. 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 cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former 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 calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 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 undeserved. 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 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 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner and was so licensed at all times here relevant. On 6-7 August 1979 Petitioner conducted a survey (inspection) of Respondent's facility and upon completion submitted HRS Form 553D (Exhibit 1). This report of inspection listed no Class I deficiency, one Class II deficiency and 19 class III deficiencies. The Class II deficiency noted was that medications are being administered not in accordance with physician's orders. On Exhibits 1 and 2, five examples of this Class II deficiency are listed where specific drugs or other medications were not recorded, not administered in accordance with physician's orders. Or in which the incorrect dosage was administered and/or recorded as having been given. At a follow-up inspection on or about September 27, 1979, the results of which are memorialized in HRS For 553E (Exhibit2), the Class II deficiency is noted as corrected. By letter dated December 17, 1979 Petitioner notified Respondent that despite Respondent's representations made at an informal conference on 6 December 1979 the "C" rating would stand and advised Respondent of his right to appeal by requesting an administrative hearing within 30 days. Such a request was duly made which let to the instant proceedings.
Recommendation DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1980. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District XI Legal Counsel, HRS 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Barry D. Schrieber, Esquire Suite 301, County National Bank Building 801 Northeast 167th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
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
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
