The Issue Whether the applications for certificate of need numbers 8380, 8381, 8382 and 8383, filed by Petitioners RHA/Florida Operations, Inc., Care First, Inc., Home Health Integrated Health Services of Florida, Inc., ("IHS of Florida,") and Putnam Home Health Services, Inc., meet, on balance, the statutory and rule criteria required for approval?
Findings Of Fact Care First The Proposal Care First, the holder of a non-Medicare-certified home health agency license, was established in March of 1996. Owned by Mr. Freddie L. Franklin, Care First is the successor to another non-Medicare-certified home health agency also owned by Mr. Franklin: D. G. Anthony Home Health Agency ("D. G. Anthony"). Established in May of 1995, D. G. Anthony provided over 10,000 visits in its first 10 months of operation mostly in Leon and Wakulla Counties, pursuant to a contract with Calhoun-Liberty Hospital Association, Inc. Very few of the 10,000 patients were referred to D. G. Anthony by Calhoun-Liberty; they became D. G. Anthony's patients through community-based networks, including physicians, created through the efforts of Mr. Franklin and D. G. Anthony itself. D. G. Anthony was dissolved in 1996. Both its patient census and its staff of 45 were absorbed by Care First. D. G. Anthony's contract with Calhoun-Liberty was substantially assumed by Care First so that it provided service to Medicare patients as Calhoun-Liberty's subcontractor. From the point of view of the federal government, the Medicare patients served by Care First were Calhoun-Liberty's patients, even those who had not been referred to Care First by Calhoun Liberty and who had been referred from other community sources. Care First, therefore, was simply a sub- contractor providing the services on Calhoun-Liberty's behalf. The contract was terminated effective December 1, 1996. Calhoun-Liberty was free to terminate Care First with 30 days notice, a peril that motivated Mr. Franklin to seek the CON applied for in this proceeding. With the termination of the contract, Care First ceased serving Medicare patients, "because Mr. Franklin did not want to enter into another subcontractor arrangement because of all the issues and problems," (Tr. 934,) associated with such an arrangement. Mr. Franklin is involved with nursing homes as the administrator at Miracle Hill Nursing Home in Tallahassee. He is an owner of Wakulla Manor Nursing Home in Wakulla County, and he owns a 24 bed CLF, Greenlin Villa, also in Wakulla County. Miracle Hill has the highest Medicaid utilization of any nursing home in District 2. Both Miracle Hill and Wakulla Manor are superior rated facilities. On the strength of Mr. Franklin's extensive experience with community-based organizations and health care services, as well as Care First's succession to D. G. Anthony and other historical information and data. Care First decided to proceed with its application. In the application, Care First proposes to establish a home health agency that, at first, will serve primarily Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty and Wakulla Counties. It plans to expand into Madison and Taylor Counties in its second year of operation. Five of these eight counties have high levels of poverty; six of the eight are very rural, with the population spread widely throughout the county. Ninety-six percent of Care First's patients are over age Minority owned, approximately 65% of the patients are members of minorities. Many of the patients live in rural areas and are Medicaid recipients or are uninsured low income persons who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford home health care. Since it will be serving the same patient base as a Medicare-certified agency, Care First has committed to the provision of 7% of its visits to Medicaid patients and 1% of its visits to patients requiring charity/uncompensated care. Care First projects 18,080 visits in its first year and 29,070 in its second year. Care First will promote efficiency through the use of a case management approach. Each patient will be assigned a case manager who will act as the patient advocate to provide care required and to identify and assist the patient with access to other "quality of life" enhancing services. Care First proposes an appropriate mix of services, including skilled nursing, physical therapy, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, home health aide services and social services. Care First estimates its total project cost at $25,808. Of this amount, $2,000 is indicated as "start-up cost", with nothing allocated to salaries. Care First indicates no "capital projects" other than its proposal for the home health agency in District 2. Care First's proposal would be funded from a $60,000 bank line of credit. Projected Utilization Potential patients will be able to gain access to Care First through several avenues, including physician referral, hospital referral, nursing home discharge, assisted living referrals from community agencies and organizations such as Big Bend Hospice and through private referral. In addition, there are several natural linkages to the community for Care First. Wakulla Manor and Miracle nursing facilities offer Care First's services to discharged residents in need. Very often, residents and families choose Mr. Franklin's agency because they are familiar with him, staff or the quality of care provided. Residents of Greenlin Villa, owned by Mr. Franklin, frequently chose Care First when in need of home health agency services. Mr. Franklin's civic, church, and community involvement is impressive. He is president of the Florida Health Care Association, chairman of the board of the Tallahassee Urban League, superintendent of the Wakulla County Union Church Group, and serves on the advisory board for the Allied Health Department for Florida A&M University. In the past, he has served on the Board of Trustees of Tallahassee Community College. He was accepted as an expert in long-term care administration in this proceeding based in part on his service on the Governor's Long Term Care Commission. Miracle Hill has held a "Superior" licensure rating for the last ten consecutive years. It is the highest rating awarded by the AHCA licensure office and is intended to blazon the high quality of care provided by the facility. Although reported through Calhoun-Liberty, very few of D. Anthony's and Care First's past referrals have been generated through that affiliation. Rather, they have come through community contacts and getting the referrals from "talking with physicians," (Tr. 922), in Tallahassee and the surrounding areas, many of whom Mr. Franklin has gotten to know through his post as Administrator of Miracle Hill Nursing Home. By far, it is through physician referrals that Care First receives most of its patients. Care First's physician referral list includes 47 doctors who referred patients to D. G. Anthony since May, 1995. These doctors practice in urban areas and some have rural clinic offices which they staff on certain days of the week. Physicians are willing to refer patients to Care First because of the quality of care which has been provided by Care First, as well as the reputation of its owners. The Care First application included letters of support from eight physicians who have referred patients to Care First in the past and state that they will continue to support Care First with referrals in the future. Among the letters included are those from Dr. Earl Britt, a practitioner of internal medicine and cardiology in Tallahassee, and Dr. Joseph Webster, who practices internal medicine and gastroenterolgy in Tallahassee. Many of the patients of these two physicians are elderly. Dr. Britt's patients often have chronic hypertension or heart disease, are diabetic or suffer strokes. These two physicians provided over half the total number of patient referrals to D.B. Anthony and Care First. Dr. Britt and Dr. Webster established through testimony that Freddie Franklin and Care First have an excellent reputation for provision of quality of care and enjoy significant support among physicians within the service area. Moreover, Dr. Britt, although based in Tallahassee, stressed the importance of Care First's proven ability to provide home health services in the rural setting both from the standpoint of understanding the needs of the rural patient and from being able to travel over rural terrain in order to deliver services. (Tr. 1151, 1152, 1154). Approximately 11,500 visits were performed by D. G. Anthony staff from the period of May 1995, through April 1996, before they became the staff of Care First. Since the agency has established a presence in the district and has physician and other referral mechanisms in place, it is reasonable to project that Care First will continue to grow and will experience between 18,000 and 20,000 visits in its first year and 28,000 to 31,000 visits in year two as a Medicare-certified home health agency. These projections stem from the historical and very recent monthly growth of D. G. Anthony, as well as demand it is experiencing from Franklin and Jefferson Counties, two counties it does not serve regularly at present but plans to serve regularly in the future. The reasonableness of Care First's projections is bolstered by the conservative number of visits per patient the projections assume, 35, when typically Medicare-certified agencies average at least 35 visits and as many as 60 visits per patient. Care First's utilization projections are reasonable. It enjoys an excellent reputation for quality of care and ability to deliver services. Together with its predecessor, D. G. Anthony, it has a proven track record and has benefited from a referral network that remains in place. These factors, together with the conservative assumptions upon which its projected utilization is based demonstrate that its projected utilization is reasonable. Financial Feasibility of Care First The total project cost for the Care First agency is projected to be $25,808. The majority of the costs are reasonable for this type of health care project. The majority of the project development costs, the application fee and much of the cost of the consultant and legal fees, have already been paid by Care First. Care First's Schedule 2 was prepared in conformance with the requirements of the agency and accurately lists all anticipated capital projects of Care First. The necessary funding for the Care First project will come from Care First's existing $60,000 line of credit with Premier Bank, in Tallahassee. This method of funding the project is reasonable, appropriate, and adequate. Care First has demonstrated the short term financial feasibility of its project. Care First's schedule 6 presents the anticipated staffing requirements for its home health agency. The staffing projections are based upon the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, taking into consideration the projected start-up and utilization of the agency. The projected salaries are based upon current wages being paid to Care First employees, adjusted for future inflation. Care First's schedule 6 assumptions and projections are reasonable, and adequate for the provision of high quality care. The staffing proposed by Care First is sufficient to provide an RN or an LPN and an aide in each of the eight counties Care First proposes to serve in District 2. Care First's schedule 7 includes the payor mix assumptions and projected revenue for the first two years of operation. Medicare reimburses for home health agency services based upon the allowable cost for providing services, with certain caps. The Care First revenues by payor type were based upon the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, as well as the preparation of an actual Medicare cost report. The Care First payor mix assumptions and revenue assumptions are reasonable. Care First's projection of operating expenses in Schedule 8A is also based on the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, as modified for the mix of services to be offered and the projected staffing requirements. The use of historical data to project future expenses adds credibility to the projections. Care First's projected expenses for the project are reasonable. The Care First application presents a reasonable projection of the revenues and expenses likely to be experienced by the project. Care First has reasonably projected a profit of $8,315 for the first two year of operation. Care First's proposal is financially feasible in the long term. As the result of its community contacts, Care First has been offered the use of donated office space in Franklin, Jefferson, Wakulla, and Gadsden counties. The use of donated office space will decrease the cost of establishing a physical presence and providing services in those counties since Care First will not have a lease cost for a business office and a place to keep supplies. Quality of Care Through the experience of D. G. Anthony, Care First has identified the particular needs of the community it served. This experience has been carried over into Care First's provision of services. In the 9 months of Care First's existence at the time of hearing, it provided quality of care. Its predecessor, D. G. Anthony, also provided quality of care. While Care First's experience is relatively limited, there is no reason to expect, based on the experience of both Care First and its predecessor D. G. Anthony, that quality of care will not continue should its application be granted. IHS of Florida The Application IHS of Florida is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated Health Services, Inc. ("IHS") formed for the specific purpose of filing CON applications. IHS operates other home health agencies under other subsidiary names. Pernille Ostberg is a senior vice president of the Eastern Home Care Division of Symphony Home Care Services, Integrated Health Services. In that capacity she oversees nearly 195 operations in six states, including Florida. Her operations include home health agencies, durable and medical equipment distributions, and infusion therapy offered by pharmacists. Under Ms. Ostberg's guidance, IHS has grown to its current roster of 195 agencies in only three years, from a beginning of only five agencies. IHS first acquired Central Park Lodges, primarily a nursing home company which also owned five home health agencies. Once these agencies became Medicare certified, IHS made a corporate decision to acquire additional Medicare certified home health agencies. Beginning approximately three years ago, IHS undertook a series of acquisitions which included Central Health Services, Care Team, ProCare/ProMed, and Partners Home Health. More recently, IHS has acquired the Signature Home Health and Century Home Health Companies. And, immediately prior to the final hearing in this matter, IHS acquired First American Home Health Care, making IHS the fourth largest provider of home health services in America. Of all the home health agencies overseen by IHS, 95% are Medicare certified, and 62-63 are located in Florida. IHS now has a presence in all districts except District 1 and 2. IHS personnel also have extensive experience in starting up new home health agencies. IHS personnel have opened over 40 locations across the United States. IHS employees have extensive experience bringing new home health agencies through successful surveys by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO") recommendations. Of 18 branches personally taken through initial survey by IHS's Pernille Ostberg, none were recommended to change their operations and none were cited for a deficiency. IHS has recently opened, licensed, and certified new home health agencies in AHCA Service District 5, 6, and 10. They have also received licensure in District 7, 8, and 11. Based on the extensive expensive of IHS personnel, a start up home health agency typically experiences 8,000 - 15,000 visits per first year. Opening a new program requires two months for licensure. It will require a registered nurse for three months to make certain all manuals are in place and that quality personnel are recruited. After achieving licensure, one must wait for a certification survey, which may take as long as six months. The three IHS home health agencies that became certified recently have experienced 200 visits in the first month, a good sign of growth. IHS' umbrella organization for home health organizations is Symphony. Most of their home health companies retained their original names. Other IHS home health companies include ProCare, Central Health Services, Partners Home Health, Nurse Registry, and First American. IHS of Florida has applied for applications in other districts. This applicant filed applications in District 7, 8 and 10 and each were approved. IHS of Florida's CON application number 8382 was prepared by Patti Greenberg with the significant input of IHS and IHS of Florida's operational experts. Ms. Greenberg has prepared 75-100 CON applications, 20-25 of which sought approval for Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies. Each of these prior applications had been approved or otherwise reached settlement before litigation. The Proposed Project Once the needs analysis was complete, IHS examined geographic issues within the 14 county district. IHS examined where the populations required home health agencies and what niche of the market IHS could expect to achieve. Projected visits were determined by examining month by month, how this agency would grow. This projected utilization was subdivided among sub-visit types. Existing IHS home health agencies visit mix (skilled nursing as opposed to home health aide or therapy visits) was used to estimate skill type of the projected total volume. The projected utilization was also subdivided by payor class. This payor class projection was derived specifically for District 2, its poverty levels and its managed care penetration. In the aggregate, IHS projects 7,650 visits in year one and 17,100 visits in year two. This projection is reasonable and achievable. Witnesses for the Agency agreed that IHS of Florida's projected number of visits was "definitely attainable". Past and Proposed Service to Medicaid Patients and for Medically Indigent The payor class analysis allowed IHS to conclude it should condition its approval of its application under the performance of 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. The balance of the population served by an IHS Medicare Certified Home Health agency would be covered by Medicare. The condition is important as it is a requirement which, if not achieved, will subject IHS of Florida to fines and penalties by the agency. Improved Accessibility The applicant will improve the efficacy, appropriateness, accessibility, effectiveness and efficiency of home health services in District 2 if approved. IHS of Florida will provide good quality of care, should its application be granted. Quality of Care Through competitive forces, the applicant's approval will also improve the quality of care offered by home health agencies in District 2. The approval of IHS of Florida's application will also comply with the need evidenced by the extent of utilization of like and existing services in District 2. Economies from Joint Operations Certain economies derived from the operation of joint projects are achieved by IHS of Florida's proposal. IHS has a home office and corporate umbrella which oversees all of its operations for home health services. This master office offers economies of sale by sharing resources across a wide array of home health agencies in Florida and other states. Thus, the incremental expense for corporate overhead is reduced as compared to a free-standing home health agency. Additionally, this national oversight provides better economies to provide the most recent policies and procedures, billing systems, and other systems of business operation. Financial Feasibility IHS of Florida has the resources to accomplish the proposed project. As demonstrated on schedule 1, and schedule 3 of IHS exhibit 1, the budget for the project is only $144,000. This budget includes all appropriate equipment for both the initial and satellite offices. Budgeted amounts include all required lease expenses, equipment costs and even start-up costs such as salaries for the recruitment of training and staff prior to opening. In total, $52,000 of pre-opening expenses are projected, which is reasonable. IHS of Florida filed applications for other home health agency start-ups in three different districts. The applicant had more than $180,000 in cash on hand and an additional $226,000 assured from a commitment letter from IHS which was also contained in the application. A letter of commitment from Mark Levine, a director and executive vice president of IHS, indicated IHS will provide $250,000 in capital for this specific project. Additionally, IHS will provide up to $1 million in working capital loan to assure no cash flow problems ever arise. A similar letter of commitment appears in each of the CON applications which IHS of Florida has filed. IHS has committed to fund each of the CON applications applied for by IHS of Florida. Each of these letters of commitment for the various CON applications sought by this applicant are on file with the AHCA. In total, the applicant projects $600,000 in capital commitments assured. IHS' balance sheet, reveals access to $60 million in cash and cash equivalent. The record clearly demonstrates an ability of IHS to fund all capital contributions required by the applicant. The current assets of IHS approximate $240 million. In addition to having cash in the bank, IHS is a growing concern and is, in fact, a Fortune 500 company that is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. IHS generates revenues which exceed its annual expenses. In the last year, IHS derived $30 million more than it experienced in expenses. The application is financially feasible in the short- term. IHS' application is also feasible in the long-term. IHS of Florida's utilization projections are reasonable. Budgeted staffing and salaries are reasonable. The cost limit calculation and reimbursement calculation by payor source, which is provided in great detail in Schedule 5 of IHS of Florida's application, is reasonable. Projected expenses associated with this project were reasonably calculated based on the actual experience of other IHS Home Health operations. The reasonableness of these costs are also demonstrated when compared with the cost per visit by existing agencies in District 2. In fact, IHS of Florida predicted it would be a lower cost provider than the expected cost of existing agencies at the time IHS of Florida's operations would begin. IHS of Florida's proposal will have a healthy, competitive effect on the cost of providing services by other providers. Putnam The Proposal Putnam proposes to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency with its primary office located in Bay County. Bay County was selected as the primary office based upon the locations of existing and approved agencies in District 2, the aggregate utilization of each, and the number of individuals aged 65 and over distributed among the existing District 2 counties and agencies. Mr. Alan Anderson is Putnam's sole stockholder, Director, and President. Under the ownership and administration of Alan Anderson, Putnam has provided Medicare-certified home health services in AHCA District 3 continuously since 1986. Mr. Anderson is also the sole owner, director, and president of Anderson Home Health, Inc., a Medicare-certified home health agency serving AHCA District 4 since 1992. Anderson Home Health's CON was obtained by Putnam through the same process undertaken by the prospective applicants in this proceeding. Putnam's District 3 agency has successfully served District 3 residents since 1986 at first through its Palatka office, then growing to its current size of four offices. In District 4, Anderson Home Health, Inc. has also experienced successful operations having grown from its principal office in Duval County to a total of four offices. Putnam's District 3 home health agency began with the original office located in Palatka, followed by offices opened in Gainesville, Ocala and Crystal River. Anderson Home Health, Inc.'s District 4 operation began with the original office located in Jacksonville; the second office was opened in Daytona Beach, followed by the opening of the third office in Orange Park; and the fourth office was opened in Macclenny. Putnam's District 3 agency is JCAHO accredited "with commendation." As part of CON application No. 8383, Putnam has agreed to certain conditions upon award. First, the proposed project will locate its primary office in Bay County. Putnam also conditions its approval with the provision that 0.25% of its admissions will be persons infected with the HIV virus. Four percent of its patients will be Medicaid or indigent patients. Finally, Putnam has conditioned its approval upon the provision of various special programs such as high tech home health services, a volunteer program, and the establishment of a rural health care clinic. History or Commitment to Provide Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients For Medicare reimbursement purposes, Putnam proposes to maintain a Medicare-only agency and private sister agency which provides services to non-Medicare patients. The private sister agency will provide service to the Medicaid and indigent patients. The costs of providing services to these non-paying or partial paying patients will be absorbed by the agency as a contribution to the community. The establishment of a private sister agency to handle the non-Medicare patients is common in the home health industry. As a condition in the application, Putnam will accept up to 3.0% Medicaid patients. Although it stated in its application that it would accept between .5%-1.0% indigent patients, its conditioning of the application on 4.0% Medicaid and indigent patients would necessitate that it accept at least 1.0% indigent (if not more, should the Medicaid patients fall below 3%) in order to meet the 4.0% Medicaid and indigent care condition. The percentages proposed by Putnam are consistent with the statewide average (approximately 95% Medicare) and the District average (approximately 92.1% Medicare). Bay County's average of Medicare patients is approximately 96.4% Medicare. To meet the 4.0% Medicaid and indigent condition, Putnam's average of Medicare patients might have to be less than the Bay County average but not by much. Certainly, meeting the condition is achievable. The agency's position is that Putnam's Medicaid/indigent commitment is not a ground for denial of the application. Quality of Care Putnam has continuously owned and operated a licensed Medicare-certified home health agency in District 3 since 1986 and has been JCAHO accredited with commendation status since 1994. In an effort to continuously provide quality care, Putnam has developed a comprehensive set of policies and procedures to guide its staff, its physicians, volunteers, patients, as well as patients families. No evidence was presented to suggest that Putnam does not have a history or ability to provide quality care. Availability of Resources, Including Health Manpower, Management Personnel and Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures Putnam has provided Medicare-certified home health service to the residents of District 3 for ten years. Putnam will be able to share its existing personnel and operations expertise with the proposed District 2 agency. Administrative, Managerial, and Operational Personnel Putnam intends to utilize existing administrative personnel in the start up and overall operation of the proposed agency. These management personnel include the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Data Processing Director, Director of Volunteers, Personnel Director. These experienced personnel will be available to provide valuable management support to the proposed agency. The proposed agency will be operated by an administrator who will report directly to Putnam's CEO, Alan Anderson. The agency's administrator will be actively involved in budget preparation, physician relations, community education, and preparation for regulatory agency surveys. The proposed agency will rely upon the demonstrated experience of key personnel in its initiation. Ms. Nora Rowsey, experienced in the start-up phases of home health agencies, will personally supervise and implement the start up phase of the proposed District 2 agency. Putnam intends to hire individuals to work within the proposed agency who already have experience in the provision of the necessary services. Current employees of Putnam's as well as contract personnel of the District 3 agency have indicated a willingness to provide services in Bay County once the application is approve. Funding and Capital Resources Putnam projects the total costs of initiating the proposed agency to be approximately $70,000. Putnam has simultaneously applied for two other Medicare-certified home health agencies, in Districts 6 and 7. Each of these projects area also projected to cost approximately $70,000. Putnam, therefore, has projected costs associated with all three projects of approximately $210,000. Additionally, there is a $10,000 contingency cost related to the District 3 offices bringing the total expenditure for all capital projects of $220,000. Putnam's application includes two letters from First Union National Bank of Florida which substantiate that there are funds on hand to finance all of Putnam's capital expenditures, including the District 2 proposed agency. As of April 18, 1996, Putnam's bank account had a twelve month average balance of $245,949.02. As of April 18, 1996 the accounts of both Putnam and Anderson Home Care Inc., had a combined twelve month average balance of $676,656.93. The evidence established that these funds exist and are available for all proposed capital projects. In the two years prior to hearing, Putnam showed sound management, significant growth, and a strong financial position. It continues to do so. In an interoffice memorandum dated May 28, 1996, from Roger L. Bell to Richard Kelly, Health Services and Facilities Consultant, Putnams' financial position was described as follows: The current ratio of .62 indicates the current assets are not adequate to cover short term liabilities. The long term debt to equity and equity to assets ratios are very weak. This, along with the negative equity make a weak financial position. The profit margin at .1% is also very weak, and raises some concern with the applicant's ability to cover operating expenses . Putnam Ex. No. 4. This criticism was answered by Putnam. The agency may not have considered certain factors applicable to a predominantly Medicare-reimbursed home health agency. Putnam's current liabilities are payable in a longer term than the receivables are collectible. Furthermore, with provision of 98% Medicare services, which is solely cost reimbursed, there remains only two percent of the operation left to make a profit. A .1% profit from the small amount of insurance and private pay patients indicated financial health. Putnam, moreover, is a viable operation because of its historical success, its knowledge of the industry, its expansion to six locations, its growth in staff, and its growth in patient visits. Putnam has the resources available to provide the necessary administrative, managerial, and operational manpower needed by the proposed home health agency. AHCA's financial criticisms are unfounded; Putnam has on hand the capital necessary for the accomplishment of the proposed project. Putnam has the experience and know-how to make the proposed project work in District 2's rural areas. Financial Feasibility Putnam has the resources to implement this project if approved. Putnam has the same capability that existed when three offices were opened during the period from April 1992 through February 1993, and the same resources when four offices were opened in 1995. In every instance, the new offices were started up with cash on hand from operation. Mr. Anderson, Putnam's President and sole shareholder and director, testified that he spends much time in the financial area of the operations. As of November 29, 1996, after deducting all accounts payable, Putnam has a cash balance of approximately $390,000. Anderson Home Health, Inc. had a balance of approximately $425,000. Mr. Anderson testified that the First Union letters in the application at pages 231 and 232 were correct and that Putnam is in even better shape now than when the letters were written. Putnam is financially feasible in the short term. AHCA contends Putnam's project is not financially feasible in the long term because the projected visits stay the same in the second year and because it does not project a profit in year two of operation. This fails to take into account Putnam's performance over the past ten years which, as the agency conceded at hearing, is an important consideration . Mr. Anderson purchased Putnam in 1986. At that time the agency had a single office in Palatka doing 4,000 visits. Following Mr. Anderson's purchase of the agency it had grown to over 55,000 visits and close to a hundred employees. After the success experienced by Mr. Anderson in Palatka, Putnam filed a CON application for District 4, with a proposed principle site in Jacksonville. The District 4 CON was approved by the agency--without any concerns for financial feasibility nor with any concerns for Putnam's cash flows. Without having any experience or referral sources in Jacksonville, Putnam began doing approximately 7,000 visits. The number of visits jumped to 45,000 in the second fiscal year, 123,000 in the third fiscal year, and as of September 30, 1996 the Jacksonville office performed 158,000 visits. Aside from the extraordinary growth experienced in the Palatka and Jacksonville offices, already discussed, Putnam has opened rural offices also doing very well. The Macclenny office in rural Baker County had over 15,000 visits in the first twelve months and is currently averaging over 1800 visits. The Crystal River office in rural Citrus County made over 12,000 visits in its first year and is currently doing approximately 1400 visits a month. Every new office opened by Putnam or Anderson Home Health since 1991 has been break even or better. Putnam has a proven track record for the successful and profitable operation of new Medicare-certified home health agencies. Putnam's project is financially feasible in the long term. Utilization Projections The application sets forth reasonable utilization projections. Based on Putnam's utilization in the past, there is no reason to believe the projections set forth in the application are or unreasonable or will not be achieved. Impact on Costs Putnam is a high tech provider of home health services and will provide some services not currently available or available only in a limited number of agencies. The impact of approval of Putnam's application on costs in the District will be minimal due to the reimbursement issues associated with Medicare which is cost based. RHA A Not-for-Profit Corporation in District II RHA is not-for-profit corporation whose purpose is to provide a continuum of care to the community. All profits are returned to its nursing homes or agencies as a way of continuing to build the programs. RHA owns two nursing homes in AHCA District II; Riverchase Care Center in Gadsden County and Brynwood Center in Jefferson County. If approved, RHA is proposing to locate its Medicare certified home health agency in existing space within the Riverchase and Brynwood nursing facilities. Both of these facilities are managed and operated by HealthPrime, Inc., a company which operates approximately 40 facilities in 13 states. While RHA is technically the owner and therefore applicant for this CON, HealthPrime would operate the proposed Medicare certified home health agency within the nursing homes. RHA's home health agency would have two offices. The office located in the Riverchase facility would serve Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Gulf, Wakulla, Jackson, Calhoun, Washington, Holmes and Bay Counties. The office located in the Brynwood facility would serve Leon, Jefferson, Madison and Taylor Counties. Financial Feasibility The only questions raised by AHCA concerning RHA's financial feasibility went to the ability of RHA to fund this project in conjunction with other CON projects listed on Schedule 2 of its CON application. The largest project on Schedule 2 of RHA's application was a CON application for a 20 bed addition to Riverchase Care Center. At hearing it was determined that since the filing of the instant home health CON application, the 20 bed application had been withdrawn, was no longer viable, and was not being pursued by RHA. Once AHCA's financial expert learned that the 20 bed addition to the Riverchase Care Center had been administratively withdrawn and that its costs should therefore no longer appear on Schedule 2, questions about the financial feasibility of the project were resolved. RHA's project was shown to be financially feasible in the short term based upon the financing commitment of HealthPrime. RHA proved that its assumptions and projections made in its financial analysis are reasonable. These assumptions were based on actual experience in the operation of similar skilled nursing facility based home health agencies, as well as prior experience of other home health agencies in their first two years of operation. RHA's proposed project shows a net income in years one and two and is financially feasible in both the short and long term. Availability and Access of Services To the extent that the number of people needing home health care will increase in the future, there is need for new providers of home health services to provide such availability and access. RHA's willingness to condition its application on service to AIDS, indigent and Medicaid patients can only improve the availability and access to services in the district. In addition, RHA's approval to provide nursing home based home health services is unique to the provision of home health services in District II. Efficiency RHA's proposal, which would place its home health agency within its nursing homes, is unique among the applicants in this proceeding. Such an arrangement provides not only an efficient continuum of care to the patients, it also provides efficiencies and cost savings in the sharing of resources. RHA's proposed project is cost effective because it utilizes existing space and equipment in its nursing homes. Skilled nursing home based Medicare certified home health agencies are specifically recognized by the Federal Medicare program in their cost reports. Home health reports are filed as a part of the nursing home cost report and there is an allocation of the nursing home's cost to the home health agency. This benefits both the provider and the Medicare program through cost savings. RHA's cost per visit to the Medicare program of $48 will be substantially less than the District II average of $66 per visit projected for the time RHA will be operational under the applied- for CON. RHA's proposed project will have no impact on its costs of providing other health care services. Appropriateness and Adequacy RHA proposes to provide the entire range of home health services throughout the district. Given the project need in the planning horizon, RHA's proposal is more than adequate to meet the demand for such services. Quality of Care An applicant's ability to provide quality care is another important factor in statutory and rule criteria. RHA and HealthPrime have shown, through operation of their nursing homes in Florida, all of which have superior ratings, that they have the ability to provide quality health care. In addition, HealthPrime, which will actually operate the home health agency, has experience operating four other nursing home based home health agencies. HealthPrime will utilize its quality assurance programs already in place in its other home health agencies and will seek JCAHO accreditation of this proposed agency. By combining a home health agency with its existing nursing homes, RHA will improve the case management of its patients by providing vertical integration of its services in a continuum of care. Such continuum of care provides a stability in personnel and providers that are working with the patient. Economies and Improvements from Joint or Shared Services As previously discussed, RHA's unique proposal to operate a nursing home based home health agency not only offers a continuum of care for the patient, it also provides fiscal economies to the agency as well as the Medicare program. Resource Availability Based on RHA's experience of hiring personnel for its existing nursing homes in the district, there will be no problem in hiring sufficient personnel for RHA's agency. Fostering Competition The addition of other Medicare certified home health agencies in a district consisting of 10 counties and only 23 providers will promote increased competition and more options for patients. Findings Applicable to All Four Applicants No Fixed Need Pool The agency has no rule methodology to determine the need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The agency's most recent home health need methodology was invalidated in Principal Nursing vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 93-5711RX, reversed in part, 650 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). There is, therefore, no numeric need determination, or "fixed need pool", established by the agency applicable in this proceeding. District 2 AHCA District 2 is composed of 14 counties. The applicants propose to concentrate their service in various, different parts of the district. Local and State Health Plan Preferences District 2 Health Plan Services to Medicaid and Medically Indigent The first preference under the District 2 Health Plan provides a preference to applicants with a history of providing services to Medicaid or medically indigent patients or commitment to provide such services in the future. Mr. Franklin of Care First has such a history. He is an owner of Wakulla Manor, which had a Medicaid occupancy rate of 88.09% for the period of July-December, and the administrator of Miracle Hill Nursing Home which had a Medicaid occupancy rate of 95.74% for the same period. In the face of such a record, Care First’s commitment of 7% Medicaid and 1% uncompensated/charity patients might seem to pale. But it is a significant commitment, given the nature of the home health agency business, and one upon which Care First agrees its application should be conditioned. IHS conditioned its application on 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. Putnam conditioned its application on an “Indigent and Medicaid participation equal[ling] 4.0%.” Putnam Ex. No. 1, pg. 51. Putnam, moreover, proposes a Medicare-only agency. Establishment of a private sister agency, a practice common in the home health care industry, will allow Putnam to provide service to the Medicaid and indigent patients separate from its Medicare-only agency. RHA has provided a high percentage of Medicaid/charity days at its Riverchase facility (92.10%) and at its Brynwood facility (90.24%). In addition, RHA is willing to condition its CON on the provision of a minimum of 1% of annual visits to indigent care and 5% to Medicaid. Service to Unserved Counties. Preference 2 states that “[p]reference should be given to any home health services CON applicant seeking to provide home health care services in any county within the District which is not presently served by a home health agency.” There are no counties within District 2 that are not presently served by a home health agency. Service Through a County Public Health Unit Preference 3 states that “[p]reference should be given to a home health services CON applicant seeking to develop home health care services to be provided through a county public health unit in the district in order to more adequately serve the elderly and medically indigent patients who are isolated or unable to travel to permanent health care sites." Of the four applicants, only IHS of Florida’s application is conditioned on working with public health units. IHS has experience working with public health units, working with them currently in Martin County, Manatee County and Broward County. Nonetheless, IHS of Florida will not be providing its services “through” a public health unit. Public Marketing Program Preference 4 states, “[p]reference should be given to a home health services applicant who has a history of providing, or will commit to provide, a public marketing program for services which included pamphlets, public service announcements, and various other community awareness activities. These commitments should be included on the granted CON as a condition of that CON.” Care First currently markets its services to the community and commits to a public marketing program in the future as a condition of its CON. IHS of Florida committed to performing at least one community awareness activity per calendar quarter as a condition of its application. It also indicated, moreover, that it would work to develop public service announcements and marketing programs with the help of public health units or any other appropriate vehicle. The latter indication, however, was not made a condition of the application. Putnam provides educational services to the community, its employees, patients and patients’ families, including the provision of pamphlets, and presenting audio and video tapes as appropriate to the patient and their families. Putnam, however, did not condition its application on a commitment to a public marketing program or commit to such a program in any other way in its application. RHA stated it would accept a condition on its CON to provide a public marketing program for services, including pamphlets, public service announcements and other community awareness activities. It did not reflect such a condition on the “Conditions” page of the application, but, given its statement that it would accept such a condition, there is nothing to prevent the agency from imposing such a condition should it grant RHA’s application. Access Requirements Preference 5 is, “[p]reference should be given to a home health services CON applicant who agrees, as a condition of the CON, to meet the following access requirements for each county in which services are provided: 1) 24 hour local telephone call (or toll-free) contact. 2) 24 hour call/response capability. 3) Maximum on one (1) hour response time following call. Care First currently meets the requirements of Preference 5 in the counties in which it now provides services, and has committed to continue to meet these requirements as a Medicare certified home health agency in all counties in which it will provide services. Care First has made as conditions of its CON, provision for 24-hour accessibility by answering service and installation of a toll-free access line and maintenance of a log of calls during the hours the agency is closed, including documenting of response time to each call. IHS of Florida conditioned grant of its CON on a 30 minute response time, and 24-hour phone availability on a toll-free hot line. Putnam presently provides the services in this preference in its District 3 Medicare certified home health agency and agrees to meet this preference within 90 days of initiating services. It did not, however, make a commitment to meet this preference on the “conditions,” page of its application. There is nothing to prevent the agency from making Putnam’s CON, if granted, conditional upon compliance with this preference. RHA has agreed to have its CON conditioned to meet the access requirements of Preference 5. 2. State Health Plan Service to Patients with AIDS The first preference under the State Health Plan is that “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients.” All four applicants are committed to serving AIDS patients. Full Range of Services. Preference 2 of the State Health Plan is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless these services are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area." There are currently 11 hospital-based Medicare certified home health agencies in District 2. Several of them provide the high tech services which are sometimes needed by discharged hospital patients. Very few referrals for high tech care have been received by D. G. Anthony or Care First since May, 1995, and there is no indication such services are not available in District 2. Care First has identified, however, an unmet need for the pediatric and pre-hospice home health agency services and has conditioned its application on the provision of those services to the community. IHS of Florida proposes, among other high tech services, infusion therapies, pain management therapies and chemotherapy. There is no evidence, however, that these therapies are not available in District 2. The same is true of Putnam as to the high tech therapies it proposes to provide. There is no evidence that they are not available in District 2. Although RHA indicated in its application that it intended to provide the entire range of services that a home health agency can provide, again, there is not evidence that they are not available in District 2. Disproportionate Share Provider History Preference 3 is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant with a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients in comparison with other providers within the same AHCA service district and proposing to serve such patients within its market area." Care First, having been formed in March, 1996, did not have a history of providing Medicaid and indigent patients. Care First has committed to 7% of its visits to Medicaid patients, well above the average of existing District 2 agencies of 2-3% Medicaid. Care First has committed to 1% of its visits to charity/uncompensated care. IHS of Florida has committed to 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. Like Care First, IHS of Florida, as a newly formed corporation, does not have a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid/indigent care patients. Putnam’s commitment is 3% to Medicaid and 1% to charity care. This commitment will be met through its sister home health agency and not the Medicare-certified home health agency for which the CON is sought. RHA has committed to set aside 5% total annual visits to Medicaid patients and 1% of annual visits to indigent care. It has a history of providing a disproportionate share of services to Medicaid patients at its two skilled nursing facilities in District 2, Riverchase Care Center in Quincy and Brynwood Center in Monticello. Underserved Counties Preference 4 is [p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve counties which are underserved by existing home health agencies. The rural areas of District 2 are traditionally underserved. Putnam will serve Bay County, an underserved county; the three other applicants will serve rural areas of more than one county in District 2. Consumer Survey Data Preference 5 is "[p]reference shall be given to an applicant who makes a commitment to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring patient satisfaction." Care First has committed to providing such data to the agency. IHS of Florida will maintain a data base of results of patient satisfaction surveys and make them available to the agency, just as it already does. Putnam will make available to the agency the results of surveys similar to surveys measuring patient satisfaction Putnam has already developed. Putnam has conditioned its application on providing these surveys to the agencies as well as surveys measuring physician satisfaction. RHA has cited on its “Conditions” page, “. . . (it) will provide the Agency for Health Care Administration with consumer survey data.” Quality Assurance Program and Accreditation The State Health Plan’s Sixth Preference is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality-assurance program and proposing to be accredited by either the National League for Nursing or the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations." Care First included in its application a copy of its Quality Assurance Program which has been in use since May, 1995. The program meets the state and federal licensure and certification requirement and the stringent requirements of JCAHO. Moreover, Care First has conditioned its application upon JCAHO accreditation. IHS of Florida submitted documentation regarding its Quality Assurance Program through initiatives such as Total Quality Management and Continuous Quality Improvement. It will seek accreditation from JCAHO within one year of receiving its CON. Putnam, an existing home health agency in District 3 since 1986, has over the years developed and refined a comprehensive quality assurance program which is above the industry standard. The District 3 agency, using its quality assurance program, has attained its JCAHO accreditation “with commendation,” a distinction received by less than 4% of all applicants. Putnam will seek accreditation from JCAHO for its District 2 operation within one year of receiving its CON. RHA is willing to condition its CON on the provision of a comprehensive quality assurance program and accreditation by the JCAHO. Need 1. Numeric Need Since there is no published fixed need pool applicable to this proceeding, the parties, other than the agency, developed their own methodologies for determining numeric need. Each of the methodologies employed by the parties was reasonable. After taking note of the statistics for actual patient visit growth in District 2 from 1991 to 1994, Michael Schwartz began with a conservative number of 60,000 new patient visits per year, a number half of the growth for the lowest growth year of that time period. Multiplying that number times the three horizon years of 1994-97 equals 180,000 new patient visits from 1994 which yields a need for 5.2 agencies. The reasonableness of numeric need in excess of four is supported by other factors. After the filing of the four applications at issue in this proceeding, there are two fewer Medicare-certified home health agencies with certificates of need in District 2. At the same time, home health care visits have been on the increase not only in the district as discussed, above, but in the state as well. Statewide, home health care visits grew from 18 million to 22 million between 1991 and 1994. The utilization of home health care agencies is increasing because of population growth and an increase in the number of visits per patient. The amount of time spent by patients in the hospital is decreasing. The decrease translates into increased need by patients for visits from home health agencies. The need for home health is going to continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. From 1991 to 1994, the number of home health visits more than doubled: from 369,396 to 869,893. This trend continued in 1995. The recent significant growth in the utilization of home health agencies in District 2 is expected to continue. The growth is attributable not only to a population increase in the district but to increase in the use rate for home health agency services as well. The growth in use rates can be explained, in part, by the increase in the senior population (65 and older) and the pressure exerted by managed care for earlier hospital discharges and home health agency services as a viable alternative in some cases to inpatient treatment. The senior population in District 2 is reasonably expected to grow approximately 8% in the five years after 1996, with 15% growth expected reasonably in the 75 to 84 year old population and even higher growth, 25%, in the population over 84 years old. 2. Other Indications of Need Local physicians have experienced difficulty arranging for the existing home health agencies to provide services to patients located in remote areas of District 2. Specialized groups, such as AIDS patients, would, in all likelihood, benefit from additional home health agencies in District 2. Furthermore, a study conducted by IHS of Florida showed that the district has an unusually high rate of diabetes and in four counties has a diabetes death rate 100% greater than the statewide average. Well Springs home health agency is one of the two Medicare-certified home health agencies to cease providing Medicare-certified home health services after the four applicants in this proceeding filed the applications at issue here. Well Springs was licensed in all 14 counties of District 2 and had physical locations in Franklin, Gadsden, Bay, Leon, Liberty, Taylor and Madison Counties. It had a significant share of the District 2 Medicare certified home health agency market with 13.1% of the 1994 visits, the second highest in the District. With Well Springs discontinuing Medicare-certified home health agency services, a void was left for such services in District 2, particularly in those counties in which Well Springs had a physical presence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting CON Nos. 8380, 8381, 8382 and 8384 to RHA/Florida Operations, Inc., Care First, Inc., Home Health Integrated Health Services of Florida, Inc., and Putnam Home Health Services, Inc., respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5408 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard Ellis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5408 W. David Watkins, Esquire Watkins, Tomasello & Caleen, P.A. 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Emanuel, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel NationsBank Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Paul Amundsen, Esquire Amundsen & Moore 502 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulated facts, the following facts relevant to these proceedings are found: Upjohn operates a number of home health agencies throughout the State of Florida, as well as in other states. Prior to 1975, a patient served by a proprietary home health agency could not obtain reimbursement under the Medicare program. Such agencies were not able to obtain a Medicare "provider number" unless they were licensed under State law. In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Home Health Services Act, Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, providing for the licensure of proprietary home health agencies. On July 1, 1977, the "establishment of a new home health agency" became one of the projects subject to Certificate of Need review. HRS's rules pertaining to Certificate of Need review were amended in October of 1977, to include the "establishment of a new home health agency or a new subunit of any agency" as projects subject to review". During the rule adoption process, HRS specifically considered the suggestion that expansions of service areas by existing home health agencies without new facilities be subject to Certificate of Need review. This suggestion was rejected on the belief that such a requirement was not statutorily authorized. Confusion existed within the various offices of HRS as to whether additional licensure and/or Certificate of Need review as required when an existing home health agency desired to extend the provision of services to other counties without opening a new subunit or other physical facility in the new county. Prior to 1982, officials within the Office of Community Medical Facilities the office responsible for the Certificate of Need program, generally took the position that the mere geographical expansion of services by an existing certificated and licensed home health agency did not require further Certificate of Need review as long as additional physical facilities were not contemplated. For example, in September of 1981, Upjohn was informed by the OCMF that a Certificate of Need was not required for the provision of home health services from its Jacksonville, Duval County, office to patients residing in Nassau, Baker or St. Johns Counties, as long as subunits or other physical facilities were not opened in those counties. The above four counties were all located within the same health service area. On the other hand, the Office of Licensure and Certification generally took the position that each county served must appear on the home health agency license. On occasion, the OLC required home health agencies to build new offices if it was found that an agency was geographically overextending itself in terms of appropriate supervision or quality of care concerns. It appears to have been the policy of the OLC, on most occasions, to defer to the OCMF the determination of whether additional Certificate of Need review was required prior to the issuance of a license listing additional counties or service areas. However, in January of 1980, the Director of the OLC took the position that petitioner's licensed Marion County home health agency could not provide services to Citrus County residents without applying for and obtaining a Certificate of Need, and thereafter having its license extended to operate in Citrus County. The record in the instant proceedings does not reflect that the OCMF was requested, either by the OLC or by Upjohn, to render a specific opinion as to whether additional Certificate of Need review was required for the extension of home health services from Marion County to Citrus County. In October of 1981, Upjohn requested advice from the OLC as to whether it could provide services from its Broward County office to patients in Palm Beach County. Noting that it was the understanding of the OLC that a Certificate of Need would be required to authorize any expansion of home health services, the OLC referred Upjohn's request to the OCMF. The matter was thereafter referred to the HRS legal staff. James M. Barclay, an attorney with the Office of Health Planning and Development, issued Legal Opinion 82-2 on the issue of whether a Certificate of Need was required before a home health agency, licensed to operate in certain counties within a health service area, could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area. It was Mr. Barclay's opinion that a licensed home health agency could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area without an additional Certificate of Need. The rationale for this opinion as that when the original Certificate of Need review occurred, the review criteria were applied to the entire health service area and thus the original Certificate was evidence of a need within the entire health service area. Based on this opinion, the OLC informed Upjohn that it could not expand its Broward County services to Palm Beach County without Certificate of Need review since the two counties were located in separate health service areas. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, Gary J. Clarke, disseminated the Barclay opinion to the Directors of the Health Systems Agencies. In his cover letter, dated April 7, 1982, Mr. Clarke noted that "the memorandum clarifies existing law; namely, that a home health agency in one county may offer services in an adjoining county without obtaining a CON." Based upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke cover letter, Upjohn informer its various Florida office managers that its existing home health agencies, though licensed only for a particular county, could deliver services in additional counties within the health service area without the need for further Certificate of Need review. Subsequent to the Barclay opinion and the Clarke distribution letter, there were changes in the Certificate of Need law, as well as leadership changes within HRS. The former Health Systems Agencies were abolished and replaced with District Councils, local involvement with the Certificate of Need process was virtually eliminated and the "health service areas" were changed to "districts," some with different boundaries. These changes prompted the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, to request of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary a clarification of the policy regarding Certificate of Need review for expansion of home health agency service areas. In order to be consistent with regard to home health agencies and to make clearer to HRS officials, applicants and the public how HRS would be applying the statutes and rules, HRS developed a "home health agency review matrix." Basically, the, review matrix limited geographical expansion of services (without Certificate of need review) to those counties in which the applicant could demonstrate that the criteria for review had been applied by the appropriate reviewing bodies, either the OCMF or the former local Health Systems Agencies. The former OCMF policy, as expressed in the Barclay/Clarke documents, of allowing carte blanche expansion within the health service area once a Certificate of Need had been obtained had thus changed to allowing expansion only when the applicant could demonstrate that the review criteria had been previously and actually applied to the specific county in which expansion was desired. The matrix was developed in February or March of 1983, and was distributed internally within HRS. Upjohn had several license applications for geographical expansion of services in early 1983. While advised in late March that a "revised ruling" was going into effect, Upjohn had no knowledge of the development of the review matrix. By letter dated April 8, 1983, Upjohn was advised that its license application to expand services from its Pinellas County office to the Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pasco was denied for failure to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review. By "OPLC Policy Letter No. 33-83" dated April 8, 1983, addressed to "All Home Health Agencies" and "Home Health Agency Association," the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, gave notice of the OLC position with regard to expansion of services in counties other than those noted on a home health agency license. The addressees were advised that "it is illegal to provide services in any area not covered under your current license." This policy letter was written in direct response to the review matrix. It was not until May, 1983, that Upjohn became aware of the existence of the review matrix. By letter dated May 5, 1983, the Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, Nathaniel Ward, advises counsel for Upjohn that, "we have a matrix which we must apply (Exhibit 1) when determining whether a Certificate of Need is required for expansion into the service area." Upjohn's Marion County home health agency obtained a "statement of need" (the statutory predecessor of the present Certificate of Need) in 1977, and received a license for that agency in 1978 which it has renewed on an annual basis. From and after August, 1982, and in reliance upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke memorandum, Upjohn extended the provision of home health services, without adding new physical facilities, from its Marion County office into Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. These three counties are located within the same "health service area" and "district" as Marion County, but have not been specifically named in either a statement of need, certificate of need or license issued to Upjohn. Under protest and pursuant to the Kassack policy letter referred to in paragraph (10) above, Upjohn filed an application with the OLC to renew its Marion County home health agency license and to add to said license the counties of Citrus, Lake and Sumter. The OLC issued and renewed the Marion County license from August 1983 to August 1984, but denied Upjohn's request to list Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties on the face of the license. As the sole ground for denial of the request, the OLC stated that Upjohn had failed to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review for those counties pursuant to the Certificate of Need statutes and rules. In spite of the OLC's demands that Upjohn cease providing home health services in Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties, Upjohn continued to provide such services. 0n August 30, 1983, HRS issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Upjohn's Marion County license, or impose other penalties, on the ground that the Marion County home health agency had been providing home health services in Citrus and/or Lake Counties without a license that lists those counties on its face. The review criteria of the Certificate of Need law is necessarily geographic intensive in measuring the needs, feasibility, accessibility and availability of alternative services of a particular area. HRS and the local health planning agencies utilize counties and service districts as the geographic unit by which to measure need for health services and facilities. One of the reasons counties are chosen is because population and other demographic data and statistics are readily available and obtainable for such geographical units.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Upjohn's application to add Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties to its Marion County license to operate a home health agency be DENIED until such time as a Certificate of Need is obtained for such services (Case No. 83-3059), and The Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 1983, be DISMISSED (Case No. 83-3248). Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Wing, Esquire Barbara R. Pankau, Esquire P.O. Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601 Robert P. Daniti, Esquire (Former) Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for payments totaling $29,701.19 that Petitioner admittedly received from the Medicaid Program between May 1, 1996, and March 31, 1998, in compensation for the provision of home health services. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not entitled to retain the payments in question, primarily on the allegations that the compensated services were not medically necessary, were improperly documented, or both.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As one of its duties, the Agency must recover "overpayments . . . as appropriate," the term "overpayment" being statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. This case arises out of the Agency's attempt to recover alleged overpayments from Monef, a Florida-licensed home health agency. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Monef is authorized, under a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency, to provide home health services to Medicaid recipients. Under the Medicaid Provider Agreement, Monef assented to comply with “all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time.” The home health services at issue consisted of skilled nursing care rendered either by a registered nurse (“RN”) or a licensed practical nurse (“LPN”), as the needs of the recipient required, together with personal care provided by a home health aide. The "audit period" that is the subject of the Agency's recoupment effort is May 1, 1996 to March 31, 1998. During this audit period, the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for all of the skilled nursing and home health aide services that are the subject of this dispute. Largely (though not entirely) on the allegation that the home health services in question were not medically necessary, the Agency contends that Monef collected overpayments totaling $29,701.19 in compensation for services rendered to nine separate patients. The following table summarizes the Agency's allegations. PATIENT NAME GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT Louisiana S. No medical necessity $8,498.17 Robert M. No medical necessity $3,615.54 Mario P. No medical necessity $2,403.33 Angel S. No medical necessity $2,089.12 Ana G. No medical necessity $2,015.94 Joann N. No medical necessity $1,705.12 C. Watson No medical necessity $1,268.76 Yvette F. Service refused $122.16 Rosa P. Multiple $7,983.05 Medical Necessity The proof was in conflict concerning the medical necessity of the challenged home health services that Monef provided to the foregoing patients. There were three categories of expert opinion evidence on this issue, described below. The attending physicians' opinions. To be Medicaid compensable, home health services must be provided pursuant to a written treatment plan that is prepared individually for each recipient and approved by his or her attending physician. The treatment plan——called a "plan of care" or "plan of treatment"—— must be reviewed and updated periodically (about every two months) and also as the patient's condition changes. A required component of all plans of care is the attending physician's certification that the services specified in the plan are medically necessary.1 The fact that a treating doctor, by prescribing, recommending, or approving a medical service, has attested to its medical necessity is not sufficient, in itself, to support a finding that the resulting care was medically necessary. See Rule 59G-1.010(166)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Nevertheless, the attending physician's opinion regarding medical necessity is relevant evidence, even if it is not inherently dispositive. In this case, all of the services that the Agency contends were not medically necessary had been determined to be medically necessary by the respective patients' treating physicians. The peer-review organizations' opinions. During the audit period, the Medicaid Program would not reimburse a home health agency for any home visits in excess of 60 visits per recipient per fiscal year unless the provider had obtained authorization to provide such care, in advance, from the Agency or its designee. Such "prior authorization" was required to be based on medical necessity. At times during the audit period the Agency was under contract with a company called Keystone Peer Review Organization ("KePRO"), which acted as the Agency's designee in regard to pre-approving services above the 60-visit limit. At other times this function was performed by Florida Medical Quality Assurance, Inc. ("FMQAI"). In a couple of instances, the Agency itself gave Monef prior authorization to perform services that it now contends were not medically necessary. By statute, a peer-review organization's written findings are admissible in an administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or lack thereof. See Section 409.913(5), Florida Statutes. Monef had obtained prior authorization based on medical necessity for most of the services that the Agency has challenged as medically unnecessary. The opinions of the Agency's designees, KePRO and FMQAI, are relevant evidence of medical necessity. Dr. Sullenburger's opinion. Dr. John Sullenburger is the Agency's Medicaid physician. He would have testified at the final hearing as an expert witness for the Agency, but the parties stipulated that Dr. Sullenburger's ultimate opinion, based on the medical records, was that each of the claims that the Agency alleges was not medically necessary was, in fact, unnecessary. By entering into this stipulation, Monef effectively waived its right to cross-examine Dr. Sullenburger and thereby expose the particular facts upon which his opinion was based. For its part, the Agency relinquished the opportunity to have the doctor explain the reasons why he had concluded that the patients' attending physicians——and also, in many instances, the Agency's designated peer-review organizations——had erred in making their respective determinations that the subject services were medically necessary. As a result of the parties' stipulation concerning Dr. Sullenburger's testimony, the factfinder was left with a naked expert opinion that merely instructed him to decide the ultimate factual issue of medical necessity in the Agency's favor. In making findings regarding medical necessity, the factfinder settled on the following rules of thumb. Greatest weight was accorded the opinions of KePRO and FMQAI. These were deemed to have the highest probative value because the peer- review organizations' determinations of medical necessity were made before the services in question were provided, and neither of the Agency's designees had any discernable motive to stretch the truth one way or the other. Certainly, the peer-review organizations more closely resemble a disinterested, neutral decision-maker than either the patient’s treating physician or the Agency's expert witness (whose opinions were formed after the services had been rendered and the claims paid); indeed, if anything, KePRO and FMQAI might be expected to tilt in the Agency's direction (although there was no evidence of such bias in this case).2 The hearsay opinions of the treating physicians, on the one hand, and Dr. Sullenburger, on the other, were considered to be about equally persuasive——and none was particularly compelling.3 It should be stated that the attending physicians' certifications of medical necessity, each of which lacked analysis that might have connected the facts concerning a patient's medical condition with the need for services, were as conclusory as Dr. Sullenburger's ultimate opinion. Consequently, in those instances where a peer-review organization gave Monef a mandatory prior authorization to render services that the attending physician had certified as being medically necessary, it has been found that, more likely than not, the services in question were medically necessary. In contrast, a closer question arose in those instances where there was no evidence of prior authorization when such was required. The expert opinions——the attending physician's on one side, Dr. Sullenburger's on the other—— essentially canceled each other out. While ordinarily in an evidential tie the party without the burden of proof (here, Monef) would get the nod, in this case the Agency had the slightest edge, on the strength of Rule 59G-1.010(166)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Under this Rule, an attending physician's approval of a service is not, "in itself," sufficient to support a finding of medical necessity.4 Because of the Rule, Monef needed to introduce some additional, persuasive evidence (e.g. the attending doctor's testimony regarding the need for the service) to overcome Dr. Sullenburger's opinion.5 Louisiana S. At the time that the services in question were provided, from May 7, 1997, until December 20, 1997, this patient, an obese woman in her late 60s, was being treated for diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. She was not able to self-administer the insulin shots that were needed to prevent complications from diabetes. For the period from May 5, 1997, through June 30, 1997, KePRO gave prior authorization to 53 skilled nursing visits and 23 home health aide visits.6 Monef was reimbursed for 42 skilled nursing visits and 23 home health aide visits conducted in this period. From July 1, 1997, until September 1, 1997, Monef provided a total of 66 combined skilled nursing and home health aide visits to Louisiana S. The Medicaid Program paid for 60 of them. Because these were the first 60 visits of the fiscal year, which began on July 1, 1997, prior authorization was neither needed nor obtained. During the period between September 1, 1997, and November 1, 1997, Monef made 96 skilled nursing visits, out of 124 that KePRO had pre-approved, and 20 of 27 authorized home health aide visits. KePRO gave prior authorization for 124 skilled nursing and 27 home health aide visits for the period from November 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998, of which 54 and 18, respectively, were made. Based on the levels of service that KePRO had approved before July 1, 1997, and then after September 1, 1997, it is reasonable to infer, and so found, that the first 60 combined visits to this patient in fiscal year 1997-98 would have been pre-approved had Monef been required to obtain prior authorization. The home health care services that Monef provided to Louisiana S. between May 9, 1997, and December 30, 1997, for which the Medicaid Program paid $8,498.17, were medically necessary. Robert M. Robert M., a man in his mid-40s who received home health care from Monef from November 26, 1997, through March 27, 1998, suffered from arteriosclerosis, hypertension, acute bronchitis, and schizophrenia. His residence was an assisted living facility ("ALF").7 FMQAI gave prior authorization for 61 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits to occur between November 26, 1997, and January 26, 1998. Monef provided 55 nursing and 59 home health aide visits during this period. Monef requested prior approval for 25 skilled nursing and 63 home health aide visits for the period from January 26, 1998, and March 26, 1998. Although prior authorization was needed for these services, which exceeded the limit for fiscal year 1997-98, there is no evidence in the record that FMQAI granted Monef's request for approval. FMQAI authorized 23 skilled nursing visits and 30 home health aide visits for the period from March 26, 1998, to May 28, 1998. However, Monef provided just one skilled nursing visit during this time, on March 27, 1998. The home health care services that Monef provided to Robert M. between November 26, 1997, and January 26, 1998, and on March 27, 1998, were medically necessary. Lack of medical necessity was established, however, for the services provided between January 26, 1998, and March 26, 1998. The Medicaid Program paid the following claims, totaling $1,442.49, for this period: One RN visit, $34.04; 21 LPN visits, $549.99; and 51 home health aide visits (35 at $17.46 apiece and 16 at $15.46 each), $858.46. Mario P. From November 25, 1997, through March 28, 1998, Mario P., a septuagenarian who was being treated for acute gastritis, an enlarged prostate, and mental illness, received home health visits at the ALF where he lived, the services provided by Monef. FMQAI approved 43 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits for the period from November 26, 1997, through January 26, 1998; 11 skilled nursing and 62 home health aide visits for January 26, 1998, until March 26, 1998; and 25 skilled nursing visits for March 1, 1998, through May 1, 1998 (overlapping the immediately preceding period by about three- and-a-half weeks). The actual number of skilled nursing and home health aide visits for which the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef was within the pre-approved service levels for each period. The home health care services that Monef provided to Mario P. between November 26, 1997, and March 28, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $2,403.33, were medically necessary. Angel S. Angel S. was a man in his middle 50s who had been diagnosed with gastroduodenitis (an inflammation of the stomach and duodenum) and mental illness. Monef obtained prior authorization from KePRO to provide Angel S. with 34 skilled nursing and 62 home health aide visits between November 25, 1997, and January 25, 1998. During this time, the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for 32 skilled nursing and 44 home health aide visits. FMQAI pre-approved 26 skilled nursing and 27 home health aid visits for January 25, 1998, through March 25, 1998. Monef was reimbursed for 20 and 21 such visits, respectively. The home health care services that Monef provided to Angel S. between November 25, 1997, and March 25, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $2,089.12, were medically necessary. Ana G. When she was a client of Monef, Ana G., a woman in her 60s, was suffering from acute gastritis and major depression. She lived in an ALF. FMQAI pre-approved 50 skilled nursing visits and 40 home health aide visits for the period from November 25, 1997, through January 25, 1998. In that time, Monef rendered 28 skilled nursing visits and 42 home health aide visits for which it received compensation from the Medicaid Program. For the period from January 25, 1998, through March 25, 1998, FMQAI gave prior authorization for 9 skilled nursing and no home health aide visits. During this time, Monef provided 15 skilled nursing visits and 15 home health aide visits for which Medicaid paid. The services that Monef rendered to patient A. Garcia between November 25, 1997, and March 23, 1998, were medically necessary except for 17 home health aide visits (at $17.46 apiece) and 6 skilled nursing visits (at $24.19 each), making a total of $441.96 in overpayments. Joann N. In her late 30s at the time of the services in question, Joann N.'s principal diagnosis was major depression. She also suffered from hypertension and a type of diabetes. Because Joann N.'s primary diagnosis was a mental illness, the home health services provided to her may not have been Medicaid-compensable due to an exclusion that bars coverage for mental health and psychiatric services.8 The Agency, however, did not disallow Monef's claims on this basis, relying instead exclusively on the allegation that the services were not medically necessary. None of the skilled nursing and home health aide visits that Monef provide Joann N. between February 16, 1997, and September 1, 1997, was pre-approved. There is evidence that Monef sought KePRO's prior authorization of 26 skilled nursing and ten or 12 home health aide visits for the period from April 16, 1997, to June 16, 1997, but no proof was adduced showing that approval was granted. Based on the number of combined visits that Monef provided both before and after July 1, 1997 (the start of fiscal year 1997-98), it does not appear that prior authorization was required. There are no grounds in the record, however, from which to infer that prior authorization(s) would have been given if needed. Accordingly, lack of medical necessity was established for all of the home health services that Monef provided Joann N, for which the Medicaid Program paid a total of $1,705.12. C. Watson C. Watson was a teenager with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia who received care in her home between May 12, 1997, and March 31, 1998. The Agency alleges that all of the skilled nursing services that Monef provide C. Watson were medically unnecessary but acknowledges that the home health aide visits were appropriate and covered. The Agency itself pre-approved the home health care visits that Monef had requested for the period from May 12, 1997, through June 30, 1997, namely, 24 skilled nursing and 40 home health aide visits. The Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for 12 skilled nursing and 38 home health aide visits made during this period. The Agency gave prior authorization for home health care to be provided between July 1, 1997, and September 1, 1997. FMQAI also pre-approved the following services for the same period: five skilled nursing visits and 43 home health aide visits. Monef was reimbursed for 17 skilled nursing visits made during this time. For the periods of September 1, 1997 to November 1, 1997; November 1, 1997 until January 1, 1998; and January 1, 1998 through March 1, 1998, KePRO pre-approved levels of skilled nursing services (nine, four, and nine visits, respectively) that were not exceeded by Medicaid-paid claims for these services rendered by Monef during the subject timeframes. FMQAI gave prior authorization for four skilled nursing visits to occur between March 1, 1998 and May 1, 1998, but Monef did not submit any claims for such services rendered during this period. Lack of medical necessity was established for 12 skilled nursing visits made during the period from July 1, 1997 through September 1, 1997. The Medicaid Program paid a total of $319.13 for these visits (One RN visit at $31.04 and 11 LPN visits at $26.19), and this sum constitutes an overpayment subject to recoupment. The rest of the skilled nursing visits that Monef furnished to C. Watson were medically necessary. Yvette F. Yvette F. was a patient in her 30s suffering from complications relating to HIV infection. On Christmas Day, 1997, Yvette F. refused most of the skilled nursing services that had been scheduled, to spend time with her family. The Agency has sought to recoup the $122.16 that the Medicaid Program paid for an RN's visit to Yvette F.'s home on December 25, 1997. This sum reflects four hours of service. The medical records in evidence establish that the patient's refusal of treatment occurred after the RN had arrived at her residence, and that, despite the patient's refusal of service, the RN did perform an assessment on Yvette F. that day. The Agency failed to establish that, under these circumstances, Monef is entitled to no reimbursement. Yet, common sense instructs that the covered claim should not encompass four hours of services when clearly that much time was not spent on this particular visit. Unfortunately, nothing in the record, including the parties' legal arguments, provides guidance for resolving this particular problem. In the absence both of controlling authority and evidence of the actual time spent, the factfinder has determined that the claim should be equitably apportioned to do rough justice, with Monef being compensated for one hour of service and the balance returned to the Medicaid Program. On this basis, then, lack of medical necessity has been shown for three hours of skilled nursing services, making an overpayment of $91.62. Rosa P. Rosa P. was a woman in her late 30s with multiple health problems, including uncontrolled diabetes, recurring infections, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, and mental illness. Monef rendered home health care to Rosa P. from November 22, 1996, until February 1, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $24,543.27 on 1,012 separate claims. The Agency seeks to recoup a little more than one- third of the amount previously paid to Monef for this patient's home health care, alleging a number of grounds to disallow a number of claims. The following table summarizes the Agency's contentions regarding the challenged claims. ("Doc." is an abbreviation for "documentation." "PC" is an acronym for plan of care. The alphanumeric claim identifiers in the left-hand column were assigned by the Administrative Law Judge for ease of reference.) CLAIM ID DATE(S) SERVICE(S) GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT RP-1 11-22-96 Nursing No doc. $29.04 RP-2 12-9-96, 12- 10-96, 12- 14-96 Aide No doc./POT not followed (x3) $52.38 RP-3 12-25-96 to 1-5-97 Aide No PC rendered (x11) $192.06 RP-4 1-6-97, 1-7- 97, 1-9-97, 1-10-97, 1- 11-97, 1-12- 97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $104.76 RP-5 1-22-97 to 3-22-97 All POT not signed by MD or RN $4,009.37 RP-6 3-24-97 to 5-2-97 Aide No PC rendered (x40) $698.40 RP-7 5-2-97 Nursing No doc. $29.04 RP-8 5-3-97 to 7- 4-97 Aide No PC rendered (x62) $1,032.52 RP-9 7-21-97 to 7-26-97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $87.309 RP-10 8-4-97 to 8- 10-97 Aide PC not rendered (x7) $122.22 RP-11 10-29-97 Nursing Documented only 1 of 2 billed visits $31.04 RP-12 11-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-13 11-4-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-14 11-14-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-15 11-15-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-16 11-16-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-17 11-22-97 to 11-26-97 Aide No doc. (x10) (2 billed visits per day) $52.3810 RP-18 12-1-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-19 12-2-97 Aide No doc. $17.4611 RP-20 12-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-21 12-28-97 to 2-28-98 Nursing POT not signed by MD or RN $1,724.37 The total of these alleged overpayments, without adjustment for the several minor arithmetic or typographical errors in the Agency’s papers, see endnotes 9 - 11, is $7,983.05. Each claim or claim set will be addressed in turn below. RP-1. The medical records contain a "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" dated November 22, 1997, that documents a skilled nursing visit to the patient on that day. Therefore, the Agency failed to prove its allegation of overpayment regarding RP-1. RP-2. Included in the patient's records is a "Weekly Activity Report and Time Slip" for the week beginning Monday, December 9, 1996, that was filled out by the home health aide who cared for Rosa P. during that seven-day period. To keep track of tasks performed, the form instructed the aide to check boxes in a table that cross-referenced particular duties (e.g. oral hygiene, change linens, turn & position), which are described in the left-hand column, with the days of the week, which are listed, Monday through Sunday, in the top row. For the days in question (December 9, 10, and 14, 1996), the aide checked boxes showing that, among other things, she had given the patient a shower and assisted her in a wheelchair, both of which are Medicaid-covered services. See Paragraphs 133, 137, infra. Handwritten notes inscribed on the Agency's work papers next to each of the three dates at issue state: "only p/c [personal care] [is a] shower —— not following POT [plan of treatment]." The first of these points is incorrect: assistance with a wheelchair, like showering a patient, is a covered home health aide service. The plan of care that covered the subject dates disproves the second assertion. The written treatment plan explains that the home health aide will "provide personal care, asst [assist] [with] ADL's [activities of daily living] including bath, skin/foot care." The aide was following this course of action on December 9, 10, and 14, 1996. The Agency did not prove an overpayment in connection with RP-2. RP-3. The Agency seeks to recoup payments of $17.46 apiece for 11 home health aide visits made between December 25, 1996 and January 5, 1997, on the ground that the aide did not perform any covered personal services. Although a dozen such visits were made during this particular period, the Agency's work papers reveal that the claim for services rendered on December 29, 1996, was approved. The aide's time sheets for the relevant period substantiate the Agency's allegation, with one exception. The aide's entry on December 26, 1996, is identical to that of December 29, 1996, the latter which the Agency correctly deemed sufficient to make Medicaid financially responsible. On both days, the aide helped the patient with a tub bath and shampoo, which are covered personal services. For the other ten days, review of the aide's time sheets reveals that many services were rendered in the category of "light housekeeping" and "meal preparation." These fall within the exclusion for "housekeeping, homemaker, and chore services, including shopping" and hence are not covered services. Handbook, at p. 2-6; see also Rule 59G-4.130(8)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code (1996).12 (Curiously, the Agency did not specifically rely upon this exclusion.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, Monef points out that the aide made a written notation each day concerning the patient's voiding of bowel and bladder. Because the non- exclusive list of covered home health aide services included "toileting and elimination," see Rule 59G-4.130(5)(b)3.b., Florida Administrative Code (1996), it is possible that the aide was providing a compensable service during the period in question. The trouble is, it cannot be determined from the evidence whether the aide actually assisted the patient——or whether the aide merely wrote down on the time sheet what had been observed regarding the patient's use of the bathroom facilities. Although the question is close, it is determined that simply observing and commenting daily about the patient's elimination of bodily wastes is not enough, without more, to constitute a Medicaid-compensable home health aide service.13 Being unable on the present record to find that the aide did more than watch and write, it is determined that covered services in the area of "toileting and elimination" were not persuasively shown to have occurred. Consequently, lack of medical necessity has been established as to 10 home health aide visits. The total overpayment on RP-3 is $174.60. RP-4. For the week from Monday, January 6 through Sunday, January 12, 1997, the Agency alleges that six home health aide visits are not covered because the aide failed to follow the plan of treatment. Notations on the Agency's work papers suggest another basis: "only shower - incomplete," meaning, presumably, that the only covered personal care provided was assistance in the shower. See discussion regarding RP-2, supra. The aide's time sheet for the relevant period contradicts the Agency's contention. First, bathing assistance was not the only covered personal care rendered on the days in question. The aide also helped the patient with her wheelchair, which is a service covered under the rubric of "transfer and ambulation." Rule 59G-4.130(5)(b)3.e., Florida Administrative Code (1996). Second, the aide's entry for January 8, 1997——for which claim the Agency is not seeking to recover——is substantially the same as those for the challenged days. The only material difference is that on January 8 the aide checked the box indicating that she had shampooed the patient's hair. Nothing in the Rule or the Handbook, however, provides that a shower with shampoo is covered but a shower without shampoo is excluded from coverage, and the Agency failed to prove a factual basis, or advance a logical one, for drawing such distinction. Consequently, the Agency did not establish an overpayment with regard to RP-4. RP-5. The medical records in evidence contain a "Home Health Certification and Plan of Care" for Rosa P. that was signed and dated, on January 22, 1997, by the RN and by the patient's attending physician, Dr. John Prior. This plan of care covers the period from January 22, 1997 through March 22, 1997. The Agency did not present any evidence that either the doctor's or the nurse's signature appearing on this form are inauthentic or that either or both failed to sign on January 22, 1997, as recorded. Therefore, the Agency's allegation that the plan of treatment for the period in question is invalid was not proved. RP-6. This claim set encompasses five full weeks plus five days of home health aide service, or 40 visits in all. The Agency alleges that no covered personal care was provided during these visits. The time sheets demonstrate that the aide provided a covered service, namely assistance in the shower, on all days between March 24, 1997 and April 6, 1997, and also on the five days from April 28 through May 2, 1997. The Agency therefore failed to prove its allegation as to these 19 visits. The Agency made its case, however, in connection with the remaining 21 visits from April 7 to April 27, 1997, inclusive. The time sheets for these dates do not adequately document the provision of a covered service.14 Accordingly, lack of medical necessity was established for 21 home health aide visits at $17.46 each, making a total overpayment on RP-6 of $366.66. RP-7. The Agency has sought to recover payment of $29.04 for an RN visit to the patient on May 2, 1997, alleging lack of documentation. The medical records show that on this particular date, an LPN treated the patient from 8:00 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. Later that same day, at 5:00 p.m., an RN arrived to provide care, which she did, afterwards leaving the patient’s residence at 5:45 p.m. These two visits are documented in separate "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" forms. The Agency did not establish that the nursing notes are inauthentic or incredible.15 Thus, the allegation regarding RP-7 was not proved. RP-8. The Agency contends that 62 home health aide visits between May 3, 1997, and July 4, 1997, were not compensable because no covered personal care was provided. The aide's time sheets establish that a covered personal care (assistance in the shower) was given on May 3 through May 17, inclusive (15 visits at $17.46 apiece), and also on June 20 through 22, 1997 (three visits at $17.46 each). Shower assistance was also provided on May 26 through June 1, 1997 (seven visits at $15.46 each). Skin care, a covered service, was provided on June 7, 1997 (one visit, $15.46). And ambulation assistance, a covered personal care service, was rendered on seven visits from June 9, 1997, through June 15, 1997, at $15.46 per visit. For the remaining 29 visits, however, the aide's time sheets fail adequately to document the provision of a covered service. Ten of these visits were billed at $15.46, the others at $17.46 apiece. Thus, with respect to RP-8, the Agency established an overpayment of $486.34. RP-9. This claim set involves six home health aide visits on the dates of July 21 through July 26, 1997, inclusive, during which, the Agency alleges, the plan of treatment was not obeyed. (The Agency did not seek to recoup the payment made for aide services rendered on Sunday, July 27, 1997, even though that date’s visit is included within the same time sheet as the Monday through Saturday visits, and the services rendered on July 27 were identical to those performed earlier in the week.) According to the pertinent time sheet, covered personal care services (bathing and assistance with ambulation) were provided in connection with the challenged claims. Further, the plan of treatment in effect at that time stated that the aide would "assist with personal care, ambulation, prepare meals, grocery shop, wash clothes, [and] straighten bedside unit." The time sheet establishes that the aide complied with these instructions. Accordingly, the Agency failed to prove its allegation regarding RP-9. RP-10. The Agency alleges that none of the home health aide visits from August 4 through August 10, 1997, entailed covered personal care services. The aide's time sheet for that week, however, documents that bathing care, specifically showering, was provided. Because showering the patient is clearly a covered item, the Agency failed to carry its burden of proof in respect of RP-10. The patient's medical records contain two "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" forms dated October 29, 1997, which document separate RN visits on that date, one lasting from 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., the other from 6:00 p.m. until 7:40 p.m. The Agency therefore did not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, its allegation that Monef had provided documentary support for only of one of two nursing visits on October 29, 1997. RP-12, -13, -14, -15, and -16. The Agency alleges that these five home health aide visits, occurring over a two- week period from November 3, 1997 to November 16, 1997, are not adequately documented. The visits of Monday, November 3, and Tuesday, November 4, 1997, which the Agency challenges, are reported on the same time sheet as those of November 5 through 9, 1997, which the Agency accepts. The duties performed on each of these days, both challenged and unchallenged, were identical, except that on November 4 and 8 the aide shampooed the patient. Numerous covered personal care services were rendered each day during the week, including bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and assistance with ambulation. The duty descriptions on the aide's time sheet for the week beginning Monday, November 10, 1997——a week that included three challenged visits (November 14 through 16)——are substantially similar to one another (though the Agency accepted claims for November 10 through 13) and nearly identical to those given for the preceding week. Once again, covered personal care services rendered consistently throughout the week of November 10 to 16, 1997, included bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and ambulation assistance. The evidence, therefore, does not support the Agency's allegation that the services in question were not adequately documented. RP-17. The Agency alleges that home health aide visits made from November 22 through November 26, 1997, were not documented. The medical records demonstrate that one such visit per day was provided, for a total of five. The records show further, however, that Monef was reimbursed for two visits for each of the days in question, receiving double the amount to which it was entitled based on the documented number of visits. The Agency, therefore, has proved an overpayment of $87.30 (five visits at $17.46 apiece). RP-18, -19, and -20. The Agency contends that there is insufficient documentation for home health visits on December 1 through 3, 1997. But the aide's time sheet for the week beginning Monday, December 1, 1997, adequately establishes that such visits actually occurred——and that covered personal care services (bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and ambulation assistance) were provided during each of them. However, as with RP-17, the records show that Monef was reimbursed for two visits for each of the days in question, receiving double the amount to which it was entitled based on the documented number of visits. The Agency, therefore, has proved an overpayment of $50.38 (two visits at $17.45 apiece and one billed at $15.46) with regard to RP-18, RP-19, and RP-20. RP-21. The Agency seeks to recover payments for all nursing services rendered from December 28, 1997 through February 28, 1998, on the ground that the plan of treatment for the subject period was not signed and dated by the attending physician, as required. In fact, the pertinent treatment plan was signed by a Dr. Roxana Lopez, and by the RN. Neither signature, however, was dated. Thus, the Agency is correct in its assertion that the plan of treatment is deficient. But, the record also contains a letter from KePRO dated December 29, 1997, which grants prior authorization for 124 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits for the period from December 28, 1997 through February 28, 1998. According to this letter, Monef's request for pre-approval was made on December 22, 1997. One of the items that must be submitted to the peer- review organization with a request for prior authorization is the written plan of treatment. Thus, it is reasonable to infer, and so found, that KePRO had in its possession the deficient plan of treatment and, in granting prior authorization, overlooked the fact that the doctor had not dated her signature. Monef did not urge that KePRO's pre-approval of the services in question effected a waiver of the Agency's right to disallow the ensuing claims based on what is, in these circumstances, clearly a technicality,16 or that the Agency should be estopped from raising this particular objection, although little imagination is required to perceive the potential merit in either argument. It is not necessary to reach waiver or estoppel issues, however, for KePRO's approval letter establishes persuasively that the doctor and the nurse signed the plan of treatment before December 29, 1997——and hence at or before the start of care and services thereunder. Plainly, in other words, the attending physician timely approved the plan of treatment, even though she failed to date her signature. Under the particular facts of this case, therefore, where the treatment plan is in substantial compliance with the requirements, and neither the Medicaid Program nor the patient suffered any conceivable prejudice as a result of a demonstrably harmless (on these facts) and unintentional deficiency, it is determined that the Agency has failed to prove a sufficient basis to recoup payments totaling $1,724.37 for pre-approved, medically necessary services that were actually provided to an eligible patient. The following table summarizes the foregoing findings relating to claims for services to Rosa P. CLAIM ID DATE(S) SERVICE(S) GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ACTUAL OVERPAYMENT RP-1 11-22-96 Nursing No doc. $0 RP-2 12-9-96, 12- 10-96, 12- 14-96 Aide No doc./POT not followed (x3) $0 RP-3 12-25-96 to 1-5-97 Aide No PC rendered (x11) $174.60 RP-4 1-6-97, 1-7- 97, 1-9-97, 1-10-97, 1- 11-97, 1-12- 97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $0 RP-5 1-22-97 to 3-22-97 All POT not signed by MD or RN $0 RP-6 3-24-97 to 5-2-97 Aide No PC rendered (x40) $366.66 RP-7 5-2-97 Nursing No doc. $0 RP-8 5-3-97 to 7- 4-97 Aide No PC rendered (x62) $486.34 RP-9 7-21-97 to 7-26-97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $0 RP-10 8-4-97 to 8- 10-97 Aide PC not rendered (x7) $0 RP-11 10-29-97 Nursing Documented only 1 of 2 billed visits $0 RP-12 11-3-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-13 11-4-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-14 11-14-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-15 11-15-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-16 11-16-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-17 11-22-97 to 11-26-97 Aide No doc. (x10) (2 billed visits per day) $87.30 RP-18 12-1-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-19 12-2-97 Aide No doc. $15.46 RP-20 12-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-21 12-28-97 to 2-28-98 Nursing POT not signed by MD or RN $0 The Agency, in sum, proved overpayments totaling $1,165.28 in relation to Rosa P. The Bottom Line The Agency established that Monef received overpayments in connection with six patients. The following table summarizes these overpayments. PATIENT NAME GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL OVERPAYMENT Robert M. No medical necessity $1,442.49 Ana G. No medical necessity $441.96 Joann N. No medical necessity $1,705.12 C. Watson No medical necessity $319.13 Yvette F. Service refused $91.62 Rosa P. Multiple $1,165.28 Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover from Monef the principal sum of $5,165.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Monef to repay the Agency the principal amount of $5,165.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of November, 2001.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need to establish Medicare-certified home health agencies filed by Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction) and Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. (Nursing Unlimited), on balance, satisfy the applicable review criteria so as to entitle either or both to award of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc., was formed for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need for a Medicare certified home health agency, and to serve as the entity into which would be merged certain existing licensed non-Medicare certified home health agencies in Dade County. Aida Salazar-Rebull is a co- founder, director, officer, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns, operates, and serves as the administrator of LTC Professional Consultants, Inc. (LTC), a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Ms. Salazar will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s administrator, and after CON approval will merge LTC into Nursing Unlimited and continue its current operations. Elia Murias is also a co- founder, director, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns and operates Nursing Love & Care, a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Upon CON approval, Ms. Murias, a registered nurse, will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s director of nursing, and will merge the operations of Nursing Love & Care into Nursing Unlimited. For the past 12 years LTC has provided home health care services directly to Medicaid and private pay patients, and to Medicare patients through contracts with Medicare certified agencies. LTC is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), which accreditation will be transferred to Nursing Unlimited. Since its inception, the number of patients served by LTC has increased every year. LTC enjoys an excellent reputation among local health care providers and patients. LTC’s continual growth over the past ten years, coupled with the letters of support in the application, demonstrate a record of providing high quality care to underserved communities and population subgroups. LTC currently provides home health services in northwest, west central, central, and east central Dade County, and as Nursing Unlimited will serve the same geographic area. LTC places particular emphasis on its service to underserved population subgroups such as Hispanics, Haitians, Blacks, low-income clients, and HIV-positive patients. Nursing Unlimited will continue to serve those population subgroups. Although approximately 53 percent of the Dade County population is Latin, only two of the over 30 existing Medicare certified home health agencies are Latin owned and operated. LTC and Nursing Love & Care are Latin owned and operated, as would be Nursing Unlimited. The entire staff of LTC is bilingual, and some staff are multi-lingual, as would be the staff of Nursing Unlimited. Approval of Nursing Unlimited's application would enhance the availability and accessibility of services to the Latin community. Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction), is an existing home health care agency providing services in Dade County since approximately 1988. Like Nursing Unlimited, Aaction's target population is the Hispanic community of Miami and Hialeah. The geographical area which Aaction now serves and will continue to serve at an enhanced level, if approved, is a low- income, high crime and low education area. Aaction's success in those difficult areas is based on its ability to recruit and retain indigenous staff who know the problems. Over 30 letters of recommendation and support, mostly from Hispanic physicians, are attached to Aactions's application and attest to the agency's past and anticipated future service in the community. Aaction has applied for JCAHO accreditation. Need Analysis The review of CON applications must be in context with the criteria set forth in Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the parties’ prehearing stipulation, both applicants satisfy all of the applicable review criteria, except this: The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing home health care services in District 11. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Aaction and Nursing Unlimited both contend there is a need in District 11 for at least two new or additional Medicare certified home health agencies. Each asserts that both CON applications can and should be approved; their respective applications are not mutually exclusive, and accordingly, they need not be comparatively reviewed with one another. The focus of the sole remaining criterion at issue, Subsection 408.035(1)(b), is on existing home health care providers. As acknowledged by AHCA in its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in pure numbers the instant CON application proposals would increase availability and access in District 11. There is no AHCA rule formula or methodology to determine a numeric need, nor is there a fixed need pool applicable to this proceeding. In the absence of an Agency numeric need rule, the applicants each proposed reasonable need methodologies within their applications. AHCA did not propose any need methodology at hearing. AHCA's former home health agency numeric need methodology rule was invalidated because it was anti-competitive, understated potential actual need, and failed to consider health care economics, efficiency and cost containment. Principal Nursing v. AHCA, DOAH No. 93-5711RX (Final Order January 26, 1994); AHCA v. Principal Nursing Services, Inc., 650 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (Affirmed the Final Order as to the need methodology, but reversed as to other portions of the rule unrelated to the issues here). Nursing Unlimited, through Michael Schwartz, applied the invalidated need methodology to demonstrate that even under that excessively conservative approach, at least 2 additional home health agencies are needed in District 11. When the applications were filed the most current home health visit utilization data was for calendar year 1994. The number of visits in 1994 was divided by the age 65+ population to determine a use rate, i.e., the number of home health visits per 100,000 population. The 1994 use rate was applied to the projected age 65+ population growth for the three horizon years of 1995-1997, a projection of 102,039 more patient visits in 1997 than there were in 1994, based on population growth alone. Next, Mr. Schwartz determined a cost-efficient agency size (CEAS) by determining from a review of District 11 existing home health agencies the point at which the average cost per home health visit was less than the statewide average cost per visit. In this case, the result was a CEAS of 34,973, which was divided into the number of projected new visits in the horizon year 1997 resulting from population growth alone, which calculation shows a numeric need for three new home health agencies in District 11. At the time the CON application was filed there was one approved, but not yet licensed home health agency, which was subtracted by the applicant from the net need figure, thus resulting in a net need for two new agencies. The recent historical data shows that home health care visits have been on the increase, both in terms of visits per 100,000 population and in terms of visits per patient. The amount of time spent by patients in the hospital is decreasing, which translates into increased need by patients for visits from home health agencies. The need for home health will continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. Home health care services are less costly than care received in hospitals, in nursing homes, or on an outpatient basis. Thus, allowing greater access to home health services should reduce the overall cost of health care to payors, including Medicare. To address this trend Michael Schwartz offered a realistic, yet still conservative, numeric need projection which assumes an increased use rate beyond that which is based on population increase alone. Mr. Schwartz considered the cumulative increase in visits that occurred over the three-year period 1991-1994 and projected this forward to the horizon year of 1997. Although federal Health Care Finance Agency (HCFA) data suggests that visits will grow nationally at seven percent per year. Mr. Schwartz assumed only a seven percent increase over three years, which resulted in a growth of approximately 180,124 visits by 1997, and which divided by the CEAS yields a need for 5.2 new agencies. In hindsight, the conservative nature of this projection is apparent from a review of utilization data which has become available since the filing of the CON application. For example, rather than a growth in visits of 180,000 over the period 1995-1997, there was an actual increase of over 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996 alone. Utilization data for 1997 is not yet available. Aaction presented three separate need methodologies in its application prepared by Mark Richardson. The first two methodologies applied a static use rate based on visits in 1994 to the projected population to determine total visits at the planning horizon. Recognizing that cost efficiencies maximize at an approximate range between 30,000 and 90,000 visits per year, Aaction divided the total projected visits by a conservative CEAS of 50,000. These methodologies yielded a need in District 11 for two additional home health agencies at the planning horizon. Using a CEAS of 30,000 visits would yield a need for three agencies instead of two. AHCA has recently determined that static use rates are inappropriate. (Allstar Care, Inc., etc. vs. AHCA, DOAH No. 96-4064, Final Order November 4, 1997). Nonetheless, application of over-conservative methodologies in this case can help counter the agency's unsubstantiated assertion that many visits are fraudulent or unnecessary. In its third methodology, Aaction assumed more realistically that home health use rates would continue to increase as suggested by historic data. In order not to overstate the potential growth rate, Aaction used a rate equal to one-half of the 1993-94 actual growth rate. Utilizing a 50,000 visit CEAS, this methodology yields a need of 7 to 9 new home health agencies in District 11 at the planning horizon. Using a 30,000 visit CEAS yields a net need for over 15 new home health agencies. Recalculating the need formulas by application of the now available 1995 and 1996 data, using a growth rate at 50 percent of the actual rate, and a CEAS of 50,000 visits, results in a need for 7 to 8 new agencies. If the static use rate were applied, the need would be 5 to 6 new agencies. Application of Aaction’s initial need methodologies with a static use rate based on 1996 utilization data yields a need for over 5 new agencies when a 50,000 visit CEAS is used. If a 30,000 visit CEAS is utilized, these methodologies yield a net need for 9 new home health agencies. Applying Aaction’s third methodology (i.e., utilization projected to increase at 50 percent of the actual increase between 1995 and 1996) yields a net need for over 7 or over 12 new agencies, depending on whether a 50,000 visit or 30,000 visit CEAS is applied. There are other indications of need for additional home health agencies in District 11. For example, a review of 1996 utilization data reveals that District 11 has only 1.7 home health agencies per 100,000 population, which is the lowest ratio of any district in the state. The average of all districts is 2.4 home health agencies per 100,000 population. Both applicants proposed fair and reasonable need methodologies which demonstrate a need in District 11 for at least 2 additional home health agencies, and potentially more. There is, therefore, a need for at least 2 more Medicare- certified home health agencies in District 11. Approval of both applications will increase the availability and accessibility of home health services in the proposed service areas within Dade County. Home health services are typically delivered in close proximity to the location of the agency and providers. Nursing Unlimited’s agency location is in the center of a large Latin and Haitian population, with the nearest Medicare certified home health agency approximately 15 miles away. Aaction's commitment is to a population that is difficult to serve. Local population accessibility to the proposed home health services would be increased by approval of both applications. Medicare-certified agencies apply their own admission criteria and decide whether to accept patients, leaving some patients in need and without access to services in the applicants' service area. An informal survey directed by Michael Schwartz suggests there are existing agencies which refuse to treat AIDS patients, that do not provide services at night and on weekends, and that refuse to treat people in poverty areas. The targeted Medicare-eligible population would enjoy enhanced accessibility and availability of home health services by both applicants, if approved. The addition to the district of a Medicare-certified home health agency (Nursing Unlimited) which utilizes a JCAHO- approved centralized case management system would also tend to enhance the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of services provided in the district. When non-Medicare-certified agencies receive a request to care for Medicare patients, the request must be forwarded to a Medicare-certified entity, which in turn will contact the patient. The non-Medicare agency may then be authorized under subcontract to contact and serve the patient and to bill the Medicare-certified agency for its services. In turn, the Medicare-certified agency will add on its overhead and forward a higher bill to Medicare. This process also results in delays in patient treatment. Approval of these applications would likely result in better patient care, without delays, and at lower costs. AHCA has determined that eliminating such subcontract arrangements will eliminate an unnecessary level of administrative costs. AHCA also discourages subcontract arrangements which remove direct control of patient care from the Medicare certified entity. See Allstar Care, supra. District 11 home health visits increased by 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996. A projection of 600,000 new visits during 1995 through 1997 is reasonable. Nursing Unlimited and Aaction each project approximately 25,000 visits during their second year of operation. Approval of these applicants would not adversely impact the utilization of existing home health providers in the district. Both applicants here will specifically enhance access by the needy Hispanic population. AHCA offered no competent evidence to contradict the conclusions of the applicants' experts, nor did it effectively challenge the accuracy, validity, or reliability of the methodologies they employed. AHCA's expert and sole witness, James McLemore, is an application review specialist who candidly admitted he has no experience in the development of need methodologies but relies instead on the expertise of health care planners such as Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Richardson. Mr. McLemore's anecdotal testimony regarding fraudulent or phantom visits, and AHCA's concern that both state and federal agencies are investigating fraud in the home health care business, raise compelling licensing issues but are insufficient to defeat otherwise convincing evidence in favor of these certificates of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting CON No. 8428 to Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. and CON No. 8432 to Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Manthei Broad and Cassel 1130 Broward Financial Center 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Moses E. Williams Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3400 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. David Prescott Ruthledge Ecenia Underwood Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Faith Home operated as a home health agency with its principal place of business located at 3202 North Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Faith Home's license number is 299991078. Joni Miller is a registered nurse (RN) surveyor for AHCA. Ms. Miller holds an associate of arts degree in nursing and practiced as an RN for almost 30 years. She practiced as an RN in the areas of coronary care, research, home health, cardiology, and sports medicine. Ms. Miller has completed the requisite classes in surveyor training and is a certified home health surveyor. Ms. Miller was received without objection as an expert in nursing. Jeanette Peabody is an RN who worked for AHCA as an RN specialist. Ms. Peabody obtained an associate of arts degree in applied science with a major in nursing. In 1995, Ms. Peabody was licensed as an RN in Pennsylvania. Thereafter, she worked for various health-related entities, including (but not limited to) two home health agencies and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. She became licensed as an RN in Florida in 2004. Ms. Peabody became a certified surveyor after receiving the appropriate training. While working for AHCA, Ms. Peabody conducted surveys of health care facilities and agencies for compliance with the applicable rules and regulations. Ms. Peabody was received as an expert in nursing. Beverly Eubanks is the chief operating officer for Faith Home, a position she has held for 15 years. Ms. Eubanks is an RN, who received her associate's degree in nursing from Manatee Community College in 1990. Faith Home primarily serves the underprivileged, low-income families, and public housing residents. Celina Okpaleke is the sole owner of Faith Home and has been its owner since 1997. Ms. Okpaleke is a licensed physician assistant, having been licensed in 1996. Her duties at Faith Home are to oversee its day-to-day management. Prior to the February 2011 survey, Ms. Okpaleke had not been going to the Faith Home office every day.2/ The methodology for any survey includes the following: the team arrives at the location; the team is introduced to the survey entity's staff members; the team explains to the entity's staff members the nature of the survey, including a list of items required for the team to conduct the survey; and there is a request for work space. Upon receipt of the required items, the team reviews the material, conducts interviews, conducts visits with patients at their various locations, interviews staff, and reviews the accumulated information. In the event the surveyors have any questions, the surveyors will make requests to the appropriate entity staff, and additional materials may be provided to the surveyors. The survey findings are reviewed with the staff, and, at the end of the survey, the team conducts an exit conference with the appropriate staff. Any entity staff is welcomed to be present. In the event any documentation is missing, the entity is allowed to provide that material after the surveyors have left the facility. In those instances when an agency is out of compliance, AHCA will make a return visit to ensure the agency has corrected the deficiencies. There was credible testimony that this survey procedure was the same procedure used during the Faith Home survey and follow-up survey. It is recognized as a good nursing practice to document in a patient's record or chart the care, treatment or other services being provided to a patient. This includes all medical and medically-related support services. Faith Home has numerous policies that govern how it is to be run. A few of the pertinent policies are set forth below. "Patient Visits," last revised on December 1, 2010, provides: All patients will be seen according to physician's orders and in compliance with the plan of treatment. At each visit, a progress or visit note will be completed. On the visit note (progress not [sic]/visit note) the patient's progress toward meeting established goals shall be documented. In addition, the patient's response to treatment will be documented as well as any other pertinent assessment information. All patient visits will be performed according to a pre-established schedule. If there is [sic] any changes in visit schedule, time or staff, the patient will be consulted prior to the change. "Initial Assessment Process for Medicare [P]atients," last revised on December 1, 2010, reflects in pertinent part: Upon admission, each patient will receive initial assessment in order to determine patient's needs. To achieve this goal, the following important processes must be performed: * * * More in depth functional assessments performed by a qualified PT [physical therapist] or OT [occupational therapist] are available to those patients who need one. These assessments are documented on the appropriate PT/OT Evaluation form. * * * Initial assessments will be performed within 48 hours of referral or within 48 hours of a patient's return home from an impatient [sic] stay, or on the physician-ordered start of care [SOC] date. MSW will make assessments within one (1) week of referral based on the patient's priority level as determined by RN and/or MD, PT, ST, and OT will make evaluations within one (1) week of referral based on the patient's priority level as determined by the RN and/or MD. Administration/start of care assessment data must be completed within five (5) calendar days of the SOC date. The agency then has seven (7) calendar days from the SOC date to encode the data, check for errors and lock the data for transmission. The data will than [sic] be transmitted on a monthly basis; data minimum no later than the month[.] "Oasis Data Set," last revised on December 1, 2010, reflects in pertinent part: The agency has implemented the OASIS data set and is actively collecting data as of March 15, 1999. Current assessment data and notes utilized by the agency have been incorporated into the OASIS core data. OASIS requirements apply to all patients . . The only exclusions are as follows: Patients under the age of 18 Patients receiving maternity services Patients receiving ONLY no skilled services such as personal care, homemaker, chore, or companion services. OASIS data are collected at the following points: Start of Care * * * Resumption of Care following impatient [sic] stay * * * Follow-up/Recertification * * * 4. Follow-up/SCIC * * * 5. Discharges and Death * * * Do not administer OASIS data set as an interview. Questions are meant to be part of the professional opinion of the staff member performing the assessment, based upon the evaluation of the patient. Be sure to incorporate agency assessment material (Discharge Summary, etc.) with the OASIS data set. The OASIS data set does not constitute a complete assessment. "Policies & Procedures for Accectance [sic] of Patients/Cases" last revised on December 1, 2010, reflects in pertinent part: B) Qualifying Criteria for Accepting a Patient * * * 7) Client must have a telephone or use of phone in close distance for emergency situation. Running water and electricity are also important factors for providing adequate care in the home. * * * D) Criteria for Acceptance of Skilled Nursing Clients * * * A copy of MD orders may accompany Skilled Nursing Admission. If nurse [is] able to receive a faxed copy of orders, Faith Home Health will fax them. If not, a copy of the order will be sent to patient's residence with supplies. "Policies & Procedures for Admissions," last revised on December 1, 2010, reflects in pertinent part: Admission & Assessment Policies & Procedures * * * 7) All documentation will be kept in the patient's Faith Home Health folder. "Caregiver Job Descriptions," last revised on December 1, 2010, reflects in pertinent part: Registered Nurses * * * Activities may include: * * * 11. Recording pertinent information. * * * LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE * * * Activities may include: * * * 7. Recording all pertinent observations and treatments[.] * * * Certified Nurse Aide * * * Activities may include: * * * 22. Keeping a record of observations and care given[.] Home Health Aide * * * Activities may include: * * * 10. Maintaining a proper record of activities. The February 2011 Survey In early February 2011, Ms. Peabody was the lead surveyor in the annual Florida licensure recertification survey conducted at Faith Home (FH survey). Ms. Miller was also a member of the FH survey team. This FH survey team conducted reviews, interviews, home visits, and conferences over the course of three days. During the February 2011 FH survey, Ms. Peabody requested and was provided Faith Home's records for patient 5. The home health certification and plan of care (HHC/POC) for patient 5 provided the SOC date as December 14, 2010. The HHC/POC ordered skilled nursing visits to occur one to two times a week for nine weeks. According to the HHC/POC, at each visit, the skilled nurse was to perform various treatments with respect to patient 5's multiple medical issues, including assessing vital signs, cleaning a toe wound and applying a dressing, instructing the patient on diet and nutrition, and reporting any changes to the "MD [medical doctor] & supervisor ASAP [as soon as possible]." Patient 5 did not receive skilled nursing visits during the weeks of December 19 or 26, 2010. During the following skilled nursing visits, patient 5 did not receive wound care treatment: December 13, 2010, and January 6, 13, 18, and 21, 2011. Additionally the HHC/POC called for a PT to evaluate and treat patient 5. There were orders that the PT was to administer therapeutic home care exercises in order to increase patient 5's functional abilities. Patient 5 did not have the physical therapy evaluation or treatment as directed. There was no PT evaluation or treatment documentation for patient 5, and there was no documentation that the MD or supervisor was notified that the treatments did not take place. Following the review of the documentation provided, Ms. Peabody afforded Faith Home the opportunity to provide any additional documentation they had with respect to the care and treatment provided to patient 5. No additional documentation was forthcoming to the surveyors. Ms. Eubanks contended that patient 5 was seen by a nurse during the week of December 18, 2010. She testified that there was no wound care treatment necessary for patient 5 because the wound had healed. Ms. Eubanks "believe[d]" the wound had resolved by December 9, 2010, and that no PT was ordered because patient 5 was still "refusing it." Ms. Eubanks also testified that no wound care treatment was required because it was not on the OASIS data collection sheet. Ms. Eubanks's testimony is not credible as the HHC/POC is clear as to the physician's order regarding patient 5's toe wound care and the PT evaluation and treatment. The OASIS data form may be the methodology "to track your [Faith Home] benchmarks and your progression to see how you rank" among other home health agencies, but it does not take the place of a HHC/POC executed by a physician. Further, although a patient always has the right to decline a health care service, that response does not preclude the physician from ordering the particular care to be provided. Based on the violations observed and documented during the February 2011 survey, Ms. Miller went back to Faith Home in June 2011 to follow up on the areas of concern. Ms. Miller reviewed five patients at the June 2011 revisit, one of whom was part of the February 2011 survey, patient 5.3/ Patient 5J's HHC/POC, signed on April 16, 2011, ordered skilled nursing visits to occur one to two times a week for nine weeks. According to the HHC/POC, at each visit, the skilled nurse was to perform various treatments with respect to patient 5J's multiple medical issues. The HHC/POC included an assessment of patient 5J's vital signs including the endocrine, cardiac, and neuro, with instructions regarding the disease process and management; fall prevention; diet and nutrition; and skin, nail, and foot care. It also included an order to report "any changes or concerns to [the] MD & supervisor ASAP." This April 16, 2011, HHC/POC also ordered a home health aide (HHA) to provide services two to three times a week for nine weeks for patient 5J. The HHA was to assist patient 5J with the activities of daily living (ADL). During the follow-up survey, Ms. Miller was unable to find documentation of any nurse's treatment for patient 5J during three of the nine-week certification period. The skilled nursing visit notes on April 21 and May 5, 2011, failed to reflect any assessment of patient 5J's vital signs, including the cardiovascular system. The lines drawn through certain boxes do not indicate review or assessment of patient 5J. Further, there was no evidence of any HHA visits during the seventh week through the ninth week of the certification period for patient 5J. This totaled six missed HHA visits for patient 5J. With respect to patient 7, the HHC/POC, with a SOC date of December 18, 2010, ordered a PT to evaluate and treat patient 7. The PT was to administer a therapeutic home care exercise program to patient 7 to increase strengthening.4/ The HHC/POC also ordered the skilled nurse to "report any changes and or concerns to the MD & RN ASAP." Patient 7 did not receive the physical therapy evaluation until December 29, 2010, 11 days after it was ordered. The PT's care plan for patient 7 involved physical therapy two times a week for three weeks. At the time of the FH survey, there was no documentation that the physician was notified of the delay or the reason for the delay in performing the PT evaluation on patient 7. Ms. Eubanks provided a "Communication/Status Report" (C/SR) pertaining to patient 7, dated January 3, 2011. Although this C/SR purports to put Faith Home services (including the PT) on hold until the patient returns from being with the "daughter and family for a couple of weeks," it is at odds with the credible evidence presented by AHCA. The physical therapy documentation reflects that patient 7 was provided PT services twice during the week of January 9, 2011, just one week after Faith Home was "notified" the patient would be gone "for a couple of weeks." Additional physical therapy documentation reflects that service was also provided twice during the week of January 17, 2011.5/ Ms. Eubanks's contention that this C/SR was faxed to patient 7's physician to notify him/her of the change in plans is not credible. There was no testimony or documentation of the physician's actual fax number or the actual number to which this C/SR was purportedly faxed, nor did the person who actually faxed the C/SR testify. Patient 11's HHC/POC, signed December 15, 2010, ordered skilled nursing care two to three times a week for nine weeks. At the end of the HHC/POC orders, there is an order to "Report any changes and or concerns to MD & supervisor ASAP." Although it is noted on the HHC/POC that the "Certification period [was] extended due to [a] procedure on [the] left second toe," there was no actual doctor's order to provide wound care to patient 11's left second toe. There is, however, a "60 Day Summary" notation which states: Wound to [the] right great toe healed without complication. Skilled nurse currently caring for left second toe. No S&S of infection noted. Blood pressure and blood sugar has remained stable through out [sic]. This summary statement is not an order for care to patient 11's left second toe. When a nurse observes a new wound in need of care, the nurse should immediately document the toe wound and contact the physician. The burden then falls to the physician to decide what, if any, order is appropriate for the wound care. This recording/reporting process was not followed, and there was no documentation of patient 11's wound to the left second toe. However, the skilled nursing visits record that wound care was provided to patient 11's left second toe. Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 11's podiatrist, Dr. Rappaport, wrote an order to discontinue wound care to the right great toe because it had healed. Other than the 60-day summary note found in the HHC/POC signed December 15, 2010, there was no order signed by Dr. Rappaport that discontinued care to the right great toe, and no order for care to patient 11's left second toe was introduced at hearing. Although Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 11 had the left second toe nail bed removed, she never testified that she was present when that nail bed was removed or that she was the attending skilled nurse who provided the post nail bed removal care. Her testimony is at odds with the credible evidence presented by AHCA. Patient 13's HHC/POC, with a SOC date of December 21, 2010, ordered skilled nursing care one to two times a week for six weeks with specific skilled nursing tasks to be performed. There was no documentation that a skilled nurse provided care during the weeks of December 26, 2010, or January 9, 2011. Patient 13's HHC/POC also ordered a physical therapy evaluation. As part of the HHC/POC, the PT was to administer therapeutic home care exercises to increase functional strength, range of motion (ROM), balance and endurance, and transfers and to report "any changes and or concerns to [the] MD & RN CM [case manager] ASAP." Patient 13's physical therapy evaluation was not conducted until January 5, 2011, roughly two weeks after it was ordered. The physical therapy care plan directed that patient 13 was to be seen two times a week for the first week and three times a week for the next four weeks. Although there are "missed visit reports" that document a PT's attempt to see the patient on six different January 2011 dates, there is no credible evidence that patient 13's physician was notified of those six missed visits as soon as possible. Ms. Eubanks points to a January 24, 2011, C/S Report (January note) for the reason the PT missed the visits with patient 13. This January note reflects that patient 13 had gone to Georgia to be with her daughter and would return the end of January 2011 or the first Tuesday in February. This January note prompts more questions than answers because it does not reflect exactly when patient 13 went to Georgia and only asks that the "nursing services" not the physical therapy services be held until patient 13's return. The missed visit reports indicate that a PT went to the residence and knocked on patient 13's door, but no one came to the door. Although the missed visit reports provide space for the patient's name (appropriately redacted), the date (of service), the discipline (in this case "PT" was checked), the reason (for the missed service; in this case phrases to the effect: drove by, no one answered door, etc.), and who completed the missed visit report (the PT's signature is illegible), none of these missed visit reports have a checkmark (or any indication) next to the "Y," which signifies that the physician was notified. Ms. Eubanks's posturing that these missed visit reports were left in an inbox at a public housing building facility so that the physician was notified is not credible. Ms. Eubanks also testified that patient 13 did not have a telephone, and "so there was no other way to contact [her] but actual face to face." This statement is in direct contradiction to Faith Home's policy that a client must have a telephone or that a phone be close by for communication purposes. Further, there was evidence that two skilled nursing visits took place: one on January 26, 2011, and the other on January 29, 2011, just two and five days, respectively, after the January note stating patient 13 would be gone until the end of January or the first of February. Patient 2's HHC/POC, signed September 13, 2010, ordered skilled nursing visits to occur up to seven days a week, and the nurse was to provide a complete assessment with each shift. According to the HHC/POC, the skilled nurse was to, among other things, monitor patient 2's GI status and provide G-tube care every shift, weigh the child weekly on Mondays when scales became available, and document it in the mom's notebook. Based on patient 2's condition, care had to be taken that the patient did not become dehydrated or lose a lot of weight. There was no documentation of patient 2's weight being recorded by the Faith Home skilled nurses during the scheduled Monday visits. Patient 2's records provided to the surveyors during the February 2011 FH survey failed to reflect documentation as to any G-tube care being provided on every shift. Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 2 was weighed weekly at his school. Based on the phrase in the HHC/POC "when a scale becomes available," Faith Home took the position it was not obligated to secure a scale to ensure it weighed the patient per the HHC/POC. Rather, Faith Home unilaterally decided that, because the Department of Children and Families (DCF) was having patient 2 weighed weekly at school, Faith Home was meeting its obligation. However, this position flies in the face of the physician's order for patient 2. Patient 2's record does not reflect where patient 2's weight was being recorded, either at home or school, nor does it reflect that the physician was being made aware of patient 2's weight on a regular basis. Faith Home did not document the lack of a scale, did not inform the physician that the weight was being monitored by DCF at patient 2's school and did not ensure that the physician was aware of patient 2's weekly weight status. Patient 3's HHC/POC, signed November 30, 2011, ordered an RN to be present 20 hours a day up to seven days per week. Additionally, the skilled nurse was to assess the patient and perform other specific care. One specific task was for patient 3's tracheotomy care to be performed twice a day and as needed.7/ Documentation for patient 3 failed to reflect the tracheotomy care twice a day or as needed between December 20, 2010, and January 22, 2011. Ms. Eubanks testified to patient 3's medical circumstances. Although Ms. Eubanks understood that AHCA's surveyors had patient 3's pediatric notes, she only pulled "random notes" for the "period because they had already copied everything that they wanted to take." Of Faith Home's documents that she discussed, Ms. Eubanks only presented two dates (out of the 34 days alleged in the AAC) that recorded some type of tracheotomy care for patient 3. Hence, her testimony lacks credibility in light of the overwhelming evidence AHCA provided. Patient 6's HHC/POC for the certification period of October 14, 2010, to December 12, 2010, ordered skilled nursing care three to four times a week for nine weeks and also provided for specific disciplines and treatments to be performed. There was evidence that a skilled nurse provided one visit to patient 6 on October 15, 2010; yet, there was no evidence that a skilled nurse provided the minimum number of visits to patient 6 during the remainder of the nine-week certification period. It was noted that two skilled nursing visits were made during the week of November 14, 2010. However, the HHC/POC ordered a minimum of three, up to four skilled nursing visits to be made. Patient 6's HHC/POC also ordered HHA services to be provided two to three times a week for nine weeks. The HHA was to assist patient 6 with ADLs. The HHA failed to provide patient 6 the minimum number of visits during weeks one, two, or three of the certification period. Ms. Eubanks testified that Faith Home could not provide services to patient 6 after October 14, 2010, as patient 6 was admitted to a local hospital. Further, Ms. Eubanks testified that the HHA documentation "has to be incorrect," although she also testified that the Faith Home documents were "true. There has been an error."8/ Ms. Eubanks's testimony is at odds with the credible evidence presented by AHCA. Patient 14's HHC/POC dated January 20, 2011, ordered skilled nursing services to be provided one to two times a week for four weeks then every other week (EOW) for nine weeks. The HHC/POC also ordered that a HHA was to assist patient 14 with ADLs, a PT was to evaluate and treat patient 14, a speech therapist was to evaluate and treat patient 14, and an occupational therapist was to evaluate and treat patient 14. On January 25, 2011, patient 14's medical doctor again ordered the physical therapy and directed the HHA to provide services three times a week for nine weeks. The evidence regarding patient 14 documented two skilled nursing visits missed during the first two weeks of the certification period (January 16, 2011, to March 16, 2011), and there was no evidence of any HHA service visits for the first two weeks of patient 14's certification period. Additionally, patient 14 did not receive three physical therapy visits. Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 14 was in an adult day care setting and that Faith Home missed no less than four skilled nursing visits. The "Missed Visit" reports (MVR) provided by Faith Home purport that patient 14 was in an adult day care setting; yet, that same MVR documentation fails to record that patient 14's physician was notified of the lack of services being provided. Further, the MVR dated (Wednesday) January 26, 2011, reflects that patient 14's daughter "made arrangements to have [patient 14] home next on Thursday by 3 p.m. Understands nurse do [sic] not go to day care." This MVP reflects that the date of the next Faith Home service visit will be February 4, 2011, a Friday, not a Thursday. Also, within the material provided by Faith Home, there is a C/SR dated January 20, 2011. That C/SR records that patient 14 is "requesting a hold on home health aide visit. Daughter will be able to provide service for the next few weeks." Yet, there is also a HHA note dated January 22 or 23, 2011,9/ detailing HHA services provided to patient 14 on that date. The inconsistencies in Faith Home's documentation presented during the hearing are damaging to its credibility as a whole. Patient 15's HHC/POC, dated December 15, 2010, ordered skilled nursing services to be provided two to three times a week for nine weeks. As part of the skilled nursing services, patient 15 was to have her vital signs assessed along with other specific assessments. The HHC/POC also contained an order to "Report any changes or concerns to [the] MD & supervisor ASAP." The evidence presented regarding the skilled nursing visits for November 3 and 5, 2010, failed to reflect patient 15's neurological assessments or any observations by the nurse and also failed to provide the "nursing diagnosis/problem." Other portions to these specific records contain words or phrases to provide information, a number with a percentage sign, a zero (Ø), or simple checkmarks indicating a system was observed or treated. These written words or markings provide clarity to patient 15's completed assessments or status. Patient 15's skilled nursing records for December 29 and 31, 2010, and January 2, 12, and 14, 2011, failed to document one or more of the patient's systems: cardiovascular, genitourinary, neurological, or musculoskeletal. Ms. Eubanks testified that certain portions of patient 15's skilled nursing notes were completed using a method called "charting by exception." According to this method, when the professional leaves an area of the chart blank, it indicates that nothing is wrong with the patient. A review of patient 15's skilled nursing notes simply does not support the use of this methodology. Specifically as an example, on the November 5, 2010, skilled nursing visit note, nothing is checked or notated in the neuro-sensory section; yet, at the "PAIN" section, there is a "Ø" marked through all five lines. If the "charting by exception" method was being used, this area should have been left blank as there was no pain. It is impossible to determine when charting by exception is in place when one area of a record has check marks or specific notations regarding an assessment or status and another section (or sections) is left blank even though the HHC/POC specifically ordered that assessment. There is no base line by which the next skilled nurse would know if there had been a change in patient 15's assessment or status such that her attending physician or the supervisor should be appropriately notified. Ms. Eubanks's testimony is not credible in light of the evidence presented by AHCA. The June 2011 Follow up Survey Both parties presented medical records for Patient 2J. Patient 2J's two HHC/POCs appear to be identical in scope; yet, one was signed on April 25, 2011, while the other was signed on April 27, 2011. Within the HHC/POCs, the doctor ordered skilled nursing services to be provided once in the first week, then one to two times a week for eight weeks. As part of the skilled nursing services, patient 2J was to have her vital signs assessed and other specific assessments completed. The HHC/POCs also ordered a PT to evaluate and treat patient 2J. Ms. Eubanks testified that the PT evaluation was ordered on April 8, 2011, when it "came upon [sic] assessment." However, the HHC/POCs ordering the PT evaluation were not signed until April 25 or April 27, 2011. Patient 2J's actual physical therapy evaluation occurred on April 21, 2011, either four or six days before it was ordered. Faith Home either delayed 13 days in having the physical therapy evaluation completed, or Faith Home obtained a physical therapy evaluation prior to having a physician's order to provide the service. In either instance, Faith Home did not follow its own policies for providing services. Although the PT created a care plan for patient 2J, there is no physician's order directing the physical therapy care plan be used. Further, the physical therapy services were actually performed by a physical therapist assistant (PTA) and provided to patient 2J during weeks four, five, six, and seven of the certification period. An extra PTA visit was noted in week seven. Again, Faith Home provided services that were not in compliance with their own policies. Patient 3J had an April 5, 2011, order for physical therapy to be provided three times a week for six weeks based on her gait instability, her osteoarthritis in her knees, and her degenerative spinal joint disease. There was no evidence of any physical therapy being provided to patient 3J during the applicable certification period. Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 3J's actual care started in February 2011, despite the HHC/POC documentation that it started on March 24, 2011. Ms. Eubanks blamed a nursing supervisor for the wrong start date (March 24, 2011) and confirmed that the difference in start dates would make a difference in the dates of Faith Home services. Even if one were to accept the February 2011, order for physical therapy services, that order is incomplete because it fails to enumerate how many times a week and how many weeks the physical therapy services were needed. It is an incomplete order. Ms. Eubanks's testimony is not credible in light of the evidence presented by AHCA. Patient 4J's HHC/POC contained a SOC date of April 8, 2011. Therein it ordered skilled nursing services to be provided two to three times a week for nine weeks. As part of the skilled nursing services, patient 4J was to have her vital signs assessed along with other specific assessments. Additionally, the HHC/POC contained an order for a PT to evaluate and treat. Ms. Miller was unable to locate any documentation of home health services provided to patient 4J after May 5, 2011 (four missed visits), and there was no evidence that any physical therapy services were provided to patient 4J. Ms. Eubanks testified that patient 4J was in the hospital when Faith Home services were not provided to patient 4J. Although Ms. Eubanks relied on a discharge instruction sheet to make the claim, there is no date on the discharge instruction sheet, and no one testified as to the exact date that patient 4J was admitted to or discharged from the hospital. Ms. Eubanks's testimony is not credible as it relied on an undated discharge instruction sheet. Further, although the physical therapy referral for patient 4J was faxed to the physical therapy agency, that agency never received the referral and never provided the service. Faith Home failed to have a system in place to ensure services ordered by the physician were obtained. Ms. Okpaleke, as the owner of Faith Home, engaged an expert to help Faith Home "correct all the cites . . . and implement a plan of correction . . . to make sure that we were in compliance." Ms. Okpaleke terminated the expert's employment after the summer. Ms. Okpaleke then started monitoring Faith Home's practices and ensured that Faith Home returned to compliance with AHCA's regulations. Ms. Miller's salary at the time of the FH survey was $20.15. Ms. Miller expended approximately 30 hours in conducting the recertification survey of Faith Home. Based on her rate of pay, AHCA expended $1,370.20 for Ms. Miller's services. Ms. Peabody's salary while employed by AHCA during the FH survey was $21.07 an hour. Ms. Peabody expended approximately 42 hours preparing for, conducting, and completing the FH survey. Based on her rate of pay, AHCA expended $1,048.23 for Ms. Peabody's services. Mr. Bronson Sievers is the health facility evaluator supervisor for AHCA. His salary is $19.87 an hour. Mr. Sievers expended approximately ten hours reviewing the statement of deficiencies to determine if the appropriate citations had been used and the appropriate penalty assessed. Based on his rate of pay, AHCA expended $198.70 for Mr. Sieivers services. Mr. Sievers responsibility included the supervision of several AHCA programs and included the home health agencies. Mr. Sievers determined that the repeated violation warranted a Class III violation, which resulted in a $1,000.00 fine because it may affect the clients' well-being and health. Mr. Sievers provided AHCA's interpretation of the fine imposed when a home health agency demonstrates a pattern of failing to provide the specified services to its clients or patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order finding that Faith Home: Violated section 400.484 by committing a Class III violation as identified during the February 2011 survey and found again during the June 2011 survey and imposing an $1,000.00 administrative fine; Violated section 400.474(5) as found in no less than 107 instances when Faith Home failed to provide services ordered by an appropriate authority and imposing a $45,000.00 administrative fine; and Pursuant to section 400.484(3), AHCA shall assess and receive $2,617.13 for the investigation costs associated with this case as evidenced by the time expended by the three agency witnesses. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Lakeview Terrace Christian Retirement Center is a licensed adult congregate living facility located in Altoona, Lake County, Florida (hereafter referred to as Lakeview Terrace) Lakeview Terrace is also licensed to operate a 20-bed skilled nursing facility at the same location. In February, 1982, Lakeview Terrace applied for a license to operate a home health agency to serve only the residents of its facility. The application was referred to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., for review and comment pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council supported Lakeview Terrace's application and recommended a certificate of need be issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereafter the Department). The staff report of the council contained the following recommended findings of fact: The proposed project is reasonably consistent with the Health Systems Plan. The proposed project would improve continuity of care to residents of Lakeview Terrace and provide a cost-effective alternative to nursing home care at the Center. The proposed project would have no impact on existing home health agencies in Lake County. The proposed project would be financially feasible without altering life care contract charges or levying additional charges. Staff recommends issuance of a Certificate of Need with the following conditions: The council recommended that the certificate of need be issued with the following conditions: The applicant will restrict the proposed service to residents of Lakeview Terrace "Christian Retirement Center" under the life care contract. The applicant will not seek third party financing of the proposed service. The applicant will not levy a separate charge for home health services. On July 14, 1982, the Department, by letter, notified Lakeview Terrace that its proposal to establish a home health care agency was denied. The sole basis for the denial was that the proposed home health agency did not satisfy the requirements of the "Rule of 300" set forth in Subsection (14) of Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, in that existing home health agencies in the area were operating below the 300 average daily census level specified by that rule. The Department also determined that the proposal did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code. (Section 10-5.11(14)(h) sets forth two exceptions to the "Rule of 300"). Lakeview Terrace is presently licensed for 400 residents. It anticipates having between 600 and 700 residents by 1985. The residents are retired individuals and couples. The vast majority of the residents lived outside of Florida prior to retiring and moving to Lakeview Terrace. Ninety- five (95 percent) percent of the residents are over 65 years of age. The residents live in apartment units for which they pay an initial fee or endowment and a monthly maintenance fee. As a part of the agreement entered into between Lakeview Terrace and its residents, each resident receives a full range of services including medical care at a skilled nursing facility. Lakeview Terrace is located in a rural area approximately 15 miles from the nearest home health agency. A home health agency on site would permit many residents who must now be moved to the skilled nursing facility for treatment to remain in their homes with their spouses while receiving treatment. This is beneficial to the patients in that it is not necessary to remove them from their family and familiar surroundings. The patients are then better able to cope with their particular disease. Medically, it is beneficial to an elderly patient to keep them in their homes as long as possible during treatment. There are presently three (3) home health agencies serving Lake County. They are: Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. Leesburg Office Park, Suite 406 Leesburg, Florida 32748; Home Health Professional Service, Inc. Post Office Box 750 Leesburg, Florida 32748; Waterman Memorial Hospital 116 MacDonald Avenue Post Office Box 1836 Eustis, Florida 32726. Waterman Memorial Hospital has served less than 12 persons at Lakeview Terrace over the past five to six years. The minimum charge for a one hour visit is $45.00. Over 90 percent of the patients served by Waterman are recipients of Medicare. Waterman's average daily census over the past year has been between 70 and 80 patients. Waterman has no objection to the issuance of a conditional certificate of need to Lakeview Terrace for home health services. Home Health Professional Service has not provided services to any residents at Lakeview Terrace over the past year. Home Health charges $50.00 per visit and 96 percent of its patients receive Medicare. Its average daily census is presently approximately 102. Home Health Professional Service, Inc., does not feel a conditional certificate of need issued to Lakeview Terrace would have any impact on it and does not object to the issuance of such a conditional certificate of need. The third home health agency providing services to Lake County is Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. (hereafter Central Florida). Over 90 percent of its patients receive Medicare and its charge per visit is $,40.00. Central Florida has never cared for a patient at Lakeview Terrace and its average daily census for the last calendar quarter preceding the hearing was slightly less than 100. Central Florida opposes the application of Lakeview Terrace for a conditional certificate of need. The three existing home health agencies described above have the present capacity and ability to provide home health services to the residents of Lakeview Terrace. Lakeview Terrace proposes to provide the full range of home health services on site at no additional cost to the residents of Lakeview Terrace. The cost of the services would be funded from the endowments paid by residents at the time they enter Lakeview Terrace. Lakeview Terrace would not be reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid for the cost of the services and the certificate of need sought would be conditioned upon Lakeview Terrace not applying for a Medicare or Medicaid provider number. This means that no state or federal funds will be involved in bearing the cost of the home health services at Lakeview Terrace. Although the residents of Lakeview Terrace are aware of the services available from the other three home health service providers in Lake County, they have utilized these services very rarely. Many of the residents who would be treated under the conditional certificate of need sought by Lakeview Terrace would not qualify for the service offered by the other three providers in that these persons are not homebound. Only two or three of the residents of Lakeview Terrace are homebound. The existing providers provide home health services only to homebound patients. The issuance of the conditional certificate of need would have no adverse financial impact on the existing providers in the service area and will reduce the number of patients potentially utilizing Medicare and Medicaid benefits in the service area in the future. The staff report of the North Central Florida Health Planning Council concludes that Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, is not intended for nor relevant to this application for the following reasons: Home health services would be provided as part of a life care contract and would be limited to residents of the life care center. No third party financing would be involved. There would be no impact on existing home health agencies in Lake County. Residents of the life care center currently obtain inpatient nursing care at the center, rather than purchase services from existing agencies.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department grant the Petitioner's application and issue a certificate of need upon the following conditions: The area serviced by this home health agency be limited to the geographical area of Lakeview Terrace. There would be no additional charge to the patients for services rendered directly by the Lakeview Terrace staff. All charges would be covered by the endowment fee. Lakeview Terrace will not apply for a Medicare or Medicaid provider number. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 4th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire 605 East Robinson Street Suite 610 Orlando, Florida 32801 James M. Barclay, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 3, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the Respondent and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The Respondent shall remit to the Agency, within ninety (90) days of this Final Order, the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care 1 Filed November 9, 2009 11:58 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this s3 day o tJ-?t?<: ,2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Care Administrat1 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Ann Lisenby Parmer Lisenby Home Care, Inc. 412 North Cove Blvd. Panama City, Florida 32401 (U. S. Mail) Shaddrick A. Haston Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #2 Mail Stop Code #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this _6ay of /}6 , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 Ce1t1f1ecl Article Number SENDERS RECORD CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR March 3, 2009 ANN LISENBY PARMER LISENBY HOME CARE, INC. 412 N COVE BLVD PANAMA CITY, FL 32401 JFlORl AAGENCY F,OR HIcAl.lCH CARE AOMAINISlllATION Better Health Care for all Floridians oqJ521 CASE #: 2009002407 NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPOSE FINE Pursuant to Section 400.474 (6) (f), Florida Statutes (F.S.), a fine of $5,000 is hereby imposed for failure to submit the home health agency quarterly report within 15 days after the quarter ending September 30. As required in section 400.474(6) (f), F.S., the agency shall impose a fine of$ 5,000. TO PAY NOW, PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS AND MAil.ED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF INTENT TO: Agency for Health Care Administration Finance and Accounting, Revenue Section OMCManager 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Include License Number: 20651096 and Case Number: 2009002407 in check memo field. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS FORM. Agency for Health Care Administration By: Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myfl · • I EXHIBIT I No Theme Page 1 ofl HOME HEALTH AGENCY QUARTERLY REPORT For the Quarter July 1 to September 30, 2008 Send an e-mail with this information to home.ti_ alth@ahca.myflorida.com by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 to avoid a $5,000 fme. NAME OF HOME HEALTH AGENCY Lisenby home Care, Inc LICENSE# 20651096 STREET ADDRESS & CITY: 412 N. Cove Blvd, Panama City, Fl 32401 On September 30, 2008, there were _3_ insulin-dependent diabetic patients receiving insulin injection services from my home health agency. On September 30, 2008 there were _36_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency AND licensed hospice services. On September 30, 2008, there were a total of_77_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency. The following professional nurses (RNs or LPNs), whose primary job responsibility is to provide home health services to patients, received remuneration from my home health agency in excess of $25,000 between July 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008. NONE Name Florida License Number Insert additional names and license numbers if necessary. http://webmail.att.net/wm/en-US/toolbar/advnotheme.html 10/2/2008 psPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 • !:fQ!DtltltlJllSlgn.J.n Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984813801355 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2009 in PANAMA CITY, FL 32401. Track &Confirm Enter Label/Receipt Number. N..-o---t-i--f-i-·c-··d·-·o·-·n- - -Q. rn·t·i01J$------- ---- Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (Bo>) Return Receipt (Electronic) Verify who signed for your item by email. ( tJo>) Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA '\:,_· J-i t;.-,pe ; :;•,· • l.\!!.'-'l·/•. ;- t' ip!;,,; http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 03/24/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA
