The Issue Whether, under Section 381.494-381.499, Florida Statutes, Humana, Inc., d/b/a Kendall Community Hospital, is entitled to a Certificate of Need to construct a 150-bed acute care hospital in the west Kendall area of south Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact HUMANA is an investor-owned, multi-institutional hospital system which owns and operates more than 90 hospitals, most of which are medical/surgical facilities. (DHRS Ex.1, p.10). HUMANA applied for a Certificate of Need from DHRS to construct a 150- bed acute care community hospital in the west Kendall area of south Dade County, Florida. The specific area to be served is bounded on Miller Drive to the north, southwest 177th Avenue to the west, Coral Reef Drive to the south, and Calloway Road to the east. The proposed 150-bed hospital includes 100 medical/surgical beds, 20 pediatric beds, 20 Level II obstetric beds, 10 intensive care/critical beds, and a Level II nursery in conjunction with the obstetric unit. (TR 277). The proposal includes a 24-hour, physician-staffed emergency room and a "dedicated" outpatient surgery department, with separate recovery room. Surgery suites are specifically designed and reserved only for outpatient surgery, thereby facilitating outpatient scheduling and efficient operations. (TR 279). The outpatient surgery unit is intended to reduce the costs of health care by providing a cost-effective alternative modality of health care delivery. (TR 278). Finally, the proposal contemplates a full-body CT Scanner, digital radiography and general state-of-the-art ancillary equipment. (TR 278). If built, it would be the westernmost hospital in south Dade County. It is a "community" hospital, designed to provide hospital care to the rapidly growing population of the west Kendall area, but not serve as a major referral center for patients living elsewhere. (DHRS Ex. 1, pp. 32-34; TR 250, 280). The local health planning agency, then the Health Systems Agency ("HSA") of South Florida, Inc., 1/ reviewed HUMANA's application for a Certificate of Need, along with four other similar applications, and recommended that all five be denied because of asserted inconsistency with the HSA's Health System Plan. ("HSP") 2/ (DHRS Ex. 1, TR 77). The applications were then submitted to DHRS, the single state agency empowered to issue or deny Certificates of Need. 381.493(3)(a) and 381.494(8), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1982). DHRS reviewed the HSA recommendation, conducted its own evaluation, and then denied all five applications, including HUMANA's. DHRS concluded: None of the five proposed projects are in compliance with the adopted Goals, Criteria, Standards and Policies of the Health Systems Agency of South Florida, as stated in the Health Systems Plan (HSP) and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). A need to add acute care hospital beds to Dade County does not exist at the present time. The proposed projects would add to excess capacity and underutilization of hospital beds that now exist in Dade County. There are only five hospitals in Dade County that are at the recommended occupancy level of 80 percent based on licensed beds (none of which are located in South Dade), and the number of beds per 1000 population. The primary alternative would be not to construct any of the proposed projects. While all of the proposed projects represent some degree of financial feasibility, none are felt to be cost effective because increased bed capacity would result in costs and revenue higher than those projected for existing "High Cost" hospitals in 1984 as determined by the Hospital Cost Containment Board. (DHRS Ex. 1, p. 404) Thereafter, HUMANA timely instituted Section 120.57(1) proceedings challenging DHRS's denial; HUMANA's standing to do so is uncontested. HUMANA's position, maintained throughout, is that its proposed 150-bed hospital satisfies every legal criterion for the issuance of the applied-for Certificate of Need. Intervenor Baptist Hospital Intervenor BAPTIST HOSPITAL will be substantially affected if HUMANA is granted a Certificate of Need. BAPTIST is a fully licensed and accredited 513- bed, general acute care hospital located within HUMANA's proposed service area, at 8900 North Kendall Drive, Miami, Florida. (STIP-para. 8). If the proposed hospital is built, it would significantly and adversely affect the patient census and revenues of BAPTIST HOSPITAL. (TR 16, VOL 4). In 1982, BAPTIST drew 36.7 percent of its patients from HUMANA's proposed service area. (TR 15, 16, VOL 4). Fifty percent of the residents of the proposed service area (who were admitted to hospitals in Dade County) were admitted to BAPTIST HOSPITAL. (TR-440). It is estimated that BAPTIST would lose 15,047 patient days to the new HUMANA hospital and would experience significant adverse economic impacts. (TR 88-89, VOL 5). The proposed hospital would also adversely impact BAPTIST's ability to hire and retain nursing and technical personnel. BAPTIST has experienced difficulty in hiring and retaining these personnel. (TR 18, 60-73, VOL 4). Historically, the opening of a new hospital has adversely affected the hiring and retention of such personnel in nearby hospitals. (TR 72-73, VOL 4). Here, approximately 84 percent of BAPTIST's nurses live near HUMANA's proposed cite, thus increasing the likelihood that BAPTIST will be adversely affected in this manner. (TR 135, VOL 5). BAPTIST opposes the issuance of a Certificate of Need for HUMANA's proposed hospital, and supports DHRS's initial denial. Intervenor American Hospital Similarly, intervenor AMERICAN HOSPITAL would be significantly affected if the proposed HUMANA hospital is built. AMERICAN is a fully licensed and accredited 513-bed, general acute care hospital located and operated within HUMANA's proposed service area, at 11750 Bird Road, Miami, Florida, (STIP-para 8). AMERICAN currently draws 41 percent of its patients from HUMANA's proposed service area. The proposed hospital will cause AMERICAN to lose an estimated 5,300 patient days. (TR 76, VOL 5). This translates into an approximate loss of $4.1 million in potential revenues, based upon HUMANA's achieving a 75 percent occupancy rate and 41,000 patient days. (TR 75-76, VOL 5). Such a revenue loss may result in higher costs, which in the health care system, are normally translated into higher patient charges. (TR 86, VOL 5) HUMANA's proposed hospital would also aggravate AMERICAN's continuing shortage in nursing personnel. (Currently AMERICAN has approximately 50 full- time registered nurse vacancies.) (TR 134, VOL 5). It is reasonable to expect that HUMANA will hire a significant number of its nurses away from nearby hospitals. Over a six-month period, HUMANA's four existing hospitals in south Florida hired 112 registered nurses, 32.1 percent of whom were hired away from other hospitals in the area. (TR 783). AMERICAN, likewise, opposes the issuance of a Certificate of Need to HUMANA, and supports DHRS's initial denial. II. STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATES OF NEED Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982), prescribes standards for evaluating applications for Certificates of Need. Those standards pertinent to HUMANA's application include: The need for the health care facilities and services . . . being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan, annual implementation plan, and state health plan adopted pursuant to Title XV of the Public Health Service Act, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services . . . in the applicant's health service area. 7. The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service area; the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professions in the service area for training purposes if such services are available in a limited number of facilities; the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services; and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service area. 11. The probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. In considering HUMANA's application, specific consideration must also be given to whether: . . .less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are . . . available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. . . . existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. . . . alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. . . . patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. 381.494(6)(d) Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1982). The controversy here is whether in 1988 (using a five-year planning horizon) there will be a need for HUMANA's proposed 150-bed hospital in the west Kendall area of south Dade County. DHRS, BAPTIST, and AMERICAN say that there will be no need: that existing hospitals serving the area have excess capacity and are underutilized--and that this condition will persist through 1988. HUMANA contends otherwise. As the applicant for a license, the burden of proving entitlement rests squarely upon HUMANA. 3/ The most accurate and reliable method for determining bed-need in this case, the historical demand-based method, requires the following: (1) identify planning area boundaries; (2) from historical population data, project population for the planning area using the five-year horizon for hospital services; (3) calculate a hospital use rate or the rate at which patients in the service area have used hospitals in terms of patient days per thousand; (4) project patient days by multiplying the use rate times the area population, and divide by 365 to yield a projected bed need; (5) compare projected bed-need with the licensed bed capacity of area hospitals and, using an appropriate occupancy standard, determine whether there will be an excess or shortage of hospital beds in the proposed planning area. (TR 55, VOL 5). Selecting a Health Planning Area The first step in determining whether a new hospital will be needed is selection of the appropriate health planning area. In 1982, the now-defunct HSA of South Florida adopted a Regionalization Plan for south Florida dividing HSA IX, a region, into five districts. (AM Ex. 4). Although not specifically mentioning hospitals, this plan implies that hospital bed-need determinations should be made on a district basis. The Kendall area, extending east and west, generally is denominated as "District D," and is, in turn, subdivided into three subdistricts. "D-1" encompasses Coral Gables and South Miami; "D-2" and "D-3" include Weschester, Kendall, Killian, and the west central Dade areas, the boundaries of which are U.S. 1 and the Palmetto Expressway on the east, Coral Reef Drive and Eureka Drive on the south, conservation area on the west, and the East-West Expressway, and Tamiami Trail on the north. (HU Ex. 4). HUMANA chose "D-2" and "D-3" as the appropriate health care planning area for determining need for its proposed hospital. District "D," however, is a more appropriate and reasonable area to use in determining need for the proposed HUMANA hospital. (TR 203, 258; 145-146, VOL 4; 56-57, VOL 5). The entire area of District "D" may be traversed, by car, in approximately 30 minutes, the roads are adequate, and there are numerous hospitals in the district which are easily accessible to its residents. (TR 57-58, 66, 77-78, VOL 5). Hospitals located in one part of District "D" are readily accessible to patients who reside in other areas of the District. HUMANA's bed-need analysis fails to adequately take into account hospitals within "D-1" or which are outside the District but are readily accessible (within 30-minutes driving time) to the majority of residents in "D- 2" and "D-3." (TR 145-146, VOL 4). Existing hospitals which are readily accessible to residents of a proposed service area cannot be reasonably excluded merely because they are located outside a theoretical boundary line. (TR 145- 146, VOL 4). A health planning area should be the area where most of the residents seek health care. (TR 615; 78-79, VOL. 5). Hence, a proposed health planning area should be tested against the actual hospital use of its residents and the accessibility of existing hospitals to those residents. The residents of District "D" travel freely within District "D" in seeking hospital care. South Florida Hospital Association Utilization and Patient Origin Program ("HUPOP") data show that approximately 60 percent of the patients residing in subdistricts "D-2" and "D-3" seek inpatient hospital care elsewhere. (TR 72, VOL 5; 616; AM Ex. 7 p. 19). 4/ There is a corresponding inflow of residents from outside "D- 2" and "D-3" who seek hospital care within "D-2" and "D-3". (TR 72, VOL 5). In comparison, approximately 70 percent of the residents of District "D" seek hospital care within the boundaries of the District and--of all the districts within the region-- District "D" has the highest percentage of residents who seek in-district hospital care. (TR 72-73, 79, VOL 5; AM Ex. 7, p. 19). In actual practice, then, the residents of District "D" heed the District boundaries but largely disregard subdistrict "D-2" and "D-3" boundaries. The residents of "D-2" and "D-3" have ready access to numerous hospitals providing a broad range of medical services. (TR 78, VOL 5). BAPTIST is a large general hospital with tertiary, secondary, and primary care services. With the exceptions of a burn center and a Level III neotology unit, virtually all health care services are provided. BAPTIST, AMERICAN, Coral Reef, South Miami, and Larkin hospitals provide health care services to residents of "D-2" and "D-3," within a 20-minute travel time. (BH Ex. 10, p. 1-13-19; BH Ex. 5 and 7). The few specialized services not available at these hospitals are provided at Jackson Memorial Hospital, within a 30-minute travel time. (BH Ex. 10, p. 1- 13). Accessibility of Existing Acute Care Hospitals Section 381.494(6)(c)(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982), requires examination of the accessibility of existing health care facilities providing similar services to the same health service. The generally accepted standard for determining accessibility, found appropriate here, is whether general hospital beds are available to the service area's population within 30-minutes travel time by automobile, under average traffic conditions and for non- emergency purposes. This standard is used by HSAs and DHRS is used by federal health care planners, and is widely used by professional health care planners. (DHRS Ex. 1; BH Ex. 10, p. 1-10-13; TR 90, 123, 144, 166, 193; 85, 133-134, VOL 4; 58, 77, VOL 5). Applying this standard, seven hospitals are reasonably accessible to residents of HUMANA's proposed service area: AMERICAN, BAPTIST, Coral Reef Hospital, South Miami Hospital, Larkin Hospital, Doctors' Hospital, and Jackson Memorial Hospital. District "D" contains eleven hospitals, with a total of 2,882 licensed beds. (AM 3, p. 41; 4, p. D-3). Moreover, five of these, AMERICAN, BAPTIST, Coral Reef, Larkin, and South Miami, are even closer, within 20-minutes average travel time. (BH 5, p. 11). There is no evidence that the residents of "D-2/D-3", or District "D," as a whole, have any difficulty using or gaining access to these hospitals. Beds are available. The five hospitals closest to HUMANA's proposed service area, AMERICAN, BAPTIST, Coral Reef, South Miami, and Larkin, have a total of 1,825 licensed beds, 326 of which are not in service; of the 1,499 beds in service, 109 are not used. So there are 435 licensed beds, within 20-minutes of "D-2/D-3," not in service or not in use due to lack of demand. (BH Ex.10, p. I- 26, 5, 7, 10, p. I-26-28). Occupancy Standard for Determining Need The generally accepted occupancy standard for hospitals, used in deciding if additional beds are needed, is the 80 percent average annual occupancy rate. This standard is included in the 1981 Florida State Health Plan, is used by DHRS and HSAs, and is widely used by professional health care planners. Its use is appropriate here. (AM 135, VOL 2; TR 90-91; 95-97, 118, 132, 140, 165, 172, 313, 469; 141, VOL 4). In application, it means that additional hospitals should not be built until existing hospitals providing acceptable care to the proposed service area are operating at or above an 80 percent occupancy rate--the level at which hospitals, generally, operate most efficiently. In 1982, none of the eleven hospitals in District "D" met the 80 percent occupancy standard. (DHRS Ex. 1, AM Ex. 3, p. 7). In 1981, the five hospitals closest to HUMANA's proposed site had an average annual occupancy rate of 60.9 percent. (BH Ex. 10, p. I-24). Moreover, this excess is sufficient to meet the future health care needs of residents of "D-2/D-3" and District "D," as a whole. BAPTIST and AMERICAN will not achieve 80 percent occupancy until after 1988; AMERICAN is projected to have an occupancy of only 63.61 percent in 1990. (AM Ex. 3, p. 8; BH Ex. 10, p. 10, I-24). Availability of Resources to Build and Support Proposed Hospital Section 381.494(6)(c)(7) also requires consideration of whether there will be available adequate resources to support a new hospital, including manpower and financial resources. The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that HUMANA has sufficient funds to construct and operate its proposed hospital. The projected cost of the hospital, including equipment, is $29,175,500--70 percent to be funded by debt, the remainder by equity funds. HUMANA has, on hand, approximately $225 million in cash and cash equivalents. (TR 709, HU Ex. 2). The design of the proposed hospital will be based on HUMANA's "prototype" 150-bed facility, developed from years of experience in hospital design construction, and operation. The design is efficient and economical, and will permit a 50-bed expansion without further construction. (TR 714-716, 720, 719, HU Ex. 9). The parties agree that HUMANA has the ability to enlist or employ sufficient physicians and management personnel to staff the proposed hospital. (STIP, para. 3). HUMANA also has the ability to hire and retain an adequate nursing and technical staff. It recruits such personnel, routinely, on a national basis and transfers employees within its hospital system. Moreover, it has a mobile nurse corps, a group of nurses which are available on an as-needed basis, to help staff its south Florida hospitals during peak winter months. Historically, HUMANA has successfully recruited and retained nurses in its south Florida hospitals. (TR 772, 776-777, 781-782, 801-802, VOL 4). Projected Population of Service Area As already mentioned, under the preferred demand-based bed-need methodology, population is projected over a five-year planning horizon, for hospital facilities. This is because an increase in a service area's population will generate a need for more beds. The population of the Kendall area of south Dade County has been growing rapidly, and is expected to continue to do so through 1990. This population is younger than the population of Dade County or HSA IX, as a whole. The population projections for District "D" (the appropriate health planning area for the proposed hospital) by age groups are: District D 1987 1990 Under 15 92,301 96,506 15 to 64 357,567 327,652 65 and over 52,188 55,822 TOTAL (AM 3; TR 59-61, VOL 5; 488 VOL 3) 502,056 529,980 I. Hospital Use Rate Under the demand-based methodology, found acceptable here, once the planning area is designated and the population projected over a five-year planning horizon, a hospital "use rate" is calculated. The "use rate" is the rate at which people use hospitals, expressed in terms of the number of patient days per thousand residents residing in the health service area. This rate can be derived using various factors. Those factors most appropriate for use in this case are "age" and "service-specific" uses. (TR 66 VOL 5; 497-498 VOL 3). "Age-specific" use rates, reflecting historic hospital use rates by age group, are applied to the projected population to determine total patient days. This factor takes into account the fact that people 65 or older utilize hospitals at a rate three to four times that of people under 65. This is particularly significant here since the Kendall area population is younger than the population of Dade County, HSA IX, or the state, as a whole. (TR 58-59, VOL 5; AM 3, p. 12). In 1981, the age-specific use rate for HSA IX reflects a use rate of 1,524.6 patient days per thousand population. (AM 3, p. 63). "Service-specific" use rates are derived from historical use of particular hospital services, such as psychiatry, obstetrics, pediatrics, and medical-surgical. (AM 3, pp. 14-15, 70-72). The 1981 service-specific use rate, covering all services, for HSA IX was 1,524.6 patient days per thousand--a figure equal to the age-specific use rate. (AM 3, p. 14-15, 71). J. Calculation of Future Bed Need for District "D" In 1982, there were 2,882 licensed non-federal beds in District "D." Taking into account an 80 percent occupancy rate, and applying the HSA age- specific use rate to the projected population of District "D" yields a need for only 2,282 beds per day in 1987, and 2,419 beds per day in 1990. Hence, there will be an excess of 600 beds in District "D" in 1987; 554 in 1988; and 463 in 1990. (AM 3, p. 41, 69; TR 63, VOL 5). Similarly, applying the HSA IX service- specific use rate to the projected District "D" population results in a bed excess of 232 beds in 1987 and 87 in 1990. (AM 3, p. 74). Significantly, these projected bed excesses are, if anything, understated. This is because the HSA IX hospital use rate was utilized. Hospital use is greater in HSA IX, with its older population, than in District "D," where the population is younger and less likely to be hospitalized. (TR 61-62, VOL 5). HUMANA, in its analysis, applied age and service-specific use rates to the projected population of "D-2/D-3," concluding that there would be a need for 238 additional beds in 1988. This conclusion, however, is unconvincing since "D-2/D-3" is unduly restrictive and the 235 unused beds of South Miami and Larkin Hospitals, both located in "D-1," are not fully considered. (DHRS 1, p. 370; AM 3, p. 18). (Both hospitals are within a 20-minute average travel time from selected points in "D-2/D-3.") (TR 544, VOL 3; 612, VOL 4). By failing to properly account for empty beds at nearby hospitals, and by unreasonably limiting its planning area, HUMANA overstates the need for additional hospital beds in District "D." Moreover, even assuming the propriety of "D-2/ D-3," HUMANA failed to properly take into account the 260 beds of Coral Reef Hospital, a "D-2" hospital. If Coral Reef Hospital beds are correctly included within "D-2/D-3," HUMANA's projected bed-need decreases from 238 to 129 beds in 1988. (TR 80, VOL 5). Finally, Thomas W. Schultz, HUMANA's health care planning expert, admitted that a figure of 1,038 patient days per thousand patients would be "useful" in establishing bed-need for "D-2/D-3." (TR 501, VOL 3). Applying that use rate, and correctly including Coral Reef Hospital, results in a projected "D-2/D-3" need of 36 additional beds in 1988. (TR 83-84, VOL 5). HUMANA does not propose to construct a 36-bed hospital and such a hospital has not been shown to be feasible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HUMANA's application for a Certificate of Need to construct a hospital in the west Kendall area of Dade County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May 1983.
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 18th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether CON 8241, Palm Beach Regional's application to convert its 200 bed acute care hospital to a 60 bed long-term care hospital should be granted or denied?
Findings Of Fact The Parties The applicant in this case is The Hospital Corporation of Lake Worth d/b/a Palm Beach Regional Hospital. A subsidiary of Columbia Hospital Corporation, ("Columbia,") Palm Beach Regional is a licensed general acute care hospital with 200 beds located in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Palm Beach Regional's license is issued pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, the chapter of the Florida Statutes entitled, "Hospital Licensing and Regulation." The agency is "designated as the single state agency to issue ... or deny certificates of need ... in accordance with the district plans, the statewide health plan, and present and future federal and state statutes." Section 408.034(1), F. S. Integrated is a licensed 120-bed skilled nursing facility, also known as a long-term care facility, located in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Its license is issued pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, the statute entitled "Nursing Homes and Related Health Care Facilities." Columbia Hospital Corporation The parent company of petitioner, Columbia has a stock market capitalization of between $15 and $20 billion and enjoys a profitability of over $1 billion per year. It owns approximately 340 hospitals, well over 100 ambulatory surgical centers, and an extensive number of home health agencies. As to be expected of a Fortune 500 company, Columbia generates substantial annual revenues. In 1994, for example, the annual revenues generated by Columbia exceeded $17 billion. Columbia also lays claim to being the largest hospital system in the state. It has five divisions with approximately 60 hospitals in its "Florida Group," the organizational title for its Florida operations. The net revenues of the Columbia Florida Group is approximately $4.5 billion. One of five divisions of Columbia's Florida Group, the South Florida Division is a $1.2 billion operation. The division encompasses Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and consists of 15 hospitals, six surgery centers, and one dozen home health agencies. The South Florida Division, of course, includes Palm Beach Regional. Background to the Application Palm Beach Regional was purchased by Columbia shortly after Columbia had purchased JFK Hospital, a 300-bed tertiary hospital approximately three miles from Palm Beach Regional. In August of 1995, as a business decision, Columbia consolidated the operations of the two facilities. The consolidation resulted in a patient census drop at Palm Beach Regional. Shortly thereafter, with the permission of the agency, Palm Beach Regional ceased operations at its emergency room. The result of the consolidation and limitation of the services offered was that it cost only about $100,000 a month to keep Palm Beach Regional running with its small census. Even with the small census, and the relatively low monthly operational expense, the operational expense was more than $1 million per year. In June of 1996, Palm Beach Regional and the agency entered a stipulation which authorized the hospital to suspend the acute care operations in contemplation of this proceeding. Palm Beach Regional's hospital-based skilled nursing unit has since been transferred. Palm Beach Regional is now closed and empty. The reason Palm Beach Regional had been kept operating at all after the consolidation with JFK was to preserve the opportunity to convert the license as proposed in the application. The Application Certified for accuracy on September 18, 1995, under the signature of its authorized representative, Robert L. Newman, CEO of Columbia/HCA, South Florida Division, the application was submitted to the agency bearing a date of September 20, 1995. The application describes what it seeks in the section titled "Project Summary" as follows: Hospital Corporation of Lake Worth (Palm Beach Regional) proposes in this Certificate of Need Application to convert 60 acute care hospital beds to 60 long-term acute care hospital beds and to delicense 128 existing acute care beds. (At a later date the existing 12 skilled nursing beds will be located to another Columbia/HCA hospital in District IX.) Palm Beach Regional Exhibit No. 1, AHCA Form 1455A, Oct 92, AHCA 4600-0005 Aug 93. The transfer of the 12 skilled nursing beds has already occurred and therefore is not at issue in this proceeding. Nor is the delicensure of the 128 beds really at the heart of the agency's denial and Integrated's opposition. In contrast, what is contested is the conversion of the 60 acute care hospital beds to 60 long- term acute care hospital beds. Such a conversion would make Palm Beach Regional a long-term acute care hospital. Long-term Acute Care Hospitals Referring to a hospital as both "long-term" and "acute," is confusing. The two terms have divergent meanings both in terms of average length of stay and the traits of the illness suffered by the acute and the long-term patient. In the context of hospitals, "long-term" refers to a patient with an average length of stay of greater than 25 days. By comparison, the acute patient's stay is typically much less than 25 days, with the average length of stay being between 5 and 6 days. As is the patient in need of acute care, the typical long-term hospital patient is very ill. The difference in the type of illness suffered by the acute care patient as opposed to the long-term patient, however, lies in other characteristics. Unlike the acute care patient, the long-term patient is not in the urgent, emergent or desperately critical state of patients in the acute care setting. The two terms, "long-term" and "acute" have been used together with reference to the type of hospital to which Palm Beach Regional proposes to convert because of the history of the long- term care hospital’s development. Originally in Florida, long-term hospitals were licensed as acute care hospitals and were referred to, therefore, as "long-term acute," hence the combination of terms with disparate meanings. In the context of a study conducted by the Hospital Cost Containment Board, however, the agency examined the issue of whether long-term hospitals should be subject to CON review as long-term hospitals apart from other acute hospitals. As a result, long-term hospitals came to be reviewed in their own separate category under certificate of need review, subject to the same licensure requirements as a specialty acute care hospital. Because they had been licensed earlier as acute care hospitals, the term "acute" was carried over into the new category. At present, there is a recommendation to refer to long-term acute care hospitals simply as "long-term hospitals" to clear up any confusion caused by the terminology. This recommendation will be followed for the most part in the remainder of this order when reference is made to acute and long-term facilities and acute and long-term care. Long-term Care Hospital-based long-term care is a distinction established in federal Medicare regulations that describes a hospital with patients having an average length of stay of greater than 25 days. The distinction allows an exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system so that reimbursement is received by the long-term hospital on the basis of cost. The distinction is of great import financially because of the distinction between "cost-based" Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement systems and another payment system used by Medicaid and Medicare: the prospective payment system. Before the prospective payment system was instituted, hospitals generally were well utilized, in fact, “filled to the brim.” The high utilization was due to the "cost-based" reimbursement system which contained a financial incentive for the hospital to keep patients in the hospital. Under the cost-based system, the more a hospital spent, the more reimbursement it would receive from Medicare and Medicaid. The prospective payment system was instituted to save taxpayers the high cost of the cost-based reimbursement system. Under the prospective payment system, the hospital receives a flat fee for Medicare and Medicaid patients depending on the diagnostic category, or diagnostic-related group, ("DRG,") into which falls the illness treated. The flat fee is figured on the basis of average length of stay for that diagnostic category. Under this system, unlike the cost-reimbursed system, the hospital receives the same reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid patients who stay for less than the average length of stay assigned to the patient's DRG as for those who stay longer. With regard to a patient who stays in the hospital longer than the average length of stay for the patient's DRG, the hospital, in many cases, not only profits less the longer the patient stays but begins to lose money at some point in the stay. If the average length of stay for an appendicitis patient is four days, for example, then the hospital profits more in the case of an appendicitis patient who stays only two days because it has incurred only two days of costs instead of the expected four days of costs. In the case of another appendicitis patient, who stays longer than the average length of stay, the hospital makes less money and reaches the point eventually in some cases where the hospital actually loses money for treating the patient if the patient stays long enough. Medicare provides additional payments for both "day-outliers" and "cost-outliers," but not enough to prevent financial pressure on hospitals to discharge acute patients as soon as possible. The prospective payment system has succeeded in forcing hospitals to operate more efficiently; the average utilization of hospitals has declined dramatically. Today, about half of the hospital beds in Florida on any given day go unused. The system does not have the same effect on long-term hospitals; they are exempt from the prospective payment system. Instead, long-term care hospitals are reimbursed under a cost-based system. A long-term hospital well located geographically is particularly attractive to a large hospital system, such as Columbia. Not only will it likely be a financial success in its own right but it will assist Columbia’s sister acute care hospitals in relieving them of patients too sick to be discharged to a subacute setting yet finished with the acute episode which required the acute care hospital’s service in the first place. Development of Long-term Care Hospitals in Florida The first long-term care hospital was instituted in Florida in the 1980's. Fairly soon thereafter there were three long-term care hospitals in Florida, but then there was a lull in the attempt to establish long-term care hospitals. With the advent of the prospective payment system, however, there eventually came the closing of a number of small hospitals in Florida because of their inability to continue to operate in sound financial condition. At the same time, four or five applications for the conversion of small hospitals to long- term care hospitals were filed with the agency. In the early part of the present decade the agency conducted a study of long-term hospital care. The study took place within a larger study by the Hospital Cost Containment Board. Ultimately, it was recommended that long-term care hospitals be regulated separately from acute care hospitals and that they be subject to separate certificate of need review. The recommendation was made for a number of reasons. First, long-term hospitals were viewed by the agency as very different from acute care hospitals because of the patients' average lengths of stay. Second, long-term care hospitals were found to be expensive for the type of care given in them which was of great concern to the state since cost control is an objective of the certificate of need program. Third, long-term hospitals were found to experience high mortality rates. As the result of the study and recommendation, the agency made the creation or conversion of hospitals into long-term hospitals subject to certificate of need review. Admission Criteria In the study, the agency also found that there are no clear admission criteria for long-term hospitals. To date, neither the Health Care Finance Administration (“HCFA”), nor the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO,") or any of its sub-organizations have developed any criteria to define a long-term care hospital. It is not clear, therefore, exactly what type of patients are suitable for care in a long-term hospital. Sub-acute Care The parties are in agreement that sub-acute care is a level of care that is below acute care. Palm Beach Regional claims, however, that the care provided by long-term care hospitals is not subacute but rather falls into a category of care between acute and sub-acute. An understanding of this claim requires some discussion. Unlike other classes of hospitals which are exempt from the prospective payment system, like cancer, children's or psychiatric hospitals, patients in long-term care hospitals do not have a specific type of illness nor are they limited to serving a specific age group. Generally, however, they are patients who have had an acute episode, whose program of care has been identified and who need a longer term of care to recover or to be rehabilitated because of an acute illness or surgical procedure. And, although they are not limited to a specific age group, the experience of long-term care hospitals is that a major part of their patient population is elderly, virtually all of whom are covered by Medicare. In these respects, long-term care hospital patients are not much different from patients in other "subacute" settings: comprehensive rehabilitation hospitals, acute care hospital skilled nursing units, skilled nursing facilities in free-standing nursing homes, and, even, in some cases, home health care, assisted living and outpatient services for the elderly. If there is a difference between the long-term hospital patient and patients in other subacute settings, it is that the long-term hospital patient has more at-risk types of physical problems, is more likely to be medically unstable or is, in fact, medically unstable. But this difference is not strictly observed because of the financial pressure on hospitals to discharge patients from the acute setting into a subacute setting. Medically unstable patients, therefore, are found in subacute settings such as skilled nursing facilities whether hospital-based or in free- standing nursing homes. In contrast to what has become commonplace practice, Dr. Kathleen Griffin, an expert in health care planning with a specialty in long-term acute care and subacute care, testified that it would not be appropriate for a medically unstable patient to be transferred to a skilled nursing bed. In her opinion it would be best for a medically unstable patient about to be discharged from acute care to be admitted instead to a long-term care hospital. Despite the reality that there are no admission criteria for long-term care hospitals, Dr. Griffin maintains that if a hospital discharge planner believes through information gathered from the medical and nursing staffs that the patient "is highly acute and at risk, and there is a long-term care acute hospital available, then that would be the placement of choice." (Tr. 523.) If a long-term care hospital is not available, however, the alternative is to keep the at-risk, medically unstable patient in the acute care hospital rather than discharge the patient into a nursing facility. Dr. Griffin's opinion is shared by the physician practicing in long-term hospitals. Representative of such a physician is Dr. Wendell Williams, presently the Medical Director of a long-term care hospital, Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville. Dr. Williams sees a distinction between long-term acute care and subacute care. Long-term hospital care is acute care without the need for "highly technical diagnostic capabilities," and "high surgical capabilities," but still care in the "medically complex case that requires frequent physician direction [and] high skill level of caregivers." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 16, pg. 13.) In Dr. Williams view, long-term hospital care occupies a level of care between acute and subacute care. The views of Dr. Griffin and Dr. Williams find support in analyses of nursing hours per patient. In a typical nursing home, the number of hours per patient is about 4.5 hours per day, while in a long-term care hospital, the number is around 6.5 hours per patient day. At Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville, the nursing hours per patient day for non-ventilator patients is 6.75 hours, and for ventilator patients is 10 hours. In contrast, Integrated, a nursing home, provided nursing hours per patient day in its "med-surg unit" at 4.34 hours in March of 1996, 4.60 hours in April and 4.52 hours in May although at times Integrated's nursing hours per patient day have reached as high as 6 hours. The opinions of Dr. Griffin and Dr. Williams have not yet been generally accepted. Following the agency's study in the earlier part of the 1990's, the federal government, under the auspices of HCFA, launched a major study that addresses what AHCA viewed as the "whole gamut of what is marketed as subacute care," (Tr. 272). The study included long-term care hospitals, as well as those settings which the parties all agree are clearly in the category of "subacute": hospital-based skilled nursing facilities, free-standing nursing homes, comprehensive rehab hospitals and home health care. The report was issued in November of 1995. It confirmed that there was a great deal of overlap among the settings studied including between the long-term care hospital and other settings unquestionably subacute. Moreover, it confirmed that many of the services are "primarily driven by reimbursement," (Tr. 275), and not by which provides the best or most cost-effective health care for the very ill, elderly patient no longer in need of acute care. In other words, the financial pressure on hospitals to discharge patients from the acute care setting was what accounted for the tremendous growth of subacute services and the move toward more long-term care hospitals rather than what is actually best for the patient or the health care system. The study concluded that there is insufficient data to determine the cost effectiveness of subacute care as defined in the study. As for overlap in the various settings, the extent of overlap was not precisely determined. But just as long-term care hospitals provide ventilator treatment, skilled nursing units specialize in ventilator patients. Nursing home subacute units specialize in wound care, infectious disease programs and IV antibiotic therapy programs, as well, just as would Palm Beach Regional if approved. The HCFA study also confirmed that the cost of care and mortality rates at long-term care hospitals are high, $2,000 per day and 40 percent, respectively. The average cost per discharge at a long-term care facility was between $150,000 and $250,000. Despite the long-term hospital's recognition by the federal government, the presence in Florida for more than eight years, and separate CON regulation for the last several years, it remain unsettled which patients should be treated and cared for in long-term hospitals. While for some, such as Dr. Griffin and Dr. Williams, the question is one which discharge planners, after consultation with nursing and medical staff, ably make, it is not generally accepted that it is clear which patients should be cared for in long-term care hospitals. It is not generally accepted as evidenced by the wont of admission criteria for long-term hospitals. Furthermore, it is not clear whether long-term hospitals represent the best means or the most cost-effective way of treating patients ready for discharge from an acute care setting. Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville: the Model The Palm Beach Regional proposal to convert to a long- term care hospital is modeled after another Columbia long-term care hospital, Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville, the hospital of which Dr. Williams is the medical director. Opened in 1992, Specialty offers four major program areas: ventilator and other respiratory complications, infectious diseases, wound management and complex medical and rehabilitative services. The typical ventilator patient is quite ill; often with other attendant system breakdown such as cardiac or renal failure. The goal is to free the patient from ventilator dependence. If the patient is judged to be a lifetime custodial ventilator patient, the patient would not be appropriate for Specialty. A variety of infections are treated in the infectious disease program. Often the primary antibiotic treatment has failed and there may be other conditions attendant. The typical wound care patient admitted to Specialty has severe wounds that may derive from circulatory problems. Often admission is from a hospital or nursing home. The patient may be diabetic, paraplegic or quadriplegic. The patient may have experienced a surgical intervention which has not healed. Or the patient may have a distressed digestive system which inhibits the body's ability to absorb the proper nutrients to support the healing process. The typical complex medical and rehab patient includes the spinal cord injured patient and the multiple system failure patient. The patients at Specialty are under the management of an attending physician but typically four or five different specialties are involved in each patient's care. Specialty Hospital has experienced approximately five percent Medicaid and one percent charity care. A representative patient at Specialty Hospital has an average length of stay of 23 days. The representative patient in the infectious diseases program would experience an average length of 18, 20 days in the pulmonary program, 29 days in the ventilator program, 36 days in the wound program, 18 days in the physical medicine and rehabilitation program and 26 days in the medicine program. These lengths of stay resemble acute or Medicare certified skilled nursing bed lengths of stay more than the historical 90 day lengths of stay experienced in Florida at long- term care hospitals. A representative patient at Specialty Hospital will experience an average daily charge of $1,122 and an average charge per case of $25,810, the highest averages incurred by the ventilator program at $1,848 per day and $52,781 per case. From a medical standpoint, all of the patients treated at Specialty Hospital could be treated in an acute care hospital. There is one difference between Specialty's patient profile and the one expected at Palm Beach Regional. The approach proposed by the applicant will include patients with greater levels of instability. Whereas Specialty has taken the approach that patients at the intensive care level should be in a general acute care hospital, Palm Beach Regional expects to treat patients in need of services from an intensive care unit. Palm Beach Regional, therefore, has planned for an intensive care unit at the facility should its CON application be approved. Integrated's Existing Programs Sixty of Integrated 120 beds are dedicated to meet the needs of patients requiring subacute care. Although they may differ slightly in intensity of application because of slightly lower acuity levels of the patients, the programs offered in this sixty-bed skilled nursing unit encompass the four programs proposed for Palm Beach Regional's long-term care hospital: ventilator and respiratory complications; infectious disease; wound management; and complex medical and rehabilitation service program. Integrated uses its own method to measure the acuity of its patients. Within this method, two of the levels require active treatment of co-morbidities, multiple diseases which complicate the primary diagnoses. By whatever means acuity is measured, it is reasonable to expect that the average level of acuity would be somewhat higher among patients treated at a Palm Beach Regional long-term care facility. (Although without criteria to measure acuity for admission or to know for sure what patients are actually being treated at long-term hospitals, this is not certain.) Nonetheless, considering both diagnosis and treatment, Integrated's patients at Integrated's two highest levels of acuity, even if not at quite as high an acuity level on average, would be similar to the patients Palm Beach Regional might serve if its application were granted. Patients at a Palm Beach Regional's long-term care facility who would exceed the highest level of acuity of those patients at Integrated are patients appropriate for treatment in an acute care hospital. Ventilator Care at Integrated Ventilator patients are treated in skilled nursing facilities both in hospitals and in free-standing nursing homes like Integrated. Some skilled nursing units even specialize in ventilator care. There is clearly overlap between ventilator services in skilled nursing facilities and long-term care hospitals. The precise extent of the overlap is not clear. While the overlap may not be 100%, it is certainly significant. Twenty of Integrated's 60 subacute beds are capable of assisting ventilator patients. Within this 20 bed unit, Integrated provides oxygen, air, and wall suctioning just like in a hospital setting. Additionally, Integrated can provide respiratory services outside of its specific unit by using portable suction machines and oxygen concentrators. The ventilator patients treated at Integrated are similar to the ventilator patient treated in intensive care units in hospitals. Some of Integrated ventilator patients are in need of acute care. All are hemodynamically stable but some are medically unstable. Nonetheless, there are patients who would be too unstable to allow them to be suitable for admission into Integrated's respiratory unit. Patients who would need to remain in acute care in the hospital would be patients who, for example, were bleeding or having trouble with a post-surgical trach placement. The medical director at Integrated is a pulmonologist. Integrated has a 24-hour respiratory staff. The ventilator program at Integrated meets the description in the application of the proposed ventilator program at Palm Beach Regional. Comparison of the respiratory services offered at Integrated to the services proposed to be offered in Palm Beach Regional's ventilator program reveals significant overlap between the two. Integrated primarily uses a Bear 3 Ventilator. Other equipment used by Integrated includes pulse oximeters and pneumatic blood pressure cuffs to provide hemodynamic monitoring. The respiratory unit is able to obtain an assessment of the patient's arterial blood gases within two hours through an arrangement with a courier service and nearby JFK Hospital. On average the blood work results are received within an hour of the blood being drawn from the patient. An interdisciplinary team of therapists, including respiratory therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists, work together on the plan of care and recovery of the ventilator patient including weaning the patient from the ventilator. Of those ventilator patients determined to be weanable, 75% are actually weaned from the machines. Ninety-two percent of the tracheotomy patients achieve decannulation. The average length of stay in the respiratory unit for Integrated's ventilator patients is 37 days, an average length of stay that meets that which defines the long-term care hospital patient, that is, in excess of 25 days. Infectious Disease Treatment at Integrated Just as long-term care hospitals, nursing homes offer infectious disease programs employing IV anti-biotic therapies. Integrated provides its patients with multiple antibiotic therapies. Among the IV anti-biotic therapies used at Integrated are cepo, fortaz and vancomycin. Integrated treats patients with pulmonary edema, pleural affusion, pulmonary embolus and pulmonary infarcts and patients with bi-lobar and multi-lobar pneumonia. Patients are treated with intravenous cortico steroids, intravenous bronchodilators, intraveous diuretics and intramuscular antimedics. Wound Care at Integrated Nursing homes offer wound management programs. There is significant overlap between patients treated for wounds at nursing homes and at long-term care hospitals. Limitations in care of the wound patient are similar as well. Just as a patient in need of surgical intervention for wound care, for example, would be discharged to an acute care hospital from a nursing home so would that patient be discharged to an acute care hospital from Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville, the model hospital for Palm Beach Regional's long-term care facility. Integrated offers wound and skin management treatment of the type described by Palm Beach Regional's proposal. Many of Integrated's patients recieve wound care upon admission. For instance, respiratory patients who have tracheotomies receive care for their wounds throughout the day. Integrated treats all levels of decubitous ulcers, including the most severe, Stage III and IV ulcers, as required by law in order to qualify for Medicare Certification. Complex Medical and Rehabilitative Care Integrated offers radiology and other imaging services on campus: mobile chest x-rays, normal x-rays, and video flouroscopy as well as an in-house staff of rehabilitation professionals: physical and registered occupational therapists and registered speech therapists. The rehabilitation programs proposed by Palm Beach Regional and those programs of other long-term care hospitals overlap significantly with those programs already offered at Integrated. The difference between the complex medical and rehabilitative care offered at Integrated and that proposed for Palm Beach Regional lies in the expected acuity of the patients. One would reasonably expect the patients to be slightly higher in acuity at Palm Beach Regional if approved than as are presently at Integrated. Nonetheless, the patients at Integrated are similar to those Palm Beach Regional would care for, in that Integrated treats patients with co-morbidities, including combinations of congestive heart failure, post-open heart surgery, arteriosclerotic heart disease and renal failure. Integrated's Services in General On an average month, Integrated offered 7.28 hours per day of nursing and respiratory, physical and occupational therapy care per day to the patients within its subacute unit. Forty percent of Integrated's subacute nursing hours are provided by registered nurses, 20% by licensed practical nurses, and the remaining 40% by certified nurse aides. A sample of Integrated's admissions noted numerous patients admitted with cardiopulmonary vent and ventilator needs. Integrated also maintains a large number of orthopedic patients in need of complex rehabilitation. Integrated treats patients with congestive heart failures, patients recovering from recent open- heart surgery, patients requiring specialized wound care, patients with post-operative cranial head injuries, and patients requiring tube feedings, IVS, ventilator and tracheostomy care. Integrated offers the equipment that is listed in the application as equipment to be purchased by Palm Beach Regional if approved. Integrated accepts patients who are medically unstable. These include patients admitted to Integrated's cardiopulmonary unit, patients with recent tracheostomies, patients on ventilators, patients with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis who have co- morbidities. Palm Beach Regional's application lists diagnoses of patients to be treated through long-term care which it claims are not appropriate for skilled nursing facilities. The application alludes to various types of comprehensive therapies, care and resources available for these patients. Yet, despite the application's claim that care of these patients is not appropriate for the skilled nursing facility, present at Integrated for the benefit of patients with the same diagnoses are very nearly all, if not all, of these therapies, care and resources. These include: IV antibiotic therapy, IV drips, plasma pheresis, management of severe decubitus ulcers, tracheotomy care with hourly suction, treatment with chest tubes and PCA pumps, cardiac monitoring, dialysis and an on-site pharmacy. Moreover, Integrated's roster of consulting physicians credentialed at the facility included the range of specialists listed in Palm Beach Regional's application. Integrated's roster of physician ranges from family practitioners to practitioners specializing in internal medicine, dermatology, neurology, and infectious disease control, to orthopedic specialists, physiatrists and psychiatrists, nearly the "full gamut" of specialties in medicine. Adverse Impact There will be adverse impact on Integrated if Palm Beach Regional's proposal is approved. The impact occurs as the result of a combination of significant overlap of services offered by Integrated and proposed for Palm Beach Regional and the likely loss of admissions to Integrated's subacute unit generated by patients discharged from JFK Hospital. JFK Hospital and Palm Beach Regional are each approximately 2 miles from Integrated. Approximately 85% of Integrated's subacute admissions come from JFK. A good estimate of how many patients JFK refers to Integrated's subacute unit on an annual basis is 460. It is reasonable to assume that many of these patients would be referred to Palm Beach Regional by its sister Columbia Hospital, JFK, if the application were approved. If only two-thirds of these patients were lost to Palm Beach Regional, using a conservative figure for contribution margin of $100 per patient day, the loss to Integrated would be about $1 million in contribution margin per year. Furthermore, if the application is approved, Integrated will also have to either raise salaries to keep qualified staff for ancillary staff or risk losing them because Palm Beach Regional proposes to offer ancillary staff salaries higher than those paid by Integrated. Certificate of Need Criteria The criteria to be used in evaluating the application are found in statutes, and in rules of the agency which implement these statutes. Section 408.035(1)Health Plans Neither the District 9 Treasure Coast Health Plan nor the State Health Plan contain any mention of long-term acute care beds. Both plans were written before there were any CON requirements for this type of bed. (b) Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency,Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services There is no agency rule regarding need determination for long-term acute care beds. Neither is long-term hospital care defined by agency rule as a referral service, one dependent upon other hospitals to refer patients. The service area for a referral hospital is larger than just one district. Patients are referred from districts 9 and 11 to the long-term care hospitals in District 10. This is certainly not surprising for patients in district 9 since there is no long- term hospital in the district and referrals are the common way for long-term hospitals to gain patients. Patients are referred from Districts 3, 5, 6 and 8 to the long-term care facility in Tampa. With the exception of the long-term care hospital in District 11 where the largest proportion of patients came from within the District 11, all of the long-term hospitals in the state, "had referrals from all over the place." (Tr. 288.) Palm Beach Regional itself proposes to serve patients from Districts 7 and 10. The reality is that long-term care hospitals are primarily referral hospitals. Nonetheless, since there is no agency rule defining long-term care hospitals as referral hospitals and since there is no agency rule defining the service area of a long-term care hospital, District 9 may be the appropriate service area for the health planning purposes of Palm Beach Regional's application. In order for the district to be the appropriate service area, however, the application must demonstrate that there is a need for a certain number of beds based on the data collected from District 9. Since there is no need methodology applicable to long- term care acute beds, Palm Beach Regional developed three different methodologies for the agency's consideration. The agency found the "components," (Tr. 910,) of the methodologies to be reasonable. Indeed, the agency never offered any other need methodology which it claimed was superior to those offered by the agency. Instead the agency criticizes the methodologies for failing to take into consideration the availability of like and existing services and alternative to the proposed services. Patients who will be served in the proposed facility are currently being served in either the short-term acute hospitals or skilled nursing facilities in nursing homes such as Integrated, both of which are less costly alternatives to this proposal. Palm Beach Regional anticipates referrals from other Columbia Hospitals in the districts; however, six of the eight Columbia Hospitals have skilled nursing units which propose to treat the same patients and conditions the applicant proposes to treat. Furthermore, at the time of hearing, five Columbia hospitals in the districts had 56 approved skilled nursing beds not then operational. Included among the 56 were the 12 skilled nursing unit beds transferred from Palm Beach Regional. Palm Beach Regional's presents arguments in favor of improved quality of care to the patient in need of care following stabilization of an acute episode. There is, however, no data to support a conclusion that outcomes are better in long-term care hospitals. As for the applicant’s ability and record to provide quality of care, there is little doubt. The testimony of Dr. Ron Luke as to the high quality of care to be provided by Palm Beach Regional was not challenged. The patients proposed to be served by the applicant are currently being served in hospitals, subacute units at nursing homes or hospitals, or in rehabilitation facilities. Some may even be in home health with high technology equipment. Transferring these patients to a long-term care facility has significant financial implications costly to the health care system. The 60 beds proposed in the application will, in all likelihood, be adequately utilized. In the case of long-term care hospitals, demand follows the supply because of the strong financial incentive to fill the beds. There is nothing to indicate, however, that acute care beds are not an alternative to long-term hospital beds. There are plenty of empty beds in acute care hospitals to be filled by patients who would be treated by the applicant. That these patients proposed to be treated by Palm Beach Regional might receive treatment, if the application is denied, in hospital-based skilled beds or, perhaps inappropriately at times, in nursing home skilled nursing units is not due to lack of alternatives. Rather, it is the product of financial pressure on the acute care hospitals to discharge patients from the acute setting. Effective utilization of at least 85 percent of cost- based services such as long-term services is an important consideration because fixed costs can be spread over more patient days, thereby decreasing the costs per patient day. The average utilization rate in Florida for long-term care beds is 66 percent. The most recent occupancy rate for Specialty Hospital is only 41 percent. The record of long-term care hospitals would indicate that the utilization projections by Palm Beach Regional are unreasonable. But, there was nothing established that indicated the three methodologies used by Dr. Luke were unreasonable in any way. Given that Palm Beach Regional will be able to draw patients from its sister Columbia acute care hospitals, all of whom will be anxious to provide patients to this long-term hospital, and given that long-term hospital care is a kind of care for which demand follows the supply, it is likely that utilization at Palm Beach Regional, if approved, will be strong. Despite the record of other long-term care hospitals, Palm Beach Regional’s utilization projections are reasonable. Need for Research and Educational Facilities There are no plans to provide research or education at this facility. Availability of Manpower, Management Personnel and Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures The State Agency Action Report shows that the agency believes that there will be adequate levels of staffing available. The adequacy of the staffing levels was confirmed by the administrator of Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville. Palm Beach Regional will be able to adequately staff the hospital at the salary levels proposed in the application. Long-term acute care hospitals treat the very old. Since almost all of these people have Medicare coverage, economic access is not a problem for the individuals the applicant proposes to serve. The applicant has a 1% indigent commitment and a 5% projected Medicaid utilization. Geographic access is also served well by this facility. The facility is located where the population base of the elderly population is in District 9. Financial Feasibility The immediate financial feasibility of Palm Beach Regional is evident from its ability to open and operate for the first two years with a positive cash flow with a financing letter in the amount of $407,000 from Columbia. Palm Beach Regional, in its pro formas and the analysis underlying its pro formas concluded that it would be under the prospective payment system for six months before it could transer to a facility exempt from the prospective payment system. This conclusion is reasonable. Palm Beach Regional has two months to get the necessary certification changed prior to the end of its fiscal year. Palm Beach Regional will be able to institute the necessary six month evaluation, within CON constraints, when it chooses. Furthermore, Palm Beach Regional could change the end of its fiscal year so that the six-month time period could be accommodated. Finally, short-term financial feasibility was demonstrated by the pro forma which properly shows reimbursement levels for patients who were treated in the first six months, and who were discharged after the first six months. Under Medicare regulations, the hospital would be reimbursed on a cost basis for these patients. Palm Beach Regional projected an occupancy level of 85% in the first year of operation and 87% in the second year of operation. Neither Specialty Hospital of Jacksonville, the model for Palm Beach Regional, nor the other long-term care hospitals in Florida have occupancy levels that high. Comparison, however, is not valid. The long-term care hospitals that converted from acute care facilities converted their entire complement of beds which resulted in overbedding. In contrast, Palm Beach Regional seeks to convert only 60 of its 200 beds. The situation of Specialty is very different. It is a converted 105 bed facility which was in bankruptcy when it first started, limiting its ability to attract patients. Within its district, Specialty competes with Vencor of North Florida, a 60 bed facility. Not only does Palm Beach Regional not have any in-district competition, but it will benefit greatly from being a member of the Columbia system. Palm Beach Regional's application demonstrates financial feasibility, both immediate and long-term. Special Needs and Circumstances of HMOs Whether the facility provides an additional level in the continuum of care available to HMO patients is uncertain. It is not generally accepted that the level of care Palm Beach Regional argues it will provide, that is, a level between acute care and subacute care, even exists let alone whether such a level of care is necessary, cost-effective or the best means of treating patients. Needs and Circumstances of Entities Providing Substantial Portion of Services to Individuals Residing Outside the District There are no facilities in the district which provide a substantial portion of its service to individuals residing outside the district. Probable Impact on Costs of Providing Health Services Total property costs for Palm Beach Regional amount to $3.572 million per year, or approximately $250,000 per month. This includes depreciation, interest, insurance and all other property costs. Because Palm Beach Regional would enjoy cost- reimbursement from Medicare instead of being paid on the basis of the prospective payment system, Medicare would pay as much as $190 per patient day for simple property costs and not for patient care, if Palm Beach Regional's utilization projections prove true. Were Palm Beach Regional's utilization projections to turn out to be incorrect and Palm Beach Regional's occupancies were more in the range of other long-term care facilities, (50% the first year and 60% the second), the cost would be "into the $3-400 a day cost range for the cost of [the] ... property allocated per patient day, which would be picked up in their entirety or close to their entirety [by Medicare.]" (Tr. 782.) Either way, the high property costs of Palm Beach Regional would result, should the application be approved, in shifting a huge financial burden to Medicare. The result would be to "wind up costing the Federal government, the Medicare program, multiples of what it now cost[s] ... to treat those same patients in acute care hospitals." (Tr. 792). The Applicant's Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and the Medically Indigent Palm Beach Regional projected a 5% Medicaid utilization but its commitment is to indigent care only and that being a mere 1%. The commitment to indigent care (as opposed to the projection for Medicaid care) is meager. Furthermore, Palm Beach Regional has little established pattern accepting patients in these payor classes. Given the savings to Columbia acute care hospitals which would feed patients to Palm Beach Regional, and ultimately, the profit to be enjoyed by the applicant, a commitment of 1% is lacking. That recognized, it must be said that the modesty of the commitment is consistent with the advantage Medicare's cost- reimbursement system provides long-term care hospitals. It is not to be expected that there will be many Medicaid or indigent patients utilizing long-term care hospitals. "The vast majority of the population utilizing the facility will be the elderly, virtually all of whom are covered by Medicare." (Palm Beach Regional's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 23, Tr. 339.) Still, a greater commitment, more along the lines of the commitment provided by St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc., with which Palm Beach Regional has drawn comparison, (See Findings of Fact, 123- 128, below,) would lend this criterion to favor the application rather than disfavor it. The Applicant's Past and Proposed Provision of Services Which Promotes a Continuum of Care There is no long-term hospital available in District 9. But whether that means Palm Beach Regional is adding a level to the continuum of care available for patients in the district is uncertain. There is no data to support the conclusion that long- term care hospitals provide a level of care between that of acute and subacute. Despite the earnestness with which Dr. Griffin and Dr. Williams hold their opinions to the contrary, their opinions are simply not yet accepted widely enough at this point to support such a conclusion. That Less Costly, More Efficient, or More Appropriate Alternatives to Such Inpatient Services are not Available Long-term care hospitals have existed for years by Act of Congress. "[W]hile there has been an active discussion of alternatives, so far they have not come up with one which has been moved into rule or legislation." (Tr. 421). Certainly keeping long-term care hospital patients covered by Medicare in acute care hospitals would be a less costly alternative. Whether caring for these patients in one facility or another is more cost-efficient, however, is unknown. At bottom, there is no determinative data on the issue of cost-efficiency. As for more appropriate alternatives, there is a group of long-term care hospital patients for whom it is less appropriate to be in a free-standing skilled nursing unit. But, the size of this group is uncertain. Certainly, from the point of view of care to the patient, it is at least equally appropriate for all long- term care patients to remain in acute care hospitals rather than be discharged to long-term care. Alternatives to New Construction As the result of renovations, the facility requires little capital to convert it to a 60 bed long-term care hospital. The capital outlay of $500,000 is an indication of how little actual construction is necessary to complete the project. Problems in Obtaining the Proposed Inpatient Care in the Absence of the Proposed New Service With the exception of inappropriately premature discharges of patients from the acute care hospital's acute care setting, there are beds available for appropriate care in the absence of approval of the application. There is an abundance of beds in acute care hospitals available to patients who might otherwise be discharged to the long-term care hospital. As for the patient for whom discharge from the acute care setting is appropriate who might be admitted to a long-term care hospital, there are available for inpatient care skilled nursing beds in one type of facility or another. Administrative Due Process Palm Beach Regional contends that it has been treated differently by the agency, without reasonable explanation, from St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc., a successful applicant for the conversion of a general acute care hospital to a long-term care hospital in another district. Initially approved by the agency, the "St. Petersburg" application, CON 8213, was not subjected to the scrutiny of a formal administrative hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings. Nonetheless, in support of its claim of unfair treatment, portions of the St. Petersburg application and omissions response for Certificate of Need number 8213 were introduced into evidence by petitioner as well as the State Agency Action Report. There are similarities between the two applications. For example, both proposed conversion of underutilized facilities to long-term acute care beds, as well as reduction of the hospitals' complements of 200 acute care beds to 60 long-term care beds. But there are differences as well. The St. Petersburg commitment to indigent and Medicaid care is 500% of the commitment by Palm Beach Regional. St. Petersburg's commitment is a combined 5%: 2% to indigent and 3% to Medicaid. In contrast, Palm Beach Regional's commitment is 1%, to indigent care only. Palm Beach Regional stated in its application that "[p]atients classified as Medicaid payers are projected to equal 5.0% of total patient days in 1999, 2000, and 2001." Petitioner's Ex. No. 1, p. 79. As reasonable as this projection may be, it is just that: a projection, nothing more and a projection is a far cry from a commitment. There is another difference between the two applications. While the facilities from which Palm Beach Regional's application received letters of support were limited to Columbia's affiliated facilities, St. Petersburg received letters of support from three disproportionate share providers as well as numerous unaffiliated hospitals and nursing homes in the Pinellas and Pasco County areas. The difference is critical to an understanding of the likelihood that the facility will, in fact, meet its commitment to the historically underserved. As Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review Office at the Agency for Health Care Administration testified, "You have, in the case of having the support of all the disproportionate share providers ... more of an assurance that the historically underserved, the Medicaid and the indigent patients, will be served and get access to the service." (Tr. 902). Such an assurance is omitted unfortunately from Palm Regional’s application.
Recommendation ACCORDINGLY, it is recommended that the application of Palm Beach Regional to establish a long-term acute care hospital by delicensing 128 beds and converting 60 acute care beds to 60 long- term acute care beds be denied.DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Tilton, Esquire Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1997. Gustafson, Tilton & Henning, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Thomas F. Panza, Esquire Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Based upon an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, and a later addendum, petitioner received Certificate of Need Number 1460 in February of 1981 granting the petitioner the authority to construct 126 additional general medical/surgical beds but to only license and operate 72 of such beds. The instant proceeding involves petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to license and operate the remaining 54 beds which have been previously constructed under Certificate of Need Number 1460. St. Joseph's Hospital is a 649-bed full service major referral hospital in Hillsborough County owned and operated by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny. Its services include a comprehensive community mental health center, a comprehensive pediatric unit with 88 beds, a radiation therapy center, a 60- bed community cancer center, cardiac catheterization, cardiac surgery and a large and active emergency room. It serves a considerable number of indigent patients and participates in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Petitioner is now requesting permission to license the regaining 54 beds which were authorized to be constructed pursuant to Certificate of Need Number 1460. The project involves no additional construction or renovation inasmuch as all 126 beds previously authorized have been completed. No capital expenditure will be required in order to place the 54 beds into operation. If the Certificate of Need is granted, petitioner intends to create two specialty medical/surgical units: a 32-bed cardiac surgical unit to accommodate patients from the open heart surgical program and a 22-bed medical unit for psychiatric patients requiring medical treatment. There currently are no other beds available in the hospital to convert for use for the psychiatric patient or for the cardiac surgical unit. Petitioner has been operating, on occasion, at occupancy levels in excess of 90 percent. At times, it has been necessary to place non-emergency patients in the emergency room and have them remain there until beds become available. There are sometimes up to 40 patients on the waiting list for elective surgery. Due to the shortage of empty beds, petitioner cannot now admit new members to its medical staff. Steady operation of the hospital at occupancy levels exceeding 90 percent can have an adverse effect upon the efficiency of the nursing staff and the quality of care offered to patients. Because the bulk of projected growth in Hillsborough County is expected to occur in the center and northwestern area of the county, it is anticipated that the pattern of utilization of petitioner's facility will continue. While the licensing of the 54 additional beds involves no capital expenditure on petitioner's part, it is estimated that, if petitioner is not permitted to license these beds, a total yearly loss of over $3.8 million will be experienced. This figure is the sum of lost net revenues from the beds in the amount of $87,339 and lost net ancillary revenues in the amount of $2.36 million, as well as the absorption of $232,750 in yearly depreciation costs and $1.14 million in committed indirect costs. Petitioner anticipates a loss per patient day, calculated at 100 percent occupancy, of $16.82 if the licensing of the beds is not approved. This would result in an increase of current patient charges by 9.1 percent in order to maintain petitioner's budgeted profit margin. Petitioner is located in HRS District VI which, at the time of the hearing, was composed of Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Some 81 percent of all beds in the District are located in Hillsborough County. As of the time of the hearing, the District had 3,899 licensed acute care beds, with 606 additional beds having been approved but not yet operational. The generally accepted optimum utilization rate for acute care beds is 80 to 85 percent. For District VI, the overall utilization rate is below the optimum level. In Manatee County, utilization of acute care beds is at 78.3 percent. In Hillsborough County, the utilization level is at 77.4 percent, with the major referral hospitals experiencing a higher level of utilization than the smaller community hospitals. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, contains the governing methodology for determining acute care bed needs of the various Districts. Applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in a District will not normally be approved if approval would cause the number of beds in that District to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed. Application of the Rule's formula to District VI results in a total acute care bed need of 3,622 projected for the year 1988. Given the 4,505 existing and approved beds in the District, there are 883 excess beds in District VI under the Rule's formula methodology for projecting need. The 1982 Health Systems Plan adopted by the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency makes no bed need projections for other specialty medical/surgical beds," but shows no need for medical/surgical beds. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, provides that other criteria may result in a demonstration of bed need even when the formula approach illustrates no need for beds. When additional beds are approved pursuant to other criteria, those beds are counted in the inventory of existing and approved beds in the area when applying the bed need formula to review future projects. The formula methodology does account for the inflow and outflow of patients in a specific area. While Rule 10-5.11(23) permits the Local Health Councils to adopt subdistrict bed allocations by type of service, the Council for District VI had not adopted its local health plan as of the date of the hearing in this matter. The Rule itself simply addresses the need for general acute care bed needs in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to license 54 acute care medical/surgical beds be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire David Pingree Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein Secretary One Houston Center Department of Health and Suite 1600 Rehabilitative Services Houston, Texas 77010 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.
Findings Of Fact General Petitioner is a limited partnership composed almost entirely of physicians, including obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and specialists providing ancillary care, who practice in the metropolitan Tampa area. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 103-104). Petitioner's managing general partner is Dr. Robert Withers, a doctor specializing in OB/GYN who has practiced in Hillsborough County for over thirty years. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 24- 26, 28-29.) Dr. Withers was a prime moving force in the founding, planning and development of University Community Hospital and Women's Hospital. (Tr. Vo1. 1, pp. 26-28, 73; Vol. 4, pp. 547-548.) Petitioner seeks to construct in DHRS District VI a specialty "women's" hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services at the corner of 30th Street and Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County and having 130 acute care beds. 1/ (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 34, 74-75, Vol. 5, pp. 678-679, Northside Ex.-1, pp. 1-2, Ex.-4A.) The proposed hospital is to have 60 obstetrical, 66 gynecological and 4 intensive care beds. (Tr. Vol. 8, P. 1297, Northside Ex.-1 Table 17, Ex.-B.) DHRS District VI is composed of Hardy, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Each county is designated a subdistrict by the Local Health Council of District VI. Pasco County, immediately north of Hillsborough, is located in DHRS District V and is divided into two subdistricts, east Pasco and west Pasco. If built, Northside would be located in the immediate vicinity of University Community Hospital (UCH) in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Less than 5 percent of the total surgical procedures at UCH are gynecologically related, and little or no nonsurgical gynecological procedures arc performed there. (Tr. Vol. 4, p. 550.) There is no obstetrical practice at UCH, although it has the capacity to handle obstetric emergencies. The primary existing providers of obstetrical services to the metropolitan Tampa area are Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and Women's Hospital (Women's). (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 79, Northside Ex.-4, Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1074-1075.) TGH is a large public hospital located on Davis Islands near downtown Tampa. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 47-48, Vol. 8, pp. 1356, 1358.) TGH currently has a 35 bed obstetrical unit, but is currently expanding to 70 beds as part of a major renovation and expansion program scheduled for completion in late 1985. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1049, 1095, Vol. 8, pp. 1367-1368, Vol. 10, P. 1674, Northside Ex.- 2, P. 3.) In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Tampa General's admissions in obstetrics at TGH have been indigent patients. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 61, Vol. 8, pp. 1375- 1379; Vol. 9, P. 1451; TGH Ex.-3.) Tampa General's internal records reflect that it had approximately 2,100 patient days of gynecological care compared with over 38,000 patient days in combined obstetrical care during a recent eleven month period. (TGH Ex.-3..) Women's is a 192 bed "specialty" hospital located in the west central portion of the City of Tampa near Tampa Stadium. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 63-64, 66-67; Vol. 10 P. 1564; Northside Ex.-4.) Women's Hospital serves primarily private-pay female patients. (Vol. 1, pp. 79, 88-89; Vol. 6, pp. 892-893.) Humana Brandon Hospital, which has a 16 bed obstetrics unit, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City, which has 12 obstetric beds, served eastern Hillsborough County. (Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Northside Ex.-2, P. 3; Northside Ex.-4 and Tr. Vol. 1, P. 79; Northside Ex.-4.) There are two hospitals in eastern Pasco County, which is in DHRS District V. Humana Hospital, Pasco and East Pasco Medical Center, each of which has a six bed obstetric unit. Both hospitals are currently located in Dade City, but the East Pasco Medical Center will soon move to Zephyrhills and expand its obstetrics unit to nine beds. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 108- 109; Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Vol. 8, pp. 1278-1281; Northside Ex.-4.) There are no hospitals in central Pasco County, DHRS District V. Residents of that area currently travel south to greater Tampa, or, to a lesser extent, go to Dade City for their medical services. (Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 266-267, 271-272; Vol. 7, p. 1038.) Bed Need There are currently 6,564 existing and CON approved acute care beds in DHRS District VI, compared with an overall bed need of 5,718 acute care beds. An excess of 846 beds exist in District VI in 1989, the year which is the planning horizon use by DHRS in determining bed need applicable to this application. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1046-1047, 1163, 1165-66; DHRS Ex.-1.) There is a net need for five acute care beds in DHRS District V according to the Department's methodology. (Tr. Yolk. 7, pp. 1066, 1165; DHRS Ex.-1.) The figures for District VI include Carrollwood Community Hospital which is an osteopathic facility which does not provide obstetrical services. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 158; Vol. 7, p. 1138; Vol. 8, P. 1291.) However, these osteopathic beds are considered as meeting the total bed need when computing a11 opathic bed need. DHRS has not formally adopted the subdistrict designations of allocations as part of its rules. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1017-1017, 1019; Vol. 8, pp. 1176, 1187.) Consideration of the adoption of subdistricts by the Local Health Council is irrelevant to this application. 2/ Areas of Consideration in Addition to Bed Need Availability Availability is deemed the number of beds available. As set forth above, there is an excess of beds. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192.) Tampa General Hospital and Humana Women's Hospital offer all of the OB related services which UMP proposes to offer in its application. These and a number of other hospitals to include UCH, offer all of the GYN related services proposed by Northside. University Community Hospital is located 300 yards away from the proposed site of Northside. UCH is fully equipped to perform virtually any kind of GYN/OB procedure. Humana and UCH take indigent patients only on an emergency basis, as would the proposed facility. GYN/OB services are accessible to all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of their ability to pay for such services at TGH. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1469; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1596; Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 582; Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, P. 21.) Utilization Utilization is impacted by the number of available beds and the number of days patients stay in the hospital. According to the most recent Local Health Council hospital utilization statistics, the acute care occupancy rate for 14 acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County for the most recent six months was 65 percent. This occupancy rate is based on licensed beds and does not include CON approved beds which are not yet on line. This occupancy rate is substantially below the optimal occupancies determined by DHRS in the Rule. (DHRS Exhibit 4; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1069.) Utilization of obstetric beds is higher than general acute care beds; however, the rules do not differentiate between general and obstetric beds. 3/ Five Hillsborough County hospitals, Humana Women's, St. Joseph's, Tampa General, Humana Brandon, and South Florida Baptist, offer obstetric services. The most recent Local Health Council utilization reports indicate that overall OB occupancy for these facilities was 82 percent for the past 6 months. However, these computations do not include the 35 C0N-approved beds which will soon be available at Tampa General Hospital. (DHRS Exhibit 4). There will be a substantial excess of acute care beds to include OB beds in Hillsborough County for the foreseeable future. (Baehr, Tr.w Vol. X, pp. 1568, 1594, 1597.) The substantial excess of beds projected will result in lower utilization. In addition to excess beds, utilization is lowered by shorter hospital stays by patients. The nationwide average length of stay has been reduced by almost two days for Medicare patients and one day for all other patients due to a variety of contributing circumstances. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1102; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1583-84; etc.) This dramatic decline in length of hospital stay is the result of many influences, the most prominent among which are: (1) a change in Medicare reimbursement to a system which rewards prompt discharges of patients and penalizes overutilization ("DGRs"), (2) the adaptation by private payers (insurance companies, etc.) of Medicare type reimbursement, (3) the growing availability and acceptance of alternatives to hospitalization such as ambulatory surgical centers, labor/delivery/recovery suites, etc. and (4) the growing popularity of health care insurance/delivery mechanisms such as health maintenance organizations ("HMOs"), preferred provider organizations ("PPOs"), and similar entities which offer direct or indirect financial incentives for avoiding or reducing hospital utilization. The trend toward declining hospital utilization will continue. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1192-98; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1584-86; etc.) There has been a significant and progressive decrease in hospital stays for obstetrics over the last five years. During this time, a typical average length of stay has been reduced from three days to two and, in some instances, one day. In addition, there is a growing trend towards facilities (such as LDRs) which provide obstetrics on virtually an outpatient basis. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1456; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644.) The average length of stay for GYN procedures is also decreasing. In addition, high percentage of GYN procedures are now being performed on an outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, basis. (Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644, etc.) The reduction in hospital stays and excess of acute care beds will lower utilization of acute care hospitals, including their OB components, enough to offset the projected population growth in Hillsborough County. The hospitals in District VI will not achieve the optimal occupancy rates for acute care beds or OB beds in particular by 1989. The 130 additional beds proposed by UMP would lower utilization further. (Paragraphs 7, 14, and 18 above; DHRS Exhibit 1, Humana Exhibit 1.) Geographic Accessibility Ninety percent of the population of Hillsborough County is within 30 minutes of an acute care hospital offering, at least, OB emergency services. TGH 20, overlay 6, shows that essentially all persons living in Hillsborough County are within 30 minutes normal driving time not only to an existing, acute care hospital, but a hospital offering OB services. Petitioner's service area is alleged to include central Pasco County. Although Pasco County is in District V, to the extent the proposed facility might serve central Pasco County, from a planning standpoint it is preferable to have that population in central Paso served by expansion of facilities closer to them. Hospitals in Tampa will become increasingly less accessible with increases in traffic volume over the years. The proposed location of the UMP hospital is across the street from an existing acute care hospital, University Community Hospital ("UCH"). (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 542.) Geographic accessibility is the same to the proposed UMP hospital and UCH. (Smith, Tr. Vol. III, P. 350; Wentzel, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 486; Peters, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1532.) UCH provides gynecological services but does not provide obstetrical services. However, UCH is capable of delivering babies in emergencies. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 563.) The gynecological services and OB capabilities at UCH are located at essentially the same location as Northside's proposed site. Geographic accessibility of OB/GYN services is not enhanced by UMP's proposed 66 medical-surgical beds. The accessibility of acute care beds, which under the rule are all that is considered, is essentially the same for UCH as for the proposed facility. As to geographic accessibility, the residents of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties now have reasonable access to acute care services, including OB services. The UMP project would not increase accessibility to these services by any significant decrease. C. Economic Accessibility Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence that it would expand services to underserved portions of the community. Demographer Smith did not study income levels or socioeconomic data for the UMP service area. (Smith, TR. Vol. III, pp. 388, 389.) However, Mr. Margolis testified that 24 percent of Tampa General's OB patients, at least 90 percent of who are indigents, came from the UMP service area. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) The patients proposed to be served at the Northside Hospital are not different than those already served in the community. (Withers, Tr. Vol. II, P. 344.) As a result, Northside Hospital would not increase the number of underserved patients. Availability of Health Care Alternative An increasing number of GYN procedures are being performed by hospitals on an outpatient basis and in freestanding ambulatory-surgical centers. An ambulatory-surgical center is already in operation at a location which is near the proposed UMP site. In fact, Dr. Hyatt, a UMP general partner, currently performs GYN procedures at that surgical center. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 150; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 644, 646. Ambulatory surgical centers, birthing centers and similar alternative delivery systems offer alternatives to the proposed facility. Existing hospitals are moving to supply such alternatives which, with the excess beds and lower utilization, arc more than adequate to preclude the need for the UMP proposal. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1204, 1205, 1206; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453, 1469; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1154; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1151, 1154.) Need for Special Equipment & Services DHRS does not consider obstetrics or gynecology to be "special services" for purposes of Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes. In addition, the services proposed by UMP are already available in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1162, 1210.) Need for Research & Educational Facilities USF currently uses Tampa General as a training facility for its OB residents. TCH offered evidence that the new OB facilities being constructed at Tampa General were designed with assistance from USF and were funded by the Florida Legislature, in part, as an educational facility. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1391; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453-1455.) The educational objectives of USF for OB residents at Tampa General are undermined by a disproportionately high indigent load. Residents need a cross section of patients. The UMP project will further detract from a well rounded OB residency program at Tampa General by causing Tampa General's OB Patient mix to remain unbalanced. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1458; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) UMP offered no evidence of arrangements to further medical research or educational needs in the community. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1213. UMP's proposed facility will not contribute to research and education in District VI. Availability of Resources Management UMP will not manage its hospital. It has not secured a management contract nor entered into any type of arrangement to insure that its proposed facility will be managed by knowledgeable and competent personnel. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, p. 142.) However, there is no alleged or demonstrated shortage of management personnel available. Availability of Funds For Capital and Operating Expenditures The matter of capital funding was a "de novo issue," i.e., evidence was presented which was in addition to different from its application. In its application, Northside stated that its project will be funded through 100 percent debt. Its principal general partner, Dr. Withers, states that this "figure is not correct." However, neither Dr. Withers nor any other Northside witness ever identified the percentage of the project, if any, which is to be funded through equity contributions except the property upon which it would be located. (UMP Exhibit 1, p. 26; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 134.) The UMP application contained a letter from Landmark Bank of Tampa which indicates an interest on the part of that institution in providing funding to Northside in the event that its application is approved. This one and one half year year old letter falls short of a binding commitment on the part of Landmark Bank to lend UMP the necessary funds to complete and operate its project and is stale. Dr. Withers admitted that Northside had no firm commitment as of the date of the hearing to finance its facility, or any commitment to provide 1196 financing as stated in its application. (UMP Exhibit I/Exhibit Dr. Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 138.) Contribution to Education No evidence was introduced to support the assertion in the application of teaching research interaction between UMP and USF. USF presented evidence that no such interaction would occur. (Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1329.) The duplication of services and competition for patients and staff created by UMP's facility would adversely impact the health professional training programs of USF, the state's primary representative of health professional training programs in District VI. (Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1314-19; 1322-24; 1331-1336.) Financial Feasibility The pro forma statement of income and expenses for the first two years of operation (1987 and 1988) contained in the UMP application projects a small operating loss during the first year and a substantial profit by the end of the second year. These pro formas are predicated on the assumption that the facility will achieve a utilization rate of 61 percent in Year 1 and 78 percent in its second year. To achieve these projected utilization levels, Northside would have to capture a market share of 75-80 percent of all OB patient days and over 75% of all GYN patient days generated by females in its service area. (UMP, Exhibit 1; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 145, Dacus; Tr. Vol. V, P. 750-755.) These projected market shares and resulting utilization levels are very optimistic. It is unlikely that Northside could achieve these market shares simply by making its services available to the public. More reasonable utilization assumptions for purposes of projecting financial feasibility would be 40-50 percent during the first year and 65 percent in the second year. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1700; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1578, 1579, 1601.) UMP omitted the cost of the land on which its facility is to be constructed from its total project cost and thus understates the income necessary to sustain its project. Dr. Withers stated the purchase price of this land was approximately $1.5 million and it has a current market value in excess of $5 million. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 139, 140.) Dr. Withers admitted that the purchase price of the land would be included in formulating patient charges. As a matter of DHRS interpretation, the cost of land should be included as part of the capital cost of the project even if donated or leased and, as such, should be added into the pro formas. UMP's financial expert, Barbara Turner, testified that she would normally include land costs in determining financial feasibility of a project, otherwise total project costs would be understated (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 141; Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1215, 1216; Turner, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1714.) In addition, the pro formas failed to include any amount for management expenses associated with the new facility. Dr. Withers admitted UMP does not intend to manage Northside and he anticipates that the management fee would be considerably higher than the $75,000 in administrator salaries included in the application. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 143, 144.) Barbara Turner, UMP's financial expert, conceded that the reasonableness of the percent UMP pro formas is predicated on the reasonableness of its projected market share and concomitant utilization assumptions. These projections are rejected as being inconsistent with evidence presented by more credible witnesses. The UMP project, as stated in its application or as presented at hearing, is not financially feasible on the assumption Petitioner projected. VIII. Impact on Existing Facilities Approval of the UMP application would result in a harmful impact on the costs of providing OB/GYN services at existing facilities. The new facility would be utilized by patients who would otherwise utilize existing facilities, hospitals would be serving fewer patients than they are now. This would necessarily increase capital and operating costs on a per patient basis which, in turn, would necessitate increases in patient charges. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1217-1219; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1587.) Existing facilities are operating below optimal occupancy levels. See DHRS Exhibit 4. The Northside project would have an adverse financial impact on Humana, Tampa General Hospital, and other facilities regardless of whether Northside actually makes a profit. See next subheading below. The Northside project would draw away a substantial number of potential private-pay patients from TGH. Residents of the proposed Northside service area constitute approximately 24 percent of the total number of OB patients served by TGH. The Northside project poses a threat to TGH's plans to increase its non- indigent OB patient mix which is the key to its plans to provide a quality, competitive OB service to the residents of Hillsborough County. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VIII, P. 1225; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) Impact Upon Costs and Competition Competition via a new entrant in a health care market can be good or bad in terms of both the costs and the quality of care rendered, depending on the existing availability of competition in that market at the time. Competition has a positive effect when the market is not being adequately or efficiently served. In a situation where adequate and efficient service exists, competition can have an adverse impact on costs and on quality because a new facility is simply adding expense to the system without a concomitant benefit. (Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, p. 1650.) Competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County is now "intense and accelerating." (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 558.) Tampa General is at a competitive disadvantage because of its indigent case load and its inability to offer equity interests to physicians in its hospital. (Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 945, 947-948); Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1405.) Tampa General Hospital is intensifying its marketing effort, a physician office building under construction now at Tampa General is an illustration of Tampa General's effort to compete for private physicians and patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1405-1406.) The whole thrust of Tampa General's construction program is to increase its ability to compete for physicians. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1224; Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, p. 1442.) The Tampa General construction will create new competition for physicians and patients. (Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, p. 1099.) Patients go to hospitals where their doctors practice, therefore, hospitals generally compete for physicians. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 563; Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 898, 928.) Because many of the UMP partners are obstetricians who plan to use Northside exclusively, approval of the Northside project would lessen competition. (Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, P. 11.) It is feasible for Tampa General to attract more private pay OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461.) At its recently opened rehabilitation center, Tampa General has attracted more private pay patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1393-1396.) USF OB residents at Tampa General are planning to practice at Tampa General. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460-1461.) The state-of-the-art labor, delivery, recovery room to be used at Tampa General will be an attractive alternative to OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461); Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, p.26) IX. Capital Expenditure Proposals The proposed Northside hospital will not offer any service not now available in Tampa. (Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, p. 21).
Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.
Conclusions Competent substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Adrian Fuentes disabilities are the result of the failure to deliver him before his mother loss amniotic fluid, or up to an estimated 12 hours earlier. An earlier delivery was the standard of care expected in a case of IUGR. His permanent and severe disabilities were directly and proximately caused by the failure of SBHD employees to handle an ultrasound report expeditiously as directed and as their policy provided. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LOBBYISTS’ FEES: In compliance with s. 768.28(8), F.S., but not with Section 3 of this claim bill, Claimant's attorneys' fees are set at 25 percent. There is no lobbyist for the bill at this time. As of October 9, 2007, the attorneys reported having incurred costs of $115,246.02 for representing the Claimant. The Claimants entered into an agreement to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth in this report, I recommend that Senate Bill 60 (2008) be reported FAVORABLY. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor M. Hunter Senate Special Master cc: Senator Jeremy Ring Representative Evan Jenne Faye Blanton, Secretary of the Senate House Committee on Constitution and Civil Law Tom Thomas, House Special Master Counsel of Record
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D- 1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious? Mercy has also raised one issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The HCCB and Its Hospital Grouping Function. The HCCB was formed pursuant to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1979). The HCCB was created pursuant to the specific authority of Section 395.503, Florida Statutes (1979), in order to further the accomplishment of legislative intent contained in Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): It is the intent of the Legislature to assure that adequate health care is affordable and accessible to all the citizens of this state. To further the accomplishment of this goal, the Hospital Cost Containment Board is created to advise the Legislature regarding health care costs; inflationary trends in health care costs; the impact of health care costs on the state budget; the impact of hospital charges and third-party reimbursement mechanisms on health care costs; and the education of consumers and providers of health care services in order to encourage price competition in the health care marketplace. The Legislature finds and declares that rising hospital costs and cost shifting are of vital concern to the people of this state because of the danger that hospital services are becoming unaffordable and thus inaccessible to residents of the state. It is further declared that hospital costs should be contained through improved competition between hospitals and improved competition between insurers, through financial incentives which foster efficiency instead of inefficiency, and through sincere initiatives on behalf of providers, insurers, and consumers to contain costs. As a safety net, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a program of prospective budget review and approval in the event that competition-oriented methods do not adequately contain costs and the access of Floridians to adequate hospital care becomes jeopardized because of unaffordable costs. As a part of its responsibilities the HCCB is required, "after consulting with appropriate professional and governmental advisory bodies and holding public hearings, and considering existing and proposed systems of accounting and reporting utilized by hospitals," to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes Suppl.) to: In order to allow "meaningful comparisons" of data reported by hospitals under the uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.) to group hospitals according to characteristics, including, but not limited to, a measure of the nature and range of services provided, teaching hospital status, number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff, percentage of Medicare inpatient days, average daily census, geographical differences, and, when available, case mix. In providing for grouping of hospital, the HCCB is required to establish ten general hospital groups and additional speciality groups "as needed." Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). No hospital group can contain fewer than five hospitals, however. Id. Grouping is to be provided by rule. Id. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file its budget with the HCCB for "approval." The budget is required to be filed on forms adopted by the HCCB and based on the uniform system of financial reporting. Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). To determine whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, all hospitals in Florida are to be placed in groups. A hospital's budget is then compared to the budgets of the hospitals assigned to its group. Hospital groups for this purpose are established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The provisions of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), are identical to Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In determining whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, Section 305.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), establishes two initial "screens" which a hospital must meet based upon the hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission. The term "gross revenue" is defined as: the sum of daily hospital service charges, ambulatory service charges, ancillary service charges, and other operating revenue. Gross revenues do not include contributions, donations, legacies, or bequests made to a hospital without restriction by the donors. Section 395.502(11), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). "Adjusted admission" is defined by Section 395.502(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), as: the sum of acute admissions and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues generated from acute, intensive, ambulatory, and ancillary patient services to gross revenues. Gross revenues per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") is therefore the total hospital ambulatory and ancillary service charges and other operating revenue for all acute and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues from acute, intensive, ambulatory and ancillary patient services to gross revenue; or, stated more simply , inpatient revenue per admission. The "screens" which must be met in order for a hospital's budget to be approved upon initial determination are: (1) the hospital's GRAA must not be in the upper 20th percentile of the hospitals within its group; and (2) the rate of increase in a hospital's GRAA as contained in its current budget compared to the hospital's GRAA as reported in its most recently approved budget must not exceed a "maximum allowable rate of increase" if the hospital's GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of the hospitals in its group. If a hospital's GRAA is in the 49th percentile or less of the hospitals in its group, its budget is automatically approved. In determining whether a hospital's GRAA fails the screens, Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides: Percentile values for gross operating revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly by the board for each group established pursuant to s. 395.507(2) by ranking projected gross operating revenues per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. In determining the applicability of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the board shall consider the basis of the projections by the hospital, including consideration of the following factors: any increase in patient admissions caused by the creation of preferred provider organizations or health maintenance organiza- tions, population increases, changes in the hospital case mix or in services offered, changes in technology, or other similar factors. If a hospital's GRAA fails either of the screens (its GRAA is in the upper 20th percentile of its group or its GRAA rate of increase is excessive and its GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of its group) that hospital's budget must be reviewed by the HCCB "to determine whether the rate of increase contained in the budget is just, reasonable, and not excessive." Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Pursuant to Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB is authorized, if it first determines under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that the hospital's rate of increase is not just, reasonable and not excessive, to amend or disapprove any hospital's budget which does not meet the two screens of Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to establish a rate of increase which is "just, reasonable, and not excessive." The HCCB's authority under Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), applies only if the HCCB first complies with the following pertinent provisions of Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): The board shall disapprove any budget, or part thereof, as excess that contains a rate of increase which is not necessary to maintain the existing level of services of the hospital or, if the hospital increases its existing level of services, any amount not necessary to accomplish that increase. In making such deterioration . . . the board shall consider the following criteria: The efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the services and facilities provided by the hospital. The cost of providing services and the value of the services to the public. The ability of the hospital to improve services and facilities. The ability of the hospital to reduce the cost of services. The ability of the hospital to earn a reasonable rate of return. The accuracy of previous budget submissions by the hospital compared to the actual experience of the hospital the The number of patient days reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. The number of patient days attributable to the medically indigent. The research and educational services provided by the hospital if it is a teaching hospital. The projected expenditures or revenues for or from construction of facilities or new services which are subject to regulation under s. 381.494 may not be included in the budget of a hospital until the construction or services are approved or authorized by the state health planning agency. The cost of opening a new hospital, for first 3 years. The Challenged Rules. In carrying out its duty to establish a uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB adopted Section 4D- 1.03, F.A.C., which provides: The Board, pursuant to Section 395.505, Florida Statutes, hereby adopts and establishes a uniform system for hospitals to file the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report of financial and statistical information. This system is described and the forms, instructions, and definitions therefor are contained in the Board's publication entitled Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The Chart of Accounts adopted pursuant to Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes, and this Chapter 4D-1, and as hereafter modified, shall be utilized by each hospital for submitting the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report and the budget report. In order to determine whether a hospital's budget should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB adopted Section 4D-1.12, F.A.C. Sections 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., provide: The staff shall review the budget report based upon the hospital's ranking for gross revenue per adjusted admission within its group and upon its rate of change in gross revenue per adjusted admission in the proposed budget as required in Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes, and the most recently Board approved budget. As part of the budget report review process, groupings of hospitals shall be established according to the characteristics and methodology as outlined in Chapter V, Section B, Hospital Unit Uniform Reporting System Manual and as outlined in Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes. Percentile values for gross revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly for each group by ranking projected gross revenue per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. 12. Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., are the rules challenged by Mercy. These rules, as quoted herein, were effective as of November 5, 1984. The rules were originally adopted effective June 30, 1980. The rules were amended to their present wording in response to "major" legislation enacted in 1984 which amended Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), and granted authority to the HCCB for the first time to approve, disapprove or amend hospital budgets under certain circumstances. Chapter 79-106, Laws of Florida. The challenged rules essentially provide that the HCCB, when grouping of hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting and for purposes of reviewing and comparing budgets to determine if they should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will apply the grouping methodology outlined in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). Section 4D-1.18, F.A.C., also adopted effective November 5, 1984, incorporates by reference the Manual within each rule in Chapter 4D-1, F.A.C., which references the Manual. This rule has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Hospital Grouping Methodology and Its Development. Generally, Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, sets out the objective of the grouping methodology, the procedure for forming groups, a list of the variables considered in forming groups and the weight to be accorded each variable. The goals of the grouping methodology, as provided in the Manual, are to "facilitate comparison of hospitals with similar patient mix and market conditions" and to "develop groups of sufficient size . . . to assure statistically valid comparisons." Based upon the procedure for forming groups contained in the Manual, hospitals are grouped into nine, non-teaching, short-term hospital groups, one Major teaching hospital group and a number of specialty hospital groups. It is the method of grouping hospitals into nine short-term hospital groups which is at issue in this proceeding. Assignment of hospitals to the nine short-term hospital groups is accomplished through the use of the "McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm included in the cluster analysis t computer program package CLAN developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham (June, 1980 version)." A clustering analysis is a method of grouping a set of objects (in this case, hospitals) into relatively homogeneous groups. The goal of a clustering algorithm is to minimize the differences between the members of the group. The objects are grouped based upon a set of variables which are considered significant for purposes of comparing the objects. In order to account for the significance of each variable, the variables are weighted. The variables have a numerical score and after weighing, the weighted sum of the variables for each object is compared and the objects are grouped based upon their variable scores. There are a number of clustering algorithms which can be used to group hospitals. The HCCB chose to use the "McQueen's K-means" clustering algorithm. The use of McQueens K-means clustering algorithm has not bean challenged in this proceeding. Nor does the evidence establish that the selection of McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm is arbitrary and capricious. The clustering algorithm is performed by computer. The computer program utilized by the HCCB to perform the algorithm is called "CLAN" and was developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham. The evidence at the hearing supports a finding that the selection of this computer program is reasonable. Once hospitals are grouped, they are notified of their group designation and allowed to request reconsideration of their group assignment. The request must made within thirty days after notification. Following the creation of the HCCB in 1979, Price Waterhouse & Company was engaged by the HCCB as a consultant to assist in still establishing an appropriate hospital grouping methodology. The HCCB also created an advisory committee to assist the HCCB and Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology. This committee, designated as the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC") was comprised of individuals from the hospital industry and academia and certified public accountants. The TAC worked with Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology and the uniform reporting system. Because of time constraints, the TAC's involvement with evaluating the methodology was limited. The HCCB ultimately decided to pattern the grouping methodology it adopted after the grouping methodology then being used by the State of Washington, as recommended by Price Waterhouse & Company. The Washington system was not adopted exactly; a number of changes to Washington's methodology were made to the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. Mercy has proposed several findings of fact beginning on page 35 and ending on page 38 of its proposed order concerning the "Differences in Washington Hospital Characteristics and Grouping Methodology Model." Those proposed findings of fact can be and are hereby disposed of by the following finding of fact: because of differences in the hospital industries of the States of Florida and Washington and other differences between the two States, Florida's grouping methodology cannot be justified solely on the basis that Washington's grouping methodology was used as a starting point in developing Florida's grouping methodology. Those differences, however, do not support a finding of fact that Florida's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious since the Washington system was not adopted without substantial modifications, including a reduction of Washington's eighteen variables initially to fourteen and ultimately to seven, and the use of unequal weighting of the variables. The TAC reviewed and discussed the grouping methodology initially approved by the HCCB prior to its approval. Some of Mercy's witnesses, who were members of the TAC, indicated during their testimony that the TAC never decided anything because no "vote" was ever taken of TAC members and that the TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. Their testimony in this regard has been given little weight. The fact that no formal "vote" was taken of TAC members does not mean that the TAC did not take a position on matters it discussed. The consensus of the TAC could be, and was, gleaned from its discussions. The staff of the HCCB in fact reported decisions of the TAC to the HCCB verbally and by minutes of TAC meetings. Although the accuracy of staff's reports was sometimes questioned, no question was raised about whether TAC had taken positions. The fact that the HCCB staff reported TAC actions to the HCCB also disputes the testimony to the effect that TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. While it may be true that TAC did not deal directly with the HCCB, its analysis was reported, to the HCCB. The HCCB ultimately adopted rules effective June 30, 1980, which incorporated by reference to the Manual, the general outline of the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. The TAC ceased to exist following adoption of the HCCB's initial rules. Two new advisory committees were formed: a Technical Advisory Panel (hereinafter referred to as "TAP") on grouping and a TAP for financial analysis. The grouping TAP was made up of individuals from the hospital industry. The grouping TAP met in November and December of 1980 and reviewed the results of test runs of the grouping methodology initially adopted by the HCCB. The results of the initial run were described as "bizarre." This run used equal weighting of the variables. Equal weighting was abandoned and three to four more test runs were made and reviewed by the grouping TAP. After each run the variable weights were adjusted until the results appeared to be "reasonable." The HCCB also established a committee consisting of members of the HCCB designated as the Research and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "R & D Committee"). The R & D Committee reviewed the results of test runs and also found the final groups reasonable. The HCCB met in January, 1981, and adopted the grouping methodology with the adjusted variable weights arrived at as a result of the test runs for use in establishing hospital groups for use in 1981. The grouping methodology was reviewed every year after its initial adoption in 1980. The methodology was reviewed by the HCCB, HCCB's staff, the TAP's and the R & D Committee each year. Throughout the period from 1980 to the present, criticisms of the grouping methodology have been made. Some of these criticisms were agreed with and others were rejected by the HCCB or its staff. Following review of the grouping methodology by the TAP's and the R & D Committee in 1981, the original fourteen variables were reduced to eight. In January, 1982, the weight of one of the variables was changed and one variable was replaced by another variable. In December, 1982, a variable was deleted; seven variables remained. In 1983, clustering analysis was limited in its application to the formation of short-term acute care general hospital groups. In 1984, following the significant amendment of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), the HCCB adopted the present challenged rules. The rules were effective November 5, 1984. The only change in the grouping methodology approved by the HCCB was the substitution of the Florida price level index variable for percent of population over age 65. The weight assigned to the Florida price level index was the same as the weight that had been assigned to the percent of population over age 65. The changes made to the grouping methodology in 1984 were first suggested by the staff of the HCCB to the grouping TAP in June of 1984. The grouping TAP met on July 11, 1984 and considered and discussed the proposed changes. A number of problem areas were discussed. Although no test run results were presented at this TAP meeting, they were provided to TAP members before the HCCB adopted the grouping methodology changes. Concerns about the geographic or exogenous variables expressed at the grouping TAP meeting suggested a belief that too much or too little emphasis was being placed on geographic considerations. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact beginning on page 33 and ending on page 35 of its proposed order concerning the significance of the changes made by the Legislature in 1984 to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983). Those proposed findings of fact essentially deal with the fact that the powers of the HCCB after the 1984 amendments may have a more significant impact on hospitals and that, therefore, the grouping methodology is of greater interest to hospitals. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not, however, relevant in determining whether the challenged rules are arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the effect of the grouping methodology on a hospital may now be different does not mean that the use of the grouping methodology, as modified after the 1984 legislative changes to the law, which was developed when the purpose of grouping was different, is not an appropriate methodology. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, to the extent that Mercy's proposed findings of fact under Section II, A, of its proposed order have not already been made, they are rejected as unnecessary. Mercy and the HCCB have proposed findings of fact as to whether Mercy has ever questioned the HCCB's grouping methodology since it was first adopted prior to instituting this proceeding. Those proposed findings of fact are not deemed relevant in determining whether the grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. If the grouping methodology is in fact arbitrary and capricious, the fact that Mercy did not challenge the methodology when it was first adopted will not make it any less arbitrary and capricious today. Mercy's Challenge. A. Introduction. Mercy is a not-for-profit, general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Mercy has raised a number of points in this proceeding and its proposed order in challenging the rules in question. All of those points, according to Mercy, prove that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. In determining whether the facts support such a conclusion, the following standard must be kept in mind: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within the grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its authority; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Agrico Chemical Company v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (1979). Additionally, the following must be kept in mind: The well recognized general rule is that agencies are to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of their lawful rulemaking authority, clearly conferred or fairly implied and consistent with the agencies' general statutory duties. . . . An agency's construction of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. . . . Where, as here, the agency's interpretation of a statute has been promulgated in rulemaking proceedings, the validity of such rule must be upheld if it is reasonably related to the purposes of the legislation interpreted and it is not arbitrary and capricious. The burden is upon petitioner in a rule challenge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rule or its requirements are arbitrary and capricious. . . . Moreover, the agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The witnesses who testified in this proceeding who were accepted as experts were qualified in a number of different areas. Those witnesses qualified as experts in statistical analysis or related areas and health care finance rendered opinions as to the appropriateness of the HCCB's grouping methodology. The method of grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB is a statistical method. Therefore, the determination of whether the HCCB's methodology is arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon whether the methodology is statistically sound. Mercy and the HCCB therefore presented the testimony of witnesses qualified in the area of statistics: Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., an expert in statistical analysis and social science statistics (for Mercy), and Duane Meeter, Ph.D., an expert in economics and applied statistical analysis and Frank Fox, Jr., Ph.D., an expert in applied statistics (for the HCCB). All three witnesses were knowledgeable and credible. Dr. Zimmerman testified that the HCCB's grouping methodology was "clearly inappropriate." Dr. Zimmerman's opinion was based upon a three step analysis in which he determined: (1) whether the variables selected by the HCCB are appropriate; (2) whether the weights assigned to the variables by the HCCB are appropriate; and, (3) the effect changing the variables and/or weights would have on hospital groups. The results of Dr. Zimmerman's analysis, which formed the basis for his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology is not appropriate, are discussed, infra. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact in its proposed order concerning the credibility of Dr. Meeter's and Dr. Fox's testimony. Some of those proposed findings of fact have been considered in determining the weight given to their testimony. Both Dr. Meeter and Dr. Fox were, however, knowledgeable and credible. In addition to the opinion of its statistical expert, Mercy presented the testimony of three witnesses who were accepted as experts in health care finance: Messrs. Lawrence R. Murray, Jerry A. Mashburn and Anthony Krayer. All three are certified public accountants. All testified that it was his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology was arbitrary. The bases for their opinions are discussed, infra. Selection of "Seed" Hospitals. In order to use a clustering algorithm, a starting point is needed; the first object (hospital) to be placed in each group must be selected. The first objects selected are called "seed" objects. Mercy has attached the HCCB's method of selecting the nine "seed" hospitals in initially performing the McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm. Mercy has proposed the following findings of fact with regard to this point: While none of the parties challenged the use of McQueen's and the CLAN program, no support was offered during the hearing for the method by which the HCCB had selected the nine seed hospitals as initial clustering points. The HCCB's own statistician criticized the HCCB's selection method. The Rankis-Zimmerman report indicates that the final groupings based upon the HCCB's seed hospitals were vastly different than groupings based upon the utilization of seed hospitals selected on a statistical basis. Both the HCCB's and Mercy's statisticians proposed statistically sound methods for selecting seed hospitals, which had not been employed by the HCCB in the Grouping Methodology. [Citations omitted] These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. The burden is on Mercy to show that the selection of "seed" hospitals was arbitrary and capricious; the HCCB is not required to show "support" for its method of selecting the seed hospitals. Additionally, whether there are other methods of selecting seed hospitals is not the test. The HCCB's interpretation of the statute need not be the sole interpretation or even the most desirable one; it only needs to be within the range of possible interpretations. Durrani, supra. Therefore, even if the Rankis-Zimmerman report does indicate that the final groupings of hospitals of the HCCB were vastly different than groupings based upon other methods of selecting seed hospitals, it does not automatically follow that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was not "within the range of possible interpretations. The weight of the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was arbitrary and capricious. Selection of the Variables. In delegating legislative authority to the HCCB to establish a grouping methodology, the Legislature provided that the following relevant characteristics are to be taken into account: A measure of the nature and range of services provided; Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff; Percentage of Medicare inpatient days; Average daily census; Geographic differences; and Case mix, "when available." In response to the Legislature's mandate, the HCCB has adopted seven variables or characteristics. The variables selected by the HCCB include five hospital- specific (endogenous) variables and two geographic (exogenous variables). The variables are as follows: Endogenous Variables: Average occupied beds. Available services. Physician mix. Number of residents. Percent Medicare days. Exogenous Variables: Florida price level index. Personal income. The following findings of fact are made with regard to each of the specific characteristics required to be taken into account by the Legislature and the variables adopted by the HCCB: 1. A measure of the nature and range of services provided. The HCCB has provided in the Manual that "available services" or a service index will be considered. The specific services considered are listed on Table B, Chapter V, of the Manual. Table B also weights or provides a score for each of the various services listed. Each hospital gets the specified score if it has a particular service available. The available services listed are based upon a survey of hospital administrators and chief financial officers in New York, New York, made in the 1970's. Problems with the list of available services have been pointed out to the HCCB and its staff. The primary problem is that the volume of services provided is not taken into account. The problems with the service index, however, relate to the fact that the service index is a proxy for case mix. To date, there is no alternative available which would be a better proxy for case mix. The Legislature contemplated this fact by providing that a measure of the services provided by a hospital will be considered and that case mix will be taken into account "when available." Therefore, while there are "problems" with the service index, consideration of available services is mandated by the Legislature and there are no acceptable alternatives available use for by the HCCB. 2. Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff. 52. The HCCB has provided that a physician specialties mix be considered in grouping hospitals. This physician specialties mix is based upon a list of twenty- six specialties for which a hospital gets a single credit for each specialty available regardless of the number of physician specialists available in each specialty or the volume of patients admitted by a physician. 52. Like the service index, the physician specialties mix is a proxy for ease mix and has problems associated with its use. Also like the service index, consideration of this factor is mandated and there are no acceptable alternatives available for use by the HCCB. 3. Percentage of Medicare inpatient days. 53. The HCCB has provided that "percentage Medicare days be considered in grouping hospitals. Consideration of this variable has not been shown to be arbitrary and capricious. 4. Average daily census. 53. The HCCB has provided that "average occupied beds" is to be considered in grouping hospitals. It does not appear that this variable's use was proper, as discussed, infra. 5. Geographic differences. The HCCB has provided that geographic differences be considered in grouping hospitals by providing for the inclusion of the Florida price level index, by county, and median income, by county, as variables to be considered. The only thing that the evidence established with regard to these variables was that they are not "very good" predictors, that "if" they are intended as a measure of input prices they are "poor substitutes," and that there may be "better" measures of the cost of doing business. The evidence does not, however, show that the use of these variables is arbitrary and capricious. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning geographic influences in part II, H of its proposed order. The proposed findings of fact begin on page 29 and end on page 33. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not made in this Final Order because they are not deemed relevant or material and are unnecessary to the resolution of this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact contained in part II, H of Mercy's proposed order purportedly show that the HCCB has inadequately accounted for geographic influences. The evidence does establish that the financial characteristics of Florida hospitals and GRAA are affected by the geographic location of a hospital. This is especially true in Florida because of the impact on parts of the State from tourism, language barriers, the number of elderly residents, the available labor markets, and competition. It is also true that the combined weights of the two geographic variables the HCCB has selected for consideration in the grouping methodology--the Florida price level index and median income--is only one-seventh of the combined weights of all the HCCB's variables. It is also true that the grouping methodology results in hospitals from different areas of the State being grouped together, i.e., Mercy's hospital group includes twenty- three hospitals, four of which are located in Dade County and three of which are located in Escambia County. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the HCCB has been arbitrary and capricious in designating only two variables to take into account geographic differences between hospitals. The evidence also does not support a conclusion that it was not proper for the HCCB to limit the weight of the geographic variables to one-seventh of the total weight of the variables. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the inclusion of hospitals from different areas of the State in the same group is not a proper result just because geographic influences are important. The fact that a large percentage of Dade County and south Florida hospitals do not qualify for automatic approval of their budgets under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), because they are in the upper 20th and the upper 50th to 79th percentiles does not necessarily prove that geographic influences have not been adequately accounted for either, as suggested be Mercy on page 30 of its proposed order. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. Nor does it necessarily follow that because Dade County hospitals are "efficient" in the minds of some of Mercy's witnesses and yet are unable to achieve automatic approval of their budgets that the grouping methodology does not adequately account for geographic influences, as suggested by Mercy on pages 30 and 31 of its proposed order. First, the Legislature has provided that factors other than geographic differences are to be considered, which the HCCB has provided for. It may therefore be that some Dade County hospitals do not achieve automatic approval of their budgets because of the other variables. The fact that not all Dade County hospitals fail to achieve automatic approval of their budgets supports such a conclusion. Also, even though a hospital's budget is not automatically approved it does not necessarily mean that it is considered inefficient. If that were the case, its budget would probably be subject automatically to amendment or disapproval. That is not the case. If a hospital's budget is not automatically approved its budget is subject to further review under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). It may still be determined that the hospital is "efficient" based upon this review. The Legislature, in enacting Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, did indicate that it intended to promote competition and efficiency among hospitals in order to contain hospital costs. Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology and, in particular, the comparison of hospitals' GRAA under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not alone achieve that intent. Therefore the opinion of several of Mercy's witnesses that Dade County hospitals and in particular, Mercy, are efficient does not support a conclusion that the methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic influences are not adequately considered. On pages 31 and 32 of its proposed order, Mercy suggests that Dade County hospitals only compete with other Dade County hospitals and therefore grouping hospitals from all sections of the State is illogical. In support of this suggestion, Mercy proposes findings of fact to the effect that the HCCB has recognized that consumers are interested in comparing hospital charges on a regional basis and has provided information about hospital cost on a county-by- county basis in the past. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not accepted for essentially the same reasons that its proposed findings of fact with regard to the efficiency of hospitals were rejected. These proposed findings of fact do not support a finding that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic differences have not been adequately taken into account. Mercy's has also proposed findings of fact with regard to geographic differences to the effect that after the Legislature specifically required that "geographic differences" be considered in an amendment to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1981), in 1982, the HCCB has not added any additional geographic factors to be considered. Although no additional geographic variables have been added, geographic variables have been reviewed and have been changed since 1982. More importantly, these proposed findings of fact do not prove that the existing variables are not adequate. 6. Case Mix. 66. Case mix is to be taken into account "when available." The evidence does not establish that case mix is available at this time. 7. Other variables. The HCCB is not limited to a consideration of the factors which the Legislature specifically provided are to be considered. Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The only other variable the HCCB has provided for consideration is "number of residents." No evidence of significance concerning this variable was presented at the hearing. There was testimony at the hearing that there are other variables which would be appropriate for consideration in grouping hospitals. The evidence does not, however, establish that failure to consider other variables means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman opined that he had determined that the variables selected by the HCCB were not appropriate. Dr. Zimmerman based his opinion upon the fact that he had conducted a "multiple regression analysis." According to Dr. Zimmerman, a "multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure used to evaluate the relationship of a given set of independent, predictor variables (the HCCB's seven variables) to a single dependent variable (GRAA)." Based upon his application of multiple regression analysis, Dr. Zimmerman concluded that three of the variables used in the HCCB's grouping methodology are not statistically significant predictors of GRAA: available services, average occupied beds and median income. Two of these variables (available services and average occupied beds) are required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to be taken into account in the grouping methodology. These Sections also require that geographic factors, which median income is, be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that median income must be included as a variable by the HCCB. Dr. Meeter testified that the statistical significance of the HCCB's variables can be determined by the use of "log transformation." Based upon Dr. Meeter's use of log transformation, median income and available services are statistically significant variables; average occupied beds is not statistically significant. Although the HCCB was required to include "average daily census" as a factor in grouping hospitals, the HCCB was not required to use "average occupied beds." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's and Dr. Meeter's testimony, the use of average occupied beds as a variable was not proper. Whether the use of available services and median income as variables was proper depends upon whether log transformation is a proper method of determining the statistical significance of variables. Although the evidence on this question was in conflict, it appears that the use of log transformation was proper. The inclusion of available services and median income is therefore not arbitrary and capricious. A second problem with the variables used by the HCCB suggested by Dr. Zimmerman involves the correlation between the seven predictor variables or "multicollinearity." The existence of multicollinearity can invalidate a clustering program. Dr. Zimmerman determined that the correlation between the physician mix, available services and average occupied beds variables and between the Florida price level index and median income variables is large enough that there is a "potential" problem. Dr. Zimmerman's determination that there is a "potential" problem was made through two techniques. He first used "paired correlation." Based upon paired correlation, Dr. Zimmerman used a "rule of thumb" that a paired correlation of 0.7 or higher should be looked at closer. Finding a paired correlation between physician mix, available services and average occupied beds of .74 and between the Florida price level index and median income of .71, Dr. Zimmerman then calculated "R squared" to determine if a potential problem did in fact exist. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that the calculation of R squared is the most highly recommended method of determining if multicollinearity is a problem but agreed there are other methods of making such a determination. Dr. Meeter indicated that Dr. Zimmerman's rule of thumb that based upon paired correlations of 0.7 or higher indicates the problem should be looked at more closely is too strict. Other than Dr. Zimmerman's "experience" (which according to Dr. Zimmerman, consisted of a class he took), Dr. Zimmerman did not cite any authority which supported his rule of thumb. The only other source Dr. Zimmerman referred to--the "SPSS" manual--only indicates that the .82-1.0 range indicates that extreme collinearity exists. Another problem raised by Dr. Meeter with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusions as to multicollinearity, involves the use of "variance inflation factors" (hereinafter referred to as VIF is another technique used by statisticians to determine if multicollinearity is a problem. Dr. Zimmerman did not look at VIF. VIF can be determined by transforming R squared: VIF 1/1- R2. A VIF in excess of 5 or 10 is an indication that multicollinearity exists. One source quoted by Dr. Meeter even indicates that a much higher VIF is necessary to conclude that multicollinerity exists. Transforming Dr. Zimmerman's R squared calculations indicates that VIF is in excess of 5 in only one instance. As discussed more fully, infra, Dr. Zimmerman used a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals which he designated as "Schemes." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's "Scheme 3," Dr. Zimmerman found an R squared value of .819. The VIF for an R squared value of .819 is in excess of 5. Scheme 3, however, is not an application of the HCCB's grouping methodology; it is a grouping methodology in which the variables are assigned different weights. As indicated by Dr. Meeter, the weights used in grouping can effect the correlation of the variables. Therefore, the fact that Scheme 3 indicates a possible multicollinearity problem does not prove that multicollinearity is in fact a problem with the HCCB's grouping methodology. Based upon the foregoing it is found that multicollinearity does not exist sufficiently to conclude that the variables used by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman only testified that there was a "potential" problem. Additionally, although multicollinearity may invalidate a clustering program, the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's clustering program is in fact invalid because of any existing "potential" problem. In light of the foregoing findings of fact, it is clear that the HCCB's variables are appropriate with the exception of average occupied beds. The fact that this one variable is not statistically significant, however, does not by itself support a finding that the grouping methodology is inappropriate. The Lack of Testing of the Grouping Methodology. A third point raised by Mercy is entitled "Lack of Testing" in its proposed order and includes several proposed findings of fact on pages 17 and 18 of Mercy's proposed order. Mercy has essentially proposed findings of fact that: (1) it had been recommended to the HCCB when it originally adopted its grouping methodology in 1980 that a statistician be hired to test the grouping methodology; (2) that the failure to do so had been criticized in the past; that it had been recommended that the HCCB obtain assistance of individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate the grouping process but had failed to do so; (4) that the HCCB had not, until just prior to the hearing of this case, hired a statistician; (5) that the HCCB has not used multiple regression analysis or within-cluster co- variance weighting; and, (6) that the State of Washington's State Hospital Commission has employed a statistician to test its methodology and has effectively been advised by individuals knowledgeable with Washington's hospital characteristics. These proposed findings of fact do not establish that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious even if they were all correct findings of fact. All that these proposed findings of fact show is that the HCCB may not have gone about the adoption of its grouping methodology in the most appropriate manner. Any such shortcomings, based upon 20/20 hindsight, in the manner in which the methodology was adopted do not prove that the grouping methodology itself is not appropriate. Additionally, the evidence does not support all of these proposed findings. In particular, as was discussed, supra, the HCCB did in fact look to individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate its grouping methodology. The Weight of the Variables. The most significant and troublesome challenge made by Mercy to the HCCB's grouping methodology involves the weights assigned to the variables considered in grouping hospitals. The weights assigned by the HCCB to the seven HCCB variables are: Variable Weight Endogenous: Average occupied beds. 1.0 Available services. 2.0 Physician mix. 0.5 Number of residents. 0.5 Percent Medicare days. 2.0 Exogenous: Florida price level index. 0.5 Personal income. 0.5 The determination of whether the weights selected by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon the evidence presented at the hearing by those witnesses knowledgeable in the field of statistics. Three witnesses were qualified as experts in statistically related fields. All three were well qualified in their fields and were credible and persuasive. According to Dr. Zimmerman, "the weights used currently by the HCCB are clearly inappropriate." In Mercy exhibit 17, Dr. Zimmerman reaches the following conclusion with regard to the HCCB's variable weights: These weights clearly do not reflect the relationship of the various variables to GRAA and thus appear as arbitrary and inappropriate for use in clustering hospitals on the basis of cost-related variables. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is based upon the use of "multiple regression analysis," which, according to Mercy exhibit 17, "assesses the relationship of each of the predictor variables to the dependent measure (GRAA)." The evidence, however, does not support a finding of fact that multiple regression analysis is the only statistically valid method of establishing weights to be used in clustering analysis. In fact, there are a number of statistically valid methods of establishing variable weights. One of those acceptable methods is the "subjective" method which was used by the HCCB. Doctors Meeter and Fox substantiated this finding of fact. The use of the subjective method involves the participation of individuals knowledgable in the Florida hospital industry in reviewing and commenting on the weights used. The evidence clearly supports a finding that individuals with such knowledge participated in the process of developing the HCCB's grouping methodology including the selection of variable weights. Even one of Mercy's witnesses provided testimony which supports this conclusion: Mr. Kenneth G. McGee testified that "[i] t was just a trial and error process of changing weights until we ended up with something that people considered more reasonable than what had been produced in the past." Mercy has questioned Dr. Meeter's testimony with regard to the use of the subjective method of weighting variables based upon a number of proposed findings of fact. First, Mercy has proposed findings of fact to the effect that Dr. Meeter indicated that the subjective method is "bad" if not carefully applied. What Dr. Meeter actually said was that any method should be applied carefully. Secondly, Mercy has proposed a finding of fact that in a book relied upon by Dr. Meeter in rendering his opinion about the subjective method--John Hardigan's 1975 book, Clustering Algorithms--the author describes the subjective method as an "unsatisfactory" one. What Dr. Meeter's testimony proves is that Hardigan's comment was a tongue- in-cheek comment that there are several appropriate methods of weighting variables all of which are unsatisfactory, including regression analysis (used by Dr. Zimmerman) and the subjective method (use by the HCCB). Dr. Meeter also relied upon other statistical literature in rendering his opinion as to the use of the subjective method in determining variable weights. Finally, Mercy has suggested that Dr. Meeter did not undertake any independent "statistical" analysis which would support his opinions. Based upon the nature of Dr. Meeter's testimony, it does not appear that such a statistical analysis is a prerequisite to concluding that the use of the subjective method is an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Mercy has proposed a finding that the subjective method of weighting is inappropriate based upon Dr. Zimmerman's testimony. Dr. Zimmerman was asked the following questions and gave the following responses concerning the subjective method: Q Now, in your understanding of how the Board arrived at its weights, is it your opinion that that is totally inappropriate methodology for clustering? Yes or no or maybe? A I am looking to counsel for counsel here. MR. PARKER: Do you understand the questions? THE WITNESS: I do understand the question. And let me give you my full answer as I best understand it. The weights -- and I think what I have commented on at great length -- the weights used by the Hospital Cost Containment Board are clearly on statistical grounds inappropriate. There's no question about that. BY MR. COLLETTE: Now, on these clustering grounds, you testified as to your familiarity with clustering grounds, on clustering grounds, are they totally inappropriate? A If the question is -- I wouldn't say that. Hearing that there is no objection, I will continue. I would rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as a final solution for cluster analysis. I think it might be one that would be considered at a very early step, but never used, as kind of a preliminary idea. However, I would clearly rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as something to be proud of and actually put into application. So, if that means yes to your question, I guess yes in that specific way. Dr. Zimmerman's responses are not totally clear with regard to whether the subjective method is, in his opinion, an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Nor would his response, if totally clear, overcome the weight of the evidence in support of a conclusion that the HCCB's method of determining variable weights is not arbitrary and capricious. Alternative Methods of Grouping Hospitals. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact under a section of its proposed order entitled "Alternative Variables and Weights Indicated by Statistical Analyses." Pages 22 to 29 of Mercy's proposed order. Some of the proposed findings included therein have been dealt with in other portions of this Final Order, including those findings of fact dealing with the use of multiple regression analysis and multicollinearity. In Dr. Zimmerman's report (Mercy exhibit 17) and during his testimony a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals were tested and evaluated. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that a number of these alternative methods would be preferable to the methodology adopted by the HCCB. Dr. Zimmerman tested twelve different methods (referred to as "Schemes" by Dr. Zimmerman): the HCCB's, the State of Washington's and ten other methods which used some or all of the seven variables designated by the HCCB. Scheme 3 used all seven variables selected by the HCCB but with different weights. Dr. Zimmerman rejected this scheme because of multicollinearity. In Scheme 4, Dr. Zimmerman used only the four variables which he found to be statistically significant: physician specialties mix, number of residents, percent Medicare days and the Florida price level index. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that this Scheme was not acceptable because of the statutory mandate as to the types of factors which must be taken into account. In order to recognize the requirement of Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that certain variables be taken into account and to alleviate the purported multicollinearity problem, Dr. Zimmerman combined the variables he considered highly correlated into two "scales." "Scale 1" combined physician specialties mix, available services and average occupied beds and "Scale 2" combined the Florida price level index and median income. The weights assigned to these scale were based upon the weights Dr. Zimmerman felt were more appropriate as discussed, supra. Dr. Zimmerman then used multiple regression analysis and a variety of combinations of variables and Scales in Schemes 6-12. Of these Schemes, Dr. Zimmerman testified that Schemes 6 and 10 were preferable, if Scheme 4 could not be used. Scheme 6 involved the use of all of the variables: percent Medicare days, number of residents and Scales 1 and 2. Scheme 10 involved the use of all of the variables except median income: percent Medicare days, number of residents, the Florida price level index and Scale 1. Dr. Zimmerman compared the results of using the HCCB's grouping methodology to the results from using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. The results showed that more Dade County hospitals had GRAA's, in comparison to the hospitals in the resulting groups under Schemes 3,4,6 and 10, which would result in automatic approval of their budgets than under the HCCB's methodology. Mercy's position within its group also improved as a result of using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. These proposed findings of and Mercy's proposed findings of fact concerning alternatives considered by Dr. Meeter do not prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. As found, supra, six of the seven variables selected by the HCCB are reasonable. The weights assigned to those variables have also been found to be reasonable and Mercy's suggested findings of fact with regard to multicollinearity have been rejected. Mercy has failed to prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, any alternative methods or Schemes and the results of using such methods cannot and do not overcome such findings. Conclusions. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the bases for the opinions that the HCCB's grouping methodology is inappropriate are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion, which was based upon a number of conclusions, was only supported by the fact that one of the variables selected by the HCCB is not proper. The evidence, however, does not support a finding that this fact alone means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is inappropriate. The facts do not support a conclusion that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the application of Respondent Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a East Pasco Medical Center for a certificate of need to add 24 acute care beds to its existing facility should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Seventh Day Adventist Church owns Respondent Advent-ist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. That corporation, which occupies a strong financial position, operates not-for-profit hospitals in several states, including Florida. One of the Florida hospitals is East Pasco Medical Center (East Pasco), located in Zephyrhills. Zephyrhills is in eastern Pasco County, which, for health planning purposes, is known as Subdistrict 2 of District 5. East Pasco is an 85-bed acute care hospital which provides most of the common services found in a community hospital. In addition to providing general acute care and obstetrics (OB), it has an intensive care unit (ICU) and offers neurosurgery and kidney dialysis services. East Pasco also has completed but not yet opened an 11-bed skilled nursing unit (SNU) and a 10-bed observation unit. The 11 beds in the SNU and the 10 beds in the observation unit are in addition to the 85 acute care beds for which East Pasco is licensed. For licensure purposes, acute care beds are not divided into types of service. East Pasco's current configuration for its 85 acute care beds is as follows: 68 medical-surgical beds, 8 ICU beds, and 9 OB beds. East Pasco has an active emergency room which experiences up to 30,000 visits per year. East Pasco obtains approximately 55 percent of its in-patient admissions through its emergency room. East Pasco is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Petitioner Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pasco (Humana) is an existing 120-bed acute care hospital in Dade City. It is situated approximately 10 minutes away from East Pasco. Humana provides the same services that East Pasco provides, including medical-surgical, ICU/CCU, OB, kidney dialysis, and neurosurgery. Like East Pasco, Humana is accredited by the JCAHO. However, Humana's accreditation is "with commendation", the highest rating given by the JCAHO. Like East Pasco, Humana has a large medical staff, primarily consisting of physicians who have their offices located in Zephyrhills or Dade City. The medical staff rosters of Humana and East Pasco are virtually identical. Dade City is also located in east Pasco County, and the primary service areas of Humana and East Pasco are virtually identical. Like East Pasco, Humana serves the Medicaid and indigent patient populations. In its fiscal year 1991, Humana provided 6 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In fiscal year 1992, that increased to 8.8 percent, the same as East Pasco. Humana's Medicaid patient days increased substantially with the introduction of OB services at Humana since Medicaid patients receive primarily OB services. East Pasco has been designated as a disproportionate share provider under the State's program to give economic incentives to hospitals serving a certain percentage of Medicaid patients. East Pasco also serves the indigent patient population pursuant to a contract between it and Pasco County. In September, 1991, East Pasco filed its application for a certificate of need (CON) requesting approval for 24 additional medical-surgical beds (acute care beds) for the July, 1996, planning horizon. In January, 1992, the Agency notified East Pasco of its intent to approve the application and issue to East Pasco CON No. 6783. Humana filed this challenge to the Agency's intent to grant the application, and this proceeding ensued. All parties subsequently stipulated that Humana has standing to initiate and maintain this proceeding and that Humana was not obligated to present evidence of its standing. East Pasco has proposed a new unit to house the 24 additional medical- surgical beds to be located on the third floor of a new three-story tower. That third floor would consist of 13,000 gross square feet (GSF), would cost $4,087,810, and would consist of only private rooms with three nurse stations. East Pasco proposes no new services, only additional beds. Construction of the three-story tower has not yet commenced but is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. The first floor of the new tower will be a wellness center, a project which did not require CON review. The second floor will house a new ICU. East Pasco presented conflicting evidence as to the size of that new ICU. The Agency approved East Pasco's second floor ICU as a 12-bed ICU with a cost below the threshold cost which would have required CON review. In spite of the exemption from review obtained by East Pasco, it is specifically found that East Pasco intends to place a 16-bed ICU on the second floor of the yet-to-be-constructed tower. Thus, East Pasco would achieve its 16-bed ICU by relocating its existing 8-bed ICU and converting other beds to ICU beds. Thus, if the 24 new beds sought are approved they will produce 16 additional medical-surgical beds and 8 additional ICU beds. Resolution of the number of beds proposed for the second floor of the new tower is required in this proceeding for two reasons. First, the cost of this project is impacted. If 8 of the new beds are to be used as ICU beds rather than as medical-surgical beds, they will be more expensive to construct and equip. Second, corporate approval of corporate projects is a prerequisite in Florida's CON process. East Pasco's Board of Directors met on August 14, 1991, to authorize the filing of this application. This application proposes 24 medical-surgical beds, the corporate resolution filed with the Agency authorized 24 acute care beds, but the minutes of the Board's meeting reflect that the Board itself approved 24 beds for ICU and PCU services. Although ICU, PCU, and medical-surgical beds are all acute care beds, they are constructed, equipped, and staffed differently. For the reasons described below, there is no need in District 5 or in the east Pasco County Subdistrict for East Pasco's proposed 24 additional medical-surgical beds. Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code, includes the numeric need methodology for projecting acute care bed need. Under that Rule, applications for acute care beds will "not normally" be approved unless there is numeric need. For the September, 1991, application batching cycle, the Agency published a fixed need of zero acute care beds needed in District 5, Subdistrict 2, which is composed of only East Pasco and Humana hospitals. This fixed and published need of zero was not challenged. Per paragraph (7)(d) of the Rule, additional acute care beds will "not normally" be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy is at or exceeds 75 percent. All parties agree that calendar year 1990 is the proper period to ascertain whether this standard is met. In 1990, the acute care bed occupancy rate in the Subdistrict was 55.33 percent. The parties agree that the Rule's occupancy standard is not met. Therefore, no additional beds should normally be approved. There is ample unused capacity in District 5 and in the Subdistrict to meet acute care demand. Humana's occupancy is well below 50 percent. In years and 2 for the proposed unit, East Pasco projects 1,042 and 1,760 patient days, respectively. Humana has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate that projected demand. Utilization trends support the lack of need shown by the need methodology and the occupancy standard. Acute care utilization in the Subdistrict has decreased since 1986. In 1986, the two Subdistrict hospitals generated 42,830 patient days, a 57.2 percent occupancy. In 1991, notwithstanding population growth in the Subdistrict, the two Subdistrict hospitals generated 41,756 patient days, a 55.8 percent occupancy. Clearly, then, there is no increased demand for acute care services, but only a reshuffling of market share between the two hospitals. Contrary to East Pasco's suggestion, first quarter utilization does not show need and has, in fact, been decreasing. For example, the first quarter (January-March) of 1986 generated 13,572 patient days in the Subdistrict, a 73.6 percent occupancy; in the first quarter of 1992, there were 12,482 patient days, a 66.9 percent occupancy, the lowest first quarter utilization in the last 6 years in the Subdistrict. Additionally, the average length of stay (ALOS) in the Subdistrict continues to decline. In the first quarter of 1991, the ALOS was 5.4 days; in the first quarter of 1992, the ALOS was 5.1 days. Accordingly, although East Pasco shows an increased number of admissions over the last several years, the continued decline in the ALOS has resulted in a decreasing number of patient days. The population growth in the Subdistrict is not so substantial as to demonstrate need. Humana relied upon population projections produced by a national firm specializing in demographic analyses. Such a population data source is generally more reliable than a county's own projections, relied upon by East Pasco. The Subdistrict is growing but not at an extraordinary pace. In comparison, the West Pasco Subdistrict is growing faster. There are no geographic access problems to receiving acute care services which would support a finding of need. There are many hospitals available and accessible to residents of the Subdistrict within 30 minutes travel time or less. The entire Subdistrict is within a 30-minute travel time of Humana and of East Pasco. Most of the Subdistrict is also within 30 minutes travel time to other acute care hospitals, including University Community Hospital in Tampa, Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Lakeland, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City. The Zephyrhills area in particular is within 30 minutes travel time to those other facilities. Humana is an available alternative to the proposed project. Humana is geographically accessible to the entire Subdistrict, provides all the services that East Pasco provides, and provides good quality of care. Humana's medical staff roster includes the same physicians that practice at East Pasco. Humana already serves the same geographic service area that East Pasco serves. Indeed, several East Pasco witnesses testified that patients are transferred to Humana when East Pasco is full, thereby acknowledging Humana as an alternative for Subdistrict residents. Hospitals situated outside the Subdistrict are also available and appropriate alternatives to the proposed project. These hospitals have unused capacity to accommodate the projected demand from the Subdistrict. Notably, residents of the Subdistrict have historically greatly utilized hospitals located outside the Subdistrict. In 1990, 63.7 percent of the Subdistrict's residents went to a hospital other than Humana or East Pasco. Thus, physicians and residents regard hospitals situated outside the Subdistrict as appropriate and viable alternatives. Since East Pasco does not propose to offer any new service, and since there is accessible unused capacity at Humana and these other facilities, there are better alternatives to adding new beds at East Pasco. In addition, although approving more beds at East Pasco would improve availability of services at East Pasco, such is not a planning consideration or a review criterion. East Pasco and Humana provide similar levels of Medicaid care. In calendar year 1991, Medicaid comprised 8.8 percent of all patient days at East Pasco, less than in 1990. From September, 1991, to August, 1992, 8.8 percent of all patient days at Humana were Medicaid days. The two hospitals also provide similar amounts of indigent care. Therefore, Humana is economically accessible to all residents of the Subdistrict. Facilities located outside the Subdistrict also are economically accessible. Physician preferences are not significant in formulating conclusions of need on a District or Subdistrict basis. Physicians may well have their own reasons for doing things which may be contrary to sound health care planning principles. Further, physicians' personal preferences are not relevant to ascertaining how existing resources can be best and most efficiently used. The acute care bed Rule provides that additional beds "may" be approved at a specific facility if its occupancy exceeds 75 percent even though no beds can be authorized pursuant to the mathematical calculations established by the Rule. While East Pasco achieved an occupancy rate of 78.78 percent in calendar year 1990, that statistic merely "opens the door" for an evaluation of whether there are compelling circumstances to justify the approval of beds at a specific facility despite the absence of need demonstrated by the acute bed methodology. There are no factors or circumstances which would justify the approval of 24 additional medical-surgical beds at East Pasco pursuant to the specific facility provision. First, there are accessible and available alternatives for meeting projected demand. The majority of east Pasco County residents outmigrate even when beds are available at East Pasco. There is an excess capacity in the Subdistrict and in the District. Second, East Pasco's application discusses seasonal overcrowding due, in large part, to using in-patient beds for "observation" patients. Observation patients are those with a hospital stay of less than 24 hours. East Pasco has recently completed a new 10-bed observation unit. In 1991, East Pasco averaged observation patients per day; therefore, this new 10-bed unit will ease the strain on East Pasco's in-patient beds. Third, East Pasco's application relies on the "overflow" of patients in the winter season to justify its proposed bed addition. The actual amount of "overflow" is reflected in East Pasco's transfer log, which shows that there were not that many patients transferred in 1991. In fact, there were several months in which there were zero transfers. Fourth, the proposed beds are only intended to handle "seasonal" population demands. The proposed unit would not be open year-round. East Pasco was below 75 percent occupancy from May to October, 1991. East Pasco acknowledges that the proposed beds are only for part of the year and are intended to accommodate the demands of the seasonal population, who are not necessarily residents of the Subdistrict. East Pasco's application in reality requests approval for adding 24 beds at a cost of over $4,000,000 to accommodate, by East Pasco's own projections, an average daily census of three patients the first year and five patients the second year in a unit that would be closed at least six months out of each year. That is an excessive expenditure to provide access to relatively few people, where access to nearby facilities exists. Although East Pasco has shown that on certain days it has exceeded its OB capacity, and although East Pasco maintains that its most common capacity problem is the lack of available ICU beds, East Pasco's application itself does not suggest that it intends to increase the number of OB or ICU beds. Further, although on certain days East Pasco has experienced over 100 percent occupancy and has placed patients in the hallways, that situation can be obviated by referring patients to other hospitals, and the situation will be alleviated when East Pasco soon opens its additional 10-bed observation unit and 11-bed SNU. East Pasco has, therefore, shown that it has an occupancy rate sufficient to entitle it to review despite the lack of need under the acute care bed Rule, but it has shown no other reasons why its application should be approved. The Florida State Health Plan includes various preferences for reviewing CON applications. On balance, the East Pasco application is not consistent with that Plan. The first group of preferences relates to the addition of hospital beds. The first item in that group provides that no additional beds should generally be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy is at or exceeds 75 percent or unless the applicant-facility is at 80 percent. Since calendar year 1990 data was used to calculate the need formula and Subdistrict occupancy standard, it is appropriate to use that same data to determine East Pasco's occupancy for evaluating this preference, rather than using two different time periods as the Agency did. In 1990, the Subdistrict was below 75 percent, and East Pasco's occupancy was below 80 percent. Therefore, this preference is not met. The second item under this group provides that "in the event that acute care bed need is shown", preference shall be given to an applicant who provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent services in the Subdistrict. This preference is not met since no "acute care bed need is shown". The next group of preferences is entitled "transfer and conversion of acute care beds". Because East Pasco does not propose to transfer or convert acute care beds, East Pasco does not satisfy any of the preferences included under this grouping. The next group of preferences is entitled "indigent care". The first item provides that preference shall be given to an applicant who provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care in relation to other hospitals in the District or Subdistrict. This preference is not met. Although East Pasco has historically provided more Medicaid and indigent care than Humana, there is no showing that East Pasco will provide disproportionately more Medicaid and indigent care for medical-surgical services specifically. Most of East Pasco's Medicaid participation is for OB and newborn services, not medical- surgical services. Both Humana and East Pasco provide less than 1 percent of their gross revenues for indigent care. Given that most of the Subdistrict population is elderly, indigent care is not a major issue. Also, it was stipulated that East Pasco does not know how much indigent care it provides for medical-surgical services only. The second item under this group relates to whether CON approval would negatively affect the financial viability of a disproportionate share hospital. This preference is not relevant to East Pasco's application. The third group of preferences is entitled "emergency services". The first item relates to the applicant's record of accepting indigent patients for emergency care. East Pasco presented no information on this in its application except for its proof that it has a contractual obligation to do so. The second item relates to whether the facility/applicant is a trauma center. East Pasco is not a designated trauma center. The third item relates to whether the applicant demonstrates a full range of emergency services. East Pasco did not address this in its application. The fourth item addresses whether the facility has ever been fined by HRS for violations of emergency services statutes. East Pasco did not address this item in its application. Therefore, East Pasco does not meet the preferences in this group. The fourth group of preferences is entitled "teaching, research, and referral hospitals". The application does not address these particular preferences, and East Pasco does not hold itself out as a teaching, research or referral hospital. Therefore, East Pasco does not satisfy the items under this grouping. The fifth group of preferences is entitled "specialized services". East Pasco does not propose to provide any specialized services and, therefore, items under this grouping are not satisfied. The District 5 Local Health Plan includes recommendations for reviewing CON applications. On balance, the East Pasco application does not satisfy that plan. The first preference relates to whether the applicant provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care. For the reasons indicated above regarding the State Health Plan, this preference is not met. Further, East Pasco's application does not suggest that the 24 medical-surgical beds sought will enhance its Medicaid or indigent participation. The second recommendation provides that "if a numeric bed need exists as shown by the state bed methodology", preference is given to an applicant who has generated certain occupancy levels. Because no numeric bed need was shown per the Rule methodology, this recommendation is not met. The third recommendation relates to the transfer of existing acute care beds. Because East Pasco does not propose a transfer of beds, its application is not consistent with this recommendation. The fourth recommendation gives preference to applicants who document the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of their project. East Pasco does not satisfy this preference. East Pasco failed to show any cost efficiencies for its project. East Pasco proposes to spend over $4 million to serve, on the average, 3 to 5 patients per day in years 1 and 2. That is cost-inefficient. East Pasco did not prove that the charges or costs of providing medical-surgical services would be any less than what it currently charges. East Pasco's application includes two pro formas: a hospital-wide pro forma and an incremental pro forma for the proposed 24-bed unit. The person who prepared those pro formas did not testify, and the person who did testify did not participate in preparing the pro formas. Further, the witness only testified to the reasonableness of the incremental pro forma; he did not testify, directly or indirectly, regarding the hospital-wide pro forma. An incremental pro forma alone does not demonstrate long-term financial feasibility, even if the incremental pro forma were reasonable. An incremental pro forma alone does not reflect the project as a whole. At East Pasco, there are several projects and activities on-going or planned that must be evaluated. In addition to the existing 85 beds, East Pasco has underway: (1) opening a 10-bed observation unit; (2) opening an 11-bed SNU; (3) a planned wellness center on the first floor of the proposed 3-story tower; and (4) the planned relocation and enlargement of its ICU to the second floor of the proposed tower. Those projects add expenses, put strains on cash, and require debt. Without considering all the activity at the hospital, one cannot reasonably ascertain whether the proposed $4.1 Million third-floor project is financially feasible. For example, a small project could show an incremental profit but the hospital as a whole could lose money. East Pasco simply assumes that its 24-bed unit will be financially feasible in 1994 and 1995, years 1 and 2 of the project. The health care field is too dynamic and volatile for such assumptions. For example, East Pasco had an operating loss in 1990 but did well in 1991. By not analyzing the hospital-wide pro forma and proving its reasonableness, East Pasco did not show the required financial feasibility. It only demonstrated the results of one component of an entire operation. East Pasco has left unanswered the question of whether the facility as a whole will be able to finance this project in conjunction with all its other requirements. Further, the application lacked sufficient and clear presentation of the assumptions underlying the hospital-wide pro forma. Restated, the hospital-wide pro forma is not self-explanatory. The incremental pro forma, showing the proposed revenues and expenses for the 24-bed medical-surgical unit for years 1994 and 1995, is not reasonable. The projected revenues are overstated, and the projected expenses are understated. The assumptions underlying the financial projections are unreasonable. Further, the profit projections are unrealistic; in year two, East Pasco projects a profit of about $615,000 on an average daily census of less than 5 patients per day. On its face, that is unrealistic. In 1991, East Pasco generated 24,517 patient days, which was virtually the same as its 1990 utilization. In 1993, East Pasco projects 26,220 days. In year 1 of this project (1994), East Pasco projects 27,262 days hospital-wide, including the 1,042 incremental days associated with this project. Thus, in just a 3-year period, East Pasco projects almost 3,000 additional patient days, and even more for year 2 (1995). It is not reasonable to assume such an increase in utilization since utilization during the first quarter of 1992 declined from first quarter 1991. Therefore, patient day projections are overstated, thereby causing overstated projected gross revenue. East Pasco's projected daily charge is based on the hospital-wide average charge. It is not based on historical charges for medical-surgical services specifically. It is unreasonable to use charges for hospital services as a whole when the proposed project is for medical-surgical services only. Because the underlying assumption is invalid, projected revenues lack credibility. In calculating deductions from gross revenues, East Pasco assumed the hospital-wide payor mix and did not specifically ascertain the payor mix (and, therefore, the deductions) for medical-surgical services specifically. Again, this is an unreasonable assumption. Deductions from gross revenue should have been analyzed for medical-surgical services specifically. Due to the invalid assumption, the deductions from revenue figures lack credibility. East Pasco projects 5.8 FTEs for year 1 and 6.0 FTEs for year 2. East Pasco proposes to operate the 24-bed unit as an independent unit. These staffing levels are insufficient. East Pasco's proposed utilization equates to a 4.8 average daily census, which requires two nurses at all times. By East Pasco's admission, to staff a unit with two persons at all times throughout the year requires 9.2 paid nursing FTEs in addition to ward clerks and other support personnel. If the volume fluctuated and the census exceeded 7 or 8, more than two nurses would be needed. Thus, the 5.8 and the 6.0 FTE numbers are too low. The proposed staffing does not allow one RN to be on the floor at all times. To maintain one RN on the floor at all times throughout the year requires 4.2 FTEs; East Pasco budgeted for one. East Pasco does not have excess RNs available from its existing staff to cover the proposed addition. The supplies expense shown on the incremental pro forma was based on a hospital-wide average. The proposed project is for a specific service, and one cannot reasonably use a hospital-wide average instead. Accordingly, the calculation of expense for supplies is not reasonable. The pro forma includes an expense item entitled "other". East Pasco offered no explanation for that expense. Also, the pro forma did not include a line-item for the HCCCB indigent care tax, which is 1.5 percent of net revenue. East Pasco's proposed 24-bed medical-surgical unit will cover 13,000 GSF and will cost more than $4.1 million. All rooms will be private. The unit will have three nurse stations. According to East Pasco, the unit is to be a basic medical-surgical floor and is not intended to be a progressive care unit (PCU). This proposed design is not reasonable and is excessively large by at least 30 percent. This design is inefficient and, in reality, is not the design of a basic medical-surgical unit, but is instead the design of a PCU. There are three main reasons why the design is excessive. First, it is not necessary or reasonable to have all private rooms. A regular medical- surgical unit should have about an equal split of semi-private rooms. Notably, East Pasco's new 11-bed SNU has 5 private and 3 semi-private rooms for patients who will require hospitalization for up to 90 days. Second, these private rooms are almost twice the minimum size required by state licensure regulations. Third, three nurse stations are unnecessary; only one nurse station is needed for a basic 24-bed medial-surgical unit. East Pasco currently has 68 medical- surgical beds on 2 units, and each such unit has only 1 nurse station. The existing 68 medical-surgical beds at East Pasco average about 360 GSF per bed. The proposed 24 beds will average 542 GSF per bed. All private rooms and 3 nurse stations are, clearly, the design for a PCU. A PCU is a step- down unit from an ICU, which has high staff-to-patient ratios thereby requiring more nurse stations. East Pasco's projected construction cost for the 24-bed medical- surgical unit is $142.91 per GSF. This is unreasonably understated. It is uncontroverted that an SNU is less costly to construct than a medical-surgical unit. According to its projections, East Pasco's 11-bed SNU cost $171 per GSF in 1992. Clearly, that SNU cost is substantially greater than East Pasco's projected construction cost at issue. This inconsistency was never explained by competent evidence. In evaluating East Pasco's estimates, the Agency's architect relied upon 1991 Means construction cost data. He averaged the Means' medium figure ($123 per GSF) with the high figure ($172 per GSF) to derive a 1991 estimate of $147.50 per GSF. To that, one must add a 10 percent contingency factor, inflation, and an architectural fee. That totals $187.69 per GSF. The $187.69 projected figure is consistent with the 1992 SNU cost figure of $171. Thus, for construction costs alone, East Pasco underestimated by $44.77 per square foot, which is about $582,000. East Pasco proposed to construct a three-story tower; the third floor will house the proposed 24 medical-surgical beds. The second floor will house a 16-bed ICU, comprised of relocating the existing 8 ICU beds and converting 8 other acute care beds. East Pasco's application project costs only cover the third floor; East Pasco maintains the second floor is exempt from CON review and thus its cost is not relevant. As described below, East Pasco unreasonably failed to include costs of the second floor in its application. A hospital project costing $1,000,000 or more (other than an out- patient project) requires CON review. In its letter for exemption East Pasco states that the second floor would contain 12 ICU beds and cost $975,000 (calculated by multiplying 6,500 GSF by $150/foot). That letter is erroneous for several reasons: (1) the $150/foot is in 1992 dollars and does not include inflation; (2) the $150/foot does not include a 10 percent construction contingency fee, which is necessary and reasonable; (3) the $150/foot does not include an 8.4 percent architectural/engineering fee, which is necessary and reasonable; and (4) the $150/foot does not include any debt or financing fee. Including these necessary amounts alone shows that the second floor, in truth, exceeds the $1,000,000 threshold. Also, the cost for equipping an ICU bed is $45,000 per bed; for 16 beds, that is $720,000 for equipment. Surely the size and cost of a 16-bed ICU is different from and greater than a 12-bed ICU. East Pasco stated in its exemption request letter that the second floor would have 12 beds even though East Pasco intends 16 beds. East Pasco and the Agency correctly argue that the exemption given to East Pasco by the Agency for its second-floor ICU project is not part of the instant application and cannot be considered in this proceeding. However, the accuracy and reasonableness of the costs projected by East Pasco attendant to the 24 additional beds it seeks are an integral part of this proceeding, as is the scope of the project being reviewed and challenged. The second and third floor projects are, in truth, one project. It is East Pasco's intention to add 16 medical-surgical beds and 8 ICU beds to its facility. To establish the 16-bed ICU unit, East Pasco needs additional acute care beds; East Pasco does not have 8 available beds among its existing bed complement to convert to ICU purposes. The OB beds often run at 100 percent occupancy and, during the peak season, the medical-surgical beds run high occupancy. Thus, East Pasco cannot fully implement the second floor without approval of the proposed 24 new beds. There will be no community benefits in terms of charges if this application is approved. "Net revenues" must be the basis for comparing charges between facilities. Net revenues refers to what third party payors (such as Medicare, Medicaid, HMO/PPOs and most insurors) actually pay for hospital services as opposed to what hospitals charge. Few patients ever pay gross charges, particularly in the elderly East Pasco Subdistrict. In 1991, Humana's average net revenue per day was lower than East Pasco's. Humana's actual net revenue per admission in its fiscal year 1992 was $4,180. East Pasco's projected 1992 net revenue per admission is $5,301. Thus, for 1992, third party payors paid, on behalf of their patients, less per admission at Humana than at East Pasco. In its application, East Pasco projects an 8 percent per year increase in charges. An annual increase of 8 percent is not promoting charge-efficiency. East Pasco's application did not demonstrate cost-efficiencies resulting from approval, but rather, cost-inefficiencies. First, Humana would lose patient volume should East Pasco be approved. Humana currently receives transfers and direct admissions when East Pasco is full. Loss of patient volume would increase operating costs per patient day at Humana. Second, there is no need for additional beds in the Subdistrict. There is already excess capacity in the Subdistrict. Exacerbating excess capacity promotes cost-inefficiency. East Pasco admits the unit will not even be open six months out of the year because there is no need for it then. Third, East Pasco projects very low census in years 1 and 2, about 3 patients per day in year 1 and less than 5 patients per day in year 2. Spending over $4,000,000 to accommodate such low utilization is inefficient and unreasonable. Approval of East Pasco's application would not promote positive competition. There is competition now in the Subdistrict between Humana and East Pasco. East Pasco already captures a larger market share of the Subdistrict than Humana. Approving this application would only tip the scales more in favor of East Pasco and would adversely impact Humana's already poor financial condition. The quality of care delivered at Humana is very good. The JCAHO rates all acute care hospitals, and its rating is widely recognized in the hospital industry. The JCAHO evaluates many factors and components of a hospital. Humana is accredited "with commendation", the highest rating given. Only 5-6 percent of all acute care hospital in the country receive that highest ranking. Humana maintains a good utilization management program. Humana implements an excellent quality improvement plan, including soliciting and reviewing patient satisfaction comments. Mortality statistics cannot, by themselves, meaningfully measure the quality of care delivered at a hospital. Although the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) produces such a report for Medicare patients, the report itself represents that it is not intended to measure quality of care, and the American Hospital Association does not view HCFA mortality statistics as a measure of quality of care. There are many factors which influence mortality statistics at a hospital and, even more importantly, mortality is only one clinical outcome resulting from a hospital admission. When East Pasco is full, there is no medical problem or complication resulting from transferring patients to Humana or from directly admitting patients at Humana. There is no diminution of care or loss of continuity of care in transferring to or directly admitting to Humana. Emergency medical services are available in the Subdistrict, and, therefore, transfer is not a problem. Also, driving to Humana or to a hospital outside the Subdistrict is neither a problem nor an unusual circumstance. The large seasonal population drive to Florida in the winter, and, therefore, it is a mobile patient population. Most of its residents seeking hospital services receive them outside the Subdistrict. Subdistrict residents currently leave the Subdistrict to receive a variety of hospital services, including: in-patient cardiac cath, open heart surgery, Level II NICU, psychiatric services, substance abuse services, and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Thus, there is no merit to the suggestion that transferring patients from East Pasco to Humana or elsewhere is problematic. There would not be community benefits regarding Medicaid/indigent care by approving this application. As indicated, for all hospital services, Humana and East Pasco provide similar amounts of Medicaid and indigent care, although indigent care at both facilities is relatively insignificant. Therefore, access to Medicaid and indigent care does not provide a basis for approving East Pasco's application. Also, East Pasco's payor mix in its application was based on hospital-wide averages. East Pasco has not shown the amount of Medicaid or indigent care which would be specifically provided to, or which is needed for, medical-surgical patients. Finally, East Pasco's Policy and Procedure Manual includes several provisions requiring deposits upon in-patient admission absent verification of third party payor coverage. Such provisions are inconsistent with the proposition that East Pasco accepts all patients regardless of ability to pay. In Florida, an application for a CON must include a certified copy of an authorizing resolution of the applicant's Board of Directors. East Pasco included its corporate resolution in its CON application, that resolution being adopted at an August 14, 1991, meeting. That resolution clearly states, among other things, authorization to file an application for up to 24 additional acute care beds. The minutes of that meeting clearly reflect the Board's approval for 24 beds for ICU and PCU. The application itself requests approval of 24 medical-surgical beds. PCU, ICU, and medical-surgical beds are all types of acute care beds. Accordingly, East Pasco did file a proper corporate resolution consistent with the minutes and consistent with the application. The minutes and the application, however, are inconsistent. Although the corporation resolution is technically correct and fulfills the requirements for a CON application, the inconsistency among the corporate resolution, the minutes, and the application raised questions about the actual intent of East Pasco. The intent became more questionable during the final hearing when East Pasco's witnesses contradicted each other as to the number of beds to be placed in the to-be-constructed ICU on the second floor of the to-be-constructed 3-story tower. It is clear that the Agency only approved the construction of a 12-bed ICU on the second floor. It is also clear that East Pasco in fact intends to construct a 16-bed ICU on that second floor. It is also clear that East Pasco intends to construct a "medical-surgical" unit on the third floor in accordance with a design for a PCU. While the corporate resolution technically complies with the requirements for a CON application, the questionable nature of its accuracy, when considered in conjunction with the conflicting evidence of the scope of this project, raises concern as to East Pasco's projections regarding revenue, expenses, staffing, and the actual services to be made available in the Subdistrict. The lack of clarity as to East Pasco's proposal is a compelling reason to deny East Pasco's application. East Pasco's occupancy rate is quite high. It is higher even during the "peak season," i.e., November through April. The projections contained in East Pasco's application are based upon the historic high occupancy rate experienced at East Pasco. Those projections, however, do not take into account, nor did the Agency consider in reviewing East Pasco's application, the fact that East Pasco now has more than the 85 beds which formed the basis for its historic occupancy rate and its projections related to this project. Construction has been completed on the 10-bed observation unit and the 11-bed SNU. East Pasco already has an expanded capacity in place which should alleviate some of its occupancy problems. For example, East Pasco has experienced an increased number of out-patient observation days. With its new observation unit, the beds previously used for observation days are now available for in-patients which, in turn, will likely alleviate East Pasco's most common capacity problem-the lack of available ICU beds. Similarly, the SNU beds will also be available for in-patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying East Pasco's application for Certificate of Need No. 6783. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1497 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-32, 34-82, and 84-96 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 83 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 33 and 97 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 8, 13, 14, 27, 28, 31-33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, and 90 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 20, 21, 34, 45, 52, 54, 56-58, 68, 71, 73, 82, and 89 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or a conclusion of law. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 9, 19, 26, 48, 59, 61, 62, and 64 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 46 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12, 15-18, 22-25, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 50, 53, 55, 60, 63, 65-67, 69, 70, 72, 74-81, 83-88, and 91-93 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 16- 18, 20, 22-24, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 62, 63, 66-69, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89, 118, 119, 131, 135, 140, 174, 178-180, and 192 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 15, 25, 26, 55, 56, 70, 83, 90, 92, 94, 95, 100, 121, 127-129, 145, 146, 163, 164, 171-173, 176, 177, 184-189, 191, and 194 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 19, 87, and 88 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 21, 30, 31, 33-36, 39, 41, 51, 61, 86, 96-98, 102, 103, 105, and 154 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. East Pasco's proposed finding of fact numbered 84 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 27-29, 32, 42-44, 47, 49, 50, 52-54, 57-60, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74-77, 80, 91, 93, 99, 101, 104, 106-117, 120, 122-126, 130, 132-134, 136-139, 141-144, 147-153, 155-162, 165-170, 175, 181-183, 190, and 193 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen, Lewis, Goldman & Metz Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Darrell White, Esquire William Wiley, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones 215 South Monroe Street Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
