The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.036 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and; Whether the Agency's application form and scoring system utilized in the review of nursing home batch certificate of need applications constitute rules of the Agency as the term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), employed in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1993) and; Whether the disputed form and scoring system constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The disputed rule in this case is Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part: The community nursing home beds subject to the provisions of this rule include beds licensed by the agency in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and beds licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, which are located in a distinct part of a hospital that is Medicare certified as a skilled nursing unit. All proposals for community nursing home beds will be comparatively reviewed consistent with the requirements of Subsection 408.39(1), Florida Statutes, and consistent with the batching cycles for nursing home projects described in paragraph 59C-1.008(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule is entitled "Community Nursing Home Beds," and also includes the "need methodology" for determining the need for community nursing home beds and specifically: regulates the construction of new community nursing home beds, the addition of new community nursing home beds, and the conversion of other health care facility bed types to community nursing home beds... Also pertinent to this case, the challenged rule provides: The Agency will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any agency service subdistrict if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that agency subdistrict to exceed the numeric need for community nursing home beds, as determined consistent with the methodology described in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this rule. The challenged rule has the effect of, among other things, requiring nursing homes and hospitals who seek to operate skilled nursing facility beds to file applications for community nursing home beds in the same batching cycle, compete against each other for those beds in nursing home subdistricts and be subject to the need methodology applicable to nursing home beds. The Agency has not developed a need methodology specifically for Medicare certified distinct part skilled nursing units. In 1980, the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, attempted to promulgate rules with the same effect of the rules challenged in this case. In Venice Hospital, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 14 FALR 1220 (DOAH 1990) 1/ the Hearing Officer found the challenged rule in that case to be invalid and concluded, as a matter of law, that, with respect to the previous proposed rule: The competent, substantial evidence shows that these proposed rules are not reasonable or practical and will lead to an illogical result. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing beds into the community nursing bed inventory. In the 1990 challenge to the previously proposed rule, the Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed rule in question was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, but also found that, from a health planning standpoint, reasons existed for and against the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. In the instant proceedings, the Agency concedes that the challenged rule and the previous proposed rule are substantially identical. In this case, the parties defending the challenged rule presented several facts, many of which seek to establish changed circumstances since 1990, as evidence of a rational basis for the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. Facts Established Which Arguably Support the Validity of the Challenged Rule Although the term "subacute care" does not have a generally accepted definition, this term is often applied to that care provided patients in skilled nursing units. Subacute care is an emerging and developing area of care which covers patients whose medical and clinical needs are higher than would be found in a traditional nursing home setting, but not so intense as to require an acute medical/surgical hospital bed. Subacute care is a level of care that is being developed to bridge a gap between hospital and traditional nursing home care and to lower the cost of care to the health delivery system. Both hospitals and nursing homes operate Medicare-certified distinct part skilled nursing facility units. The same criteria, including admissions criteria, staffing requirements and reimbursement methodologies, apply to such skilled nursing units, in hospitals and freestanding nursing homes. The patient population served in such units is primarily a population which comes to either a hospital or nursing home-based unit from an acute care hospital stay. This population group has a short length of stay in the Medicare distinct part unit and can be rehabilitated within a certain period of time. Skilled nursing units in hospitals and those in freestanding nursing homes are competing for the same patient population. Both hospitals and nursing homes are aggressively entering the subacute care market. There are some nursing homes which provide a level of subacute care equal to that provided by hospitals. As a general rule, the staffing, clinical programs, patient acuity and costs of care for patients do not substantially vary between skilled nursing units in hospitals and such units in freestanding nursing homes. In the past two or three years, the number of Florida nursing homes which compete for skilled unit patients has increased. In applications for skilled nursing unit beds, the services proposed by hospitals and those proposed by nursing homes are generally similar. Medicare-certified distinct part units in both freestanding nursing homes and hospitals are certified to provide the same nursing services. The types of services and equipment provided by hospital skilled nursing units and nursing home skilled nursing units are similar. There has been an increase in subacute care in the past five years. The average length of stay for patients treated in Medicare-certified distinct part nursing units in hospitals and in such units located in freestanding nursing homes is similar. The federal eligibility requirement for Medicare patients in hospital- based and in freestanding nursing home distinct part skilled nursing units are the same. Some skilled nursing units which are located in nursing homes have historically received patient referrals from hospitals. When these referring hospitals develop distinct part Medicare certified skilled nursing units, the nursing home skilled nursing units tend to experience a decline in occupancy. Uniform need methodology is developed in part based upon demographic characteristics of potential patient population. Nursing home bed need methodology utilizes changes in population by age groups over age 65 to project need for beds. Both hospital-based skilled nursing units and nursing home-based units serve substantial numbers of Medicare-eligible patients who are 65 years of age and older. Population health status is also utilized in developing uniform need methodologies. The health status of service population for Medicare units in freestanding nursing homes is, as a general rule, the same as the health status of population served in such units located in hospitals. The intent behind the process of reviewing CON applications from hospitals seeking skilled nursing unit beds and nursing homes seeking such beds is to reduce the risk of overbedding and duplication of services. Overbedding and duplication of services have the tendency to result in excessive costs and can result in deterioration of quality of care. Medicare admissions to nursing homes and Medicare revenue to nursing homes have increased in the past several years. Data also indicates that nursing homes are beginning to provide more intensive care for patients in skilled nursing units. The prevalence of freestanding nursing home Medicare-certified skilled nursing units has substantially increased in the past three years and this growth trend is expected to continue. Facts Established Which Demonstrate That the Challenged Rule Should be Declared Invalid The challenged rule requires a hospital seeking Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds to be comparatively reviewed with nursing home applications seeking all types of nursing home beds. There is no separate nursing home licensure bed category for skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds. Once an applicant to construct a nursing home opens the nursing home, the applicant does not need a separate CON to designate beds as a Medicare- certified skilled nursing unit. According to the AHCA's own witness, a freestanding nursing home can internally change its categories at any time without CON review. Pursuant to statute and agency rule, however, hospitals must obtain a CON to change the category of even one bed. 2/ Although a hospital seeking hospital licensed Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds is compelled by Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, to compete against all nursing home applicants and all nursing home beds in a batched review, it faces totally different standards of construction, operation and staffing after approval. Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, is the nursing home bed need formula. This formula does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing unit beds and projects need for total community nursing home beds only. There is currently no bed need methodology (hospital or nursing home) to ascertain the need for Medicare certified skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not separately identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing home beds in nursing homes. All that is shown is whether the beds are "community nursing home beds" or "sheltered nursing home beds." The Agency has not established how, under this inventory and regulatory scheme, it controls overbedding in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units within a specific district or subdistrict since the only such beds shown on the inventories are those in hospitals. It is unreasonable and illogical to compare the need for hospital- based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with the need for all community nursing home beds. Under the present circumstances a reasonable comparison might be drawn between need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds and freestanding nursing home skilled nursing unit beds, but the AHCA rules do not currently provide for such a comparison. Determining the need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds by comparing such beds to all nursing unit beds constitutes poor health planning. Such hospital-based skilled nursing units do not provide similar services to similar patients when compared to all community nursing home beds and it is neither logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for such services. The challenged rule also requires hospital applicants for skilled nursing unit beds to compete with nursing homes within the nursing home subdistrict. The Agency by rule divides districts differently for nursing homes than for hospitals. Thus, some hospitals' skilled nursing unit beds are comparatively reviewed against nursing home beds of all kinds and against hospital skilled nursing beds which are not within the same hospital subdistrict. As a general statement, the treatment profiles for patients in Medicare-certified skilled nursing units in hospitals and those for patients in nursing homes skilled nursing units are similar. There is, however, a distinct part of such patient population which must be treated in a setting which provides immediate access to emergency care. The provision of immediate emergency care is not typically available in nursing homes and nursing home patients in need of such care usually have to be readmitted to hospitals. Care available in hospitals (physicians and registered nurses on duty at all times, laboratory and radiation services available on premises) is sufficiently different to demonstrate that Medicare-certified skilled nursing units are not comparable to such units in freestanding nursing homes in all aspects. This distinction is clearly significant to patients who need emergency services because of age, multiple illnesses, and other conditions. Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is the hospital licensure statute. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The Agency shall issue a license which specifies the service categories and the number of hospital beds in each category for which a license is received. Such information shall be listed on the face of the license. All which are not covered by any specialty-bed-need methodology shall be specified as general beds. The Agency equates "acute care" beds with general beds. By rule, the Agency has excluded from the definition of "acute care bed": neonatal intensive care beds comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds hospital inpatient psychiatric beds hospital inpatient substance abuse beds beds in distinct part skilled nursing units, and beds in long term care hospitals licensed pursuant to Part I, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. By Agency rule, a hospital specialty need methodology exists for all categories of hospital beds excluded from the acute care bed definition except category (e) beds in distinct part skilled nursing units and (f) long term care beds. The Agency is currently drafting a specialty hospital bed need methodology for long term care beds. The only licensed bed category for which the Agency has developed no specialty bed need methodology (existing or in process) is hospital beds in distinct part skilled nursing units. At hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Elfie Stamm who was accepted as an expert in health planning and certificate of need policy analysis. Through Ms. Stamm's testimony, the Agency attempted to establish that the numeric need methodology established by the challenged rule includes a calculation of the need for both nursing home and hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing units. This testimony was not persuasive on this point. Indeed, Ms. Stamm acknowledged that the disputed rule does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing units or beds. The parties to this proceeding have attempted to establish that Medicare admission statistics in Florida support either the validity or invalidity of the challenged rule. Based upon the Medicare-related statistical data placed in the record in this case, it is more likely than not that, as of 1992, in excess of 90 percent of utilization of hospital-based skilled nursing units is Medicare covered and that the percentage of Medicare (as opposed to Medicaid) patient days in all freestanding nursing home beds was only seven percent. In this respect, it is not logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for hospital-based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with all community nursing home beds. 47. The Agency lists Sections 408.15(8), 408.34(3)(5), 408.39(4)(a) and 400.71(7), Florida Statutes, as specific statutory authority for the challenged rule. None of the cited statutory provisions provides specific authority for the Agency to require hospitals seeking hospital licensed beds in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units to be reviewed against all community nursing home beds. There is no evidence of record in this case of any federal law requiring such review and no evidence to suggest that Medicare reimbursement is affected by such a review one way or the other. In this case, the competent, substantial evidence shows that the disputed rule is not reasonable or rational. The Agency has not developed a specific numerical need methodology providing for a reasonable and rational basis to comparatively review the need for Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds in hospitals or in nursing homes. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units into the inventory of all community nursing home beds. Form 1455A Agency Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are used by the Agency in the review of applications for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Various parties in this proceeding assert the Form 1455A and the scoring methodology constitute unpromulgated rules which are invalid pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. Any party filing a letter of intent concerning community nursing home beds receives from the Agency an application package including Form 1455A and instructions. The instructions are an integral part of the application. Also included as part of the application are 34 pages of instructions on how the Agency scores the application. Form 1455A has general applicability to all applicants for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing home facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Form 1455A contains numerous provisions of mandatory language which facially provides that it must be submitted with applications for CON. The Agency acknowledges that such mandatory language predated the passage of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, and considers the language obsolete. The Agency intends, in the future, to edit the form to strike "misleading language". Form 1455A is not incorporated in any rule of the Agency and has not been promulgated as a rule. Applications are reviewed based upon questions in Form 1455A. Applications are also reviewed against a numerical scoring system developed with the form. The form requires that the applicant certify that it will obtain a license to operate a nursing home. The form also requires certification that the applicant participate in Medicaid services which are not applicable to hospitals. These and other portions of the form are not rationally or reasonably related to the operation of a hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing unit. In the review and analysis of the applications at issue, a "scoring methodology" is used by the Agency. The scoring matrix is utilized to put numerous applications filed in the same agency district in perspective in terms of numerical ranking and how the applications compare to each other. The State Agency Action Report is the end product of the Agency review of the applications. The scoring system is used in the review proceedings and is utilized and included in at least some of the State Agency Action Reports. Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are utilized by the Agency in a manner that has general application and which forms significant components of a process which creates rights, and which implements, interprets, and prescribes law and Agency policy. At the final hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, the Agency Chief of the Certificate of Need and budget review offices. Ms. Dudek was accepted as an expert in CON policy and procedure. Ms. Dudek provided an overview of the process whereby the challenged form and scoring system are used by the Agency in analyzing CON applications. Ms. Dudek testified that the Agency does not believe the form and scoring system meet the requirements of a rule. Ms. Dudek considers the form and system to be tools used to elicit responses in a standardized format. The fact that an application receives a high score based on the scoring matrix does not mean that the application will be approved. Ms. Dudek is of the opinion that the form and scoring system do not competitively disadvantage hospitals competing with nursing homes. Ms. Dudek cited the most recent batch cycle in which twelve hospitals were awarded distinct part nursing units, although these hospitals' applications did not receive the highest scores. Ms. Dudek's testimony was not persuasive in the above-referenced areas. As currently structured and utilized by the Agency, the form and the scoring system at issue are not reasonable or rational. There is not an adequate factual or legal basis to support the use of the form or the scoring system in analyzing applications for CON files by hospitals for distinct part Medicare-certified skilled nursing units.
Findings Of Fact The semi-annual census report by DHRS for District. III dated December 1, 1984, (Exhibit 23) indicated a need for 615 additional nursing home beds for the January 1985 review cycle. Although this report cautioned that changes in reporting and pending litigation or appeals could change the count of approved beds, nevertheless, most of the applicants for beds in the January 1985 batching cycle relied on this report as the basis for their applications. At the time this report was submitted, District III was subdivided into seven sub districts, and the need for each sub district was separately listed. Prior to the completion of the review of the applications in the January 1985 batching cycle, some 500 nursing home beds in District III were allocated to applicants in earlier batching cycles whose applications had been denied for lack of need, and who were in the process of appealing those denials. Many of these applications had been updated and those beds were issued by DHRS pursuant to its then-current policy of issuing beds on a first come-first served basis. As a result, only some beds were allocated to those applicants in the January 1985 batching cycle before the pool of available beds was depleted. Furthermore, rule changes became effective before the January 1985 batching cycle applications were reviewed which eliminated sub districts in District III. Largely because of the allocation of beds to applicants in earlier batching cycles, but also due to population based changes in District III, the bed need methodology, using data current at the time of the hearing and computing need to January 1988, shows there will be an excess of 342 nursing home beds in District III in 1988. (Exhibit 33) Eustis Limited Partnership The initial application of Eustis was for 8 additional beds which involved construction costs. The amended application which was considered in this hearing is for three (3) beds with costs allocated only for the equipment and furniture needed to add a bed to three existing rooms. As amended, Eustis' application is very similar to the application of Oakwood Nursing Center who was granted a CON for the addition of three (3) beds without construction costs. At the time Oakwood's CON was granted, DHRS was in the process of granting CONs for 103 beds. At the time Eustis submitted its application, all of the 615 beds initially available had been dispensed and there was no need for additional beds. At this hearing, Eustis produced no evidence to show a need for the three (3) beds for which Eustis applied. The evidence submitted by Eustis primarily showed that by simply adding a bed to three existing rooms, the cost per bed added was far less than would be the cost of constructing new facilities. Inverness Convalescent Center (ICC) ICC proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County at a cost of $3,400,000. (Exhibit 15) Citrus County has four licensed nursing homes with a total of 430 beds and an average occupancy rate of less than 90% during the last reported six-month period. (Exhibit 17)- During the last quarter of 1985, the occupancy rate in Citrus County nursing homes was the lowest of the planning areas in District III, and in the first quarter of 1986, it was second lowest. ICC contends the need formula doesn't apply to their application because they propose to serve special needs of the elderly, such as institutionalized patients, head trauma patients, etc. However, the only testimony presented indicating a need in Citrus County for such special services came from ICC owners and employees who live in New Jersey. ICC further contends that since there are less than 27 nursing home beds in Citrus County per 1,000 residents over age 65, that an additional nursing home is needed in Citrus County. However, the 27-beds per 1,000 population is but one factor considered in determining need for nursing home beds. In short, ICC presented no evidence to show that need exists in Citrus County for the proposed facility. Beverly Enterprises Beverly's application is for a CON to add 60 beds to an existing 120-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, at Suwannee Health Care Center. This facility was opened in 1983 and reached full capacity in seven to nine months. There are two nursing homes in Suwannee County; Suwannee Health Care Center, (HCC) and Advent Christian Village, Dowling Park (ACV). The latter is a church owned retirementc ~B community of 550 residents which provides a continuum of care on five levels. Although Advent Christian is not licensed as a life care community, it gives priority of admission to its 107 licensed nursing home beds to residents of the life care community. As a result, there are few vacancies available for persons living outside the retirement community. Advent - Christian has a waiting list of 32 on the active waiting list and ~20 on an inactive waiting list. People on waiting lists are told the wait is from one to five years for admission. Suwannee HCC has an occupancy rate approaching 100% and a waiting list of approximately 50. As a result, the vast majority of Suwannee County residents needing nursing home care are sent to a nursing home outside Suwannee County, usually in Gainesville, some 65 miles from Live Oak. The planning area in which Suwannee County is located, formerly sub district 1 in District III, has five nursing homes with an average occupancy rate for the last three months of 1985 and the first three months of 1986, ranging from 96.91% to 99.75%. During the first three months of 1986, the occupancy rate of three of these nursing homes was greater than 99%' one as 98.7% and the lowest, Advent Christian, was 96.91% (Exhibit 17). The patient mix at Suwannee ACC is over 80% Medicaid and approximately one-third black. The black population is about 30% of the total population in Suwannee County. Suwannee HCC has had several superior ratings (Exhibits 9, 10), takes patients in order on the waiting list regardless of whether they are Medicaid or private pay, and has a very good reputation in the area for service. DHRS personnel who approve Medicaid placement of patients, hospital employees who have the duty of placing patients in nursing homes, nursing home personnel, and private citizens with relatives in nursing homes, all confirmed the critical access problems of Suwannee County residents for local nursing home placement. Live Oak residents, for example, who need placement in a nursing home are usually sent outside Suwannee County, have their names added to waiting lists at nursing homes in Live Oak, and nursing homes closer to Live Oak than the nursing home in which they are placed, and move to the closer nursing home when a vacancy occurs. As a result, most of the vacancies at Suwannee HCC are filled by patients who were, first transferred outside Suwannee County for nursing home placement, and got on the waiting list at Suwannee HCC. There are very few patients from Suwannee County who are initially placed in a Suwannee County nursing home. Southern Medical Associates (SMA) SMA proposes to construct and operate a free standing, 60-bed, skilled nursing home in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida, at a cost of $1,692,400. (Exhibit 19) When SMA's application was submitted the computation of bed need in Suwannee County under the sub district rule in effect when the application was submitted, showed 30 beds needed in Putnam County. This calculation included 36 beds earlier approved but not yet licensed. At the time of this hearing those approved 36 beds had been revoked by reason of not beginning construction in a timely fashion. The medical consultant who reviewed these applications and prepared most of the State Agency Action reports, (Exhibit 30) initially recommended that SMA'S application be granted. The two existing nursing homes in Putnam County have an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent for the latest reported 3 month period. (Exhibit 17) 85 to 90 percent of these patients are Medicaid patients. The one nursing home in Palatka, Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, is a 65-bed nursing home with an occupancy rate in excess of 99 percent for the past year, and on the date of hearing had 18 people on the waiting list for a bed. The turnover in this nursing home is about 50 percent each year, with most vacancies resulting from the death of a patient. Two HRS employees whose job it is to determine eligibility of residents of Putnam County for Medicaid reimbursement for nursing home care, testified that they very, seldom see a patient go to Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, that over half of the patients they qualify for eligibility are sent out of the county, and of those placed in the county, almost all are placed at Lakewood Nursing Home which is located 18 miles from Palatka. The only hospital in Putnam County discharges 5 to 6 patients per month who need additional nursing care after discharge. Most of these patients are sent to nursing homes in St. Augustine, Florida, a few are sent to Lakewood, but for very few is a bed available in Palatka.
The Issue Whether Life Care Center of Punta Gorda (Respondent), timely submitted its monthly nursing home quality assessment fee for February 2019; and, if not, whether a fine should be imposed for each day that the payment was delinquent.
Findings Of Fact AHCA, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ is responsible for overseeing and administering the Medicaid program for the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide nursing home services, and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. Respondent operates a nursing home facility as defined by section 409.9082(1)(b), and is required, pursuant to section 409.9082(2), to “report monthly to [AHCA] its total number of resident days, exclusive of Medicare Part A resident days, and remit an amount equal to the assessment rate times the reported number of days.” The monthly amount assessed pursuant to section 409.9082 is known as a “Quality Assessment Fee.” Section 409.9082(2) provides, in part, that AHCA “shall collect, and each facility shall pay, the quality assessment each month[, and [AHCA] shall collect the assessment from nursing home facility providers by the 20th day of the next succeeding calendar month.” Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee for February 2019 was to be remitted to AHCA by March 20, 2019. It is undisputed that AHCA received payment of Respondent’s Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019, and that this was the first instance where Respondent failed to timely remit payment of the fee to AHCA. In explaining why the Quality Assessment Fee was not tendered by the due date, Ms. Talbott testified that Respondent’s customary process is to remit payment by FedEx “so that . . . [there is] a tracking mechanism on it.” Ms. Talbott explained that her investigation revealed that the customary process for mailing payment to AHCA was not followed in the instant dispute because the accounts payable clerk, instead of using FedEx, and as a consequence of being distracted by a family emergency, inadvertently mailed the payment via the United States Postal Service, without requesting delivery confirmation. The accounts payable clerk did not testify during the final hearing and there is no specific finding of fact that the check was not delivered to AHCA because of any act(s) or omission(s) by the accounts payable clerk. The check that was purportedly mailed by the accounts payable clerk for payment of the Quality Assessment Fee was never received by AHCA, and Ms. Talbott credibly testified that the same was never returned to Respondent by the postal service. AHCA, by correspondence dated April 3, 2019, and mailed on April 9, 2019, informed Respondent that there was “an outstanding balance pertaining to a Quality Assessment Fee for February [2019],” and that payment of the same was due immediately. Respondent paid the Quality Assessment Fee on April 12, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order finding that Life Care Center of Punta Gorda committed its first offense of section 409.9082 and imposing a fine of $11,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 26th day of November, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology... The Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i. The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 65-74 in the district. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's age adjusted number of community nursing homes beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds;" gross need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 2d as follows: SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--5. 11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" In the subdistrict from the cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures to the greatest extent possible that the horizon population will not be over or undeserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing there were 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1987.
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 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 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner University Home Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Convalescent Center of Gainesville, was a nursing home providing skilled nursing care to Medicaid eligible patients. Petitioner was certified to participate in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is the agency responsible for the administration and payment of Medicaid funds. An eligible entity is required to maintain adequate business records capable of audit by the respondent. Fiscal Year 1975 Petitioner filed with the respondent its cost report for the fiscal year January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975, claiming reimbursable expenses of some $737,000. After an audit of the cost report by respondent, petitioner was informed in January of 1979 that adjustments amounting to approximately $131,000 were necessary and that petitioner was responsible for an overpayment of $56,183. Petitioner was advised by the respondent that its accounting records for the 1975 fiscal year were maintained in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. At the time petitioner's Administrator, Paul C. Allen, received this audit report, he did not have access to the work papers of the certified public accountant who prepared the cost report, but he did have access to the nursing home's financial records. As noted in the Introduction, petitioner is not contesting all the audit adjustments made by the respondent to its 1975 cost report. It is contesting only those disallowances of expenses relating to two automobiles and a mobile telephone, life and general insurance, a $20,000 bonus to the owner, social security taxes, a directory advertisement, interest, food and depreciation. Automobiles and mobile telephone. While allowing automobile expenses claimed for a 1969 Dodge Dart (used by the kitchen and maintenance staff for purchasing supplies) and a 1973 Ford station wagon (used mainly to transport patients), the respondent's auditor disallowed expenses claimed for a 1973 Cadillac (11 months) and a 1975 Lincoln Continental (1 month), as well as the expenses related to a telephone in these cars. The auditor concluded that these automobiles were used by the owner for personal use, were not related to patient care and that the expenses claimed were not documented. Administrator Paul C. Allen admitted that he drove these cars between the nursing home and his residence located 22 miles away and that he did not keep mileage logs for those vehicles. He estimates that 52 percent of the use of the automobiles was directly related to the nursing home business and patient care, and reimbursement is sought for this amount. This estimate is derived from starting with an average of 25,000 miles per year which the cars were driven, and deducting the 44 mile round trip to and from the Administrator's residence for 260 working days in a calendar year, resulting in 11,440 miles of the car's use for personal purposes. The remaining mileage, 13,560 (52 percent of 25,000) is claimed as being used for nursing home business or patient care. A telephone in these cars was also claimed as a reimbursable expense inasmuch as it was used like a "pager" when the Administrator was not on the nursing home premises. This mobile telephone expense, as well as the interest claimed, was disallowed by the respondent's auditor on the basis that it was an unnecessary cost of running a nursing home and was not directly related to patient care. Insurance. On its cost report, petitioner claimed expenses for a general hospitalization insurance policy on its employees and a life insurance policy on the Administrator. No supporting documentation was offered on the general insurance, and this expense was consequently disallowed because there was no indication that such insurance coverage was ever furnished. According to the Administrator, the mortgage loan commitment for the nursing home required that a $100,000 life insurance policy be maintained on the owner/Administrator to secure repayment of the loan in the event of his death. The documentation for such a requirement was not available to the Administrator because the nursing home was refinanced in 1976. Expenses claimed for life insurance on Mr. Allen was disallowed because the $100,000 life insurance policy constituted a fringe benefit to the owner, and the nursing home was at least an indirect beneficiary of an insurance policy on the Administrator. Bonus to owner and taxes. While petitioner contests the respondent's disallowance of a $20,000 bonus to the owner and $3,893 claimed as expenses related to the payment of social security taxes, no competent evidence was presented by the petitioner on these two items. In fact, Administrator Allen could not recall whether or not he received a bonus in 1975, and petitioner's expert accountant did not know what was actually paid to petitioner's staff in 1975. The $20,000 bonus was adjusted out by the respondent because it exceeded the amount allowable as an owner's salary. The tax expenses disallowed were those which exceeded the comparison between petitioner's general ledger and the payroll tax returns. Food expenses. While the respondent's auditors were able to verify from invoices approximately $63,800 claimed by petitioner as food expenses, there was no supporting documentation for the remaining $848 claimed. Petitioner was unable to provide such documentation at the hearing. Depreciation expense. Normally, an asset is capitalized and expensed or depreciated when it is incurred or installed. The fire sprinkler system for the petitioner's nursing home was capitalized in May of 1974, but payment on the system was expensed again in 1975. The petitioner provided no supporting documentation for this expenditure. Directory advertisement. According to Mr. Allen, the petitioner spent $317 for an advertisement in the yellow pages of a local telephone directory. The ad consisted of a small box to show the address of the facility for the benefit of the families of present and future patients. The ad itself was not produced as evidence at the hearing. Expenses for yellow page advertisements are allowed when the ads inform the public of the services which are provided. Such expenses are not allowed when the contents of the ad are not related to patient care or when the ad is in excess of what other nursing homes in the same geographic location are using. No evidence was produced as to other nursing home directory advertisements in the area. Fiscal Year 1979 Apartment rental. For the 1979 fiscal year, the petitioner claimed as an allowable expense the sum of $1,190 paid as apartment rental for the Administrator's son who performed maintenance duties for the nursing home. The Administrator testified that the apartment was near the facility, that a maintenance person needed to be on call 24 hours a day, and that the rental amount was considered part of the son's compensation for his duties with the nursing home. This expense was disallowed by the respondent inasmuch as there was not sufficient supporting documentation to illustrate that the rental costs were part of the services provided to the nursing home. Since the $1,190 was paid to a related party for the cost of apartment rental, it must be demonstrated that such costs do not exceed the price of comparable services or supplies which could be purchased elsewhere. There was nothing in the rental agreement to indicate that payment of the rent was considered part of the lessee's salary by the nursing home to assure 24 hours of maintenance care, nor was any other documentary evidence adduced to this effect. Travel. In its 1979 cost report, petitioner claimed travel expenses for trips taken by the Administrator and his wife to Hawaii, Mexico and Australia. It was alleged that these trips were taken for educational purposes. While expenses for the Hawaii program were allowed, respondent did not allow $3,528 claimed as expenses for the trips to Australia and Mexico. Petitioner presented an agenda of the program relating to the Australia trip which revealed that the program was in connection with the annual meeting of INTERCARE, an international nonprofit association dedicated to the improved quality of life for the convalescent and chronically ill. No evidence was produced relating to the trip to Mexico. The respondent disallowed expenses relating to the trips to Mexico and Australia taken by the Administrator and his wife on the basis that such expenses were unreasonable and unnecessary. It was not considered prudent for a nursing home administrator to travel this extensively and claim reimbursement in his Medicaid nursing home cost report. Respondent also considered the fact that a portion of the expenses claimed were for a party related to the owner/Administrator. Business entertainment. The respondent disallowed $565 claimed by petitioner as business entertainment, because this amount related to liquor purchased for an employee Christmas party. Expenses claimed for food for that social function were allowed by the respondent. Loss on sale of fixed asset. Petitioner claimed as an expense the loss it realized from a wrecked 1979 Lincoln automobile. It was requested that the loss be added to the cost of the new replacement vehicle, also a 1979 Lincoln, for depreciation purposes and recovered over the useful life of such vehicle through depreciation write-offs. Whether or not either of the 1979 Lincoln's were allowed for reimbursement purposes was not established at the hearing. According to the Health Insurance Manual 15, gains or losses realized from the exchange or trade-in of depreciable assets are not included in the determination of allowable costs. Proprietor's compensation. The respondent disallowed the amount of $15,000 claimed by the petitioner as compensation for the Director of Social Services for the third and fourth quarters of 1979. That position was held by the Administrator's wife, Marjorie Allen, who also was a 95 percent stockholder in the corporation which owned the nursing home. According to Mrs. Allen, the duties she performed as social services director, a full-time position, included the transporting of patients to medical appointments, the taking of social histories from newly admitted patients, working with the patients and their families and working with different organizations and agencies. The petitioner's facility also had an Activities Director in 1979, who assisted in such things as crafts and sewing and cooking classes. The $15,000 was disallowed by respondent because there was no supporting documentation produced that the salary related to patient care, because Mrs. Allen was a related party and because there appeared to be a duplication of services between the Activities Director and the Social Services Director. Medicare adjustment. Adjustments for Medicare can be made to reflect changes resulting from Medicare audits in the year that the differences become known. The recomputation is performed in the provider's cost report for the year in which the difference becomes known. Petitioner did introduce evidence that the Medicare adjustment for 1979 should be $119,398 in lieu of the respondent's adjustment of $123,648. As of the date of the hearing, respondent had not been afforded the opportunity to review the final adjusted Medicare cost report.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the petitioner liable for the overpayments set forth in the final audit reports of the petitioner's Medicaid cost reports for 1975 and 1979, less any adjustment required for the 1979 Medicare cost report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitzie Cockrell Austin, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael One Southeast First Avenue Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Office of Audit & Quality Control Services Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license to practice nursing home administration should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for violations of Chapter 468, Part 11, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, MARY ALICE DESSASAU, is a licensed nursing home administrator in the State of Florida, having been issued license number NH0002826. From 1993 to 1995, Respondent was employed as the nursing home administrator of The Ambrosia Home in Tampa, Florida. Respondent, MARY ALICE DESSASAU, is also a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued nursing license number 003029. From 1989 to 1993, Respondent served as a nurse and also as director of nursing for The Ambrosia Home. Petitioner, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to administer the provisions of Chapter 468, Part II, Florida Statutes, governing nursing home administration and conducting disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Section 468.1755, Florida Statutes. Alleged Insufficiencies of the Administrative Complaint Respondent contends that the Administrative Complaint improperly referenced the wrong license number. Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleges: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed Nursing Home Administrator in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 003029. In this respect, Paragraph 2 mistakenly references Respondent's license as a registered nurse instead of her nursing home administrator license. The style of the case, however, clearly identified the prosecuting agency as the Board of Nursing Home Administrators, and the remaining allegations of the Administrative Complaint clearly relate to Respondent's practice of nursing home administration. Moreover, on April 2, 1996, Respondent executed her election of rights, and in her election referenced her nursing home administration license number, which is 0002826. Respondent clearly was on notice that this proceeding sought to discipline her license to practice nursing home administration. Respondent also contends that there are insufficiencies in Paragraph 10 of that the Administrative Complaint which alleges: The violations and deficiencies include but are not limited to the following: Residents were placed in the facility's 23 bed locked unit based upon inappropriate criteria. Frail elderly residents were placed on this unit with violent, mentally ill patients. The nursing home did not appropriately re-evaluate the patients being placed in the locked unit. At least one resident was denied his freedom from reprisal when, after the resident had pulled the facility's fire alarm on July 26, staff members were instructed to shave his beard without the resident's assent. Residents were denied privacy when staff and other individuals rendered personal care to them. A resident was observed in the shower with the shower curtain and door open. Other residents were present in the outer- room and could have observed the resident in the shower. The therapy room where residents received treatment was open to public view and residents were observed receiving treatment. Male residents were observed wearing unzipped pants or no underwear, and exposed themselves to other residents. Female residents complained that male residents would wander into their rooms at night and get into bed with them. Residents were observed with dirty clothing and other unsanitary conditions. One resident was inappropriately restrained. As recited in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Administrative Complaint, the allegations of Paragraph 10 are based upon two inspections by an agency survey team of The Ambrosia Home on July 17, 1995, and again on August 9, 1995. Paragraph 7 specifically alleges that on July 28, 1995, Respondent signed the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction which set forth the basis for the specific allegations of Paragraph 10. In this request, the Administrative Complaint is sufficient in its allegations of specifying those acts and omissions for which Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's license to practice nursing home administration. Conditions at The Ambrosia Home At all material times hereto, The Ambrosia Home was a long-term nursing home facility generally serving residents of modest means, many of whom suffered mental infirmities. Residents with serious mental infirmities were often housed in a locked unit (also known as the 300 wing) within the facility. Prior to July 1995, Petitioner received several complaints regarding deficiencies of the conditions at The Ambrosia Home. These complaints related to resident abuse, staff abuse, quality of care and quality of life for the residents. In response to these complaints, the agency on July 11- 12, 1996, assembled a team of surveyors to investigate conditions at The Ambrosia Home. The team of surveyors included health care practitioners and nursing home professional. Barbara Doyle, a registered nurse, social worker, registered dietitian, and life safety specialist served as the survey team leader. Sandra C. Carey, a registered nurse who also holds a master's degree in business administration served as a survey team member. Ms. Carey has extensive experience working in long- term care facilities, as well as in sub-acute and acute care facilities. The team conducted an extended survey of The Ambrosia Home from July 13-17, 1995. Respondent was the nursing home administrator at The Ambrosia Home at this time. The survey team interviewed Respondent during the course of the team's investigation of the complaints relating to The Ambrosia Home. The survey team conducted an intensive review of patient records, interviewed staff and residents, and extensively inspected the facility. Because of the complaint regarding residents in the locked unit, the survey team was particularly concerned with conditions in the 300 wing. The survey team observed and recorded several deficiencies in the locked unit. Supervision in the locked unit was inadequate. One nurse was responsible not only for the locked unit, but also a second unit of the facility, which resulted in mentally infirm residents being unattended. The facility, and especially the locked unit, was not properly cleaned. The smell of urine permeated the facility. Restrooms had dried fecal matter on the toilets, and were without soap, toilet tissue, or towels. One resident of the unit, M. K., was inappropriately restrained. Keys to the locked unit were not readily available to staff in case of fire or other emergency. Resident Abuse Allegations In addition to the deficiencies of the locked unit, the survey team investigated and confirmed that on May 26, 1996, P. C., a resident of The Ambrosia Home had been inappropriately and severely restrained by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) when attempting to leave the grounds of the facility. As a result of this incident, P. C. suffered scrapes and bruises. Respondent did not become aware of this incident or the injuries sustained by the resident until five days afterwards. Respondent then reported the CNA involved in the incident for abuse. The CNA, however, remained employed at The Ambrosia Home until June 28, 1995. Records of The Ambrosia Home reflected that CNAs were employed at the facility prior to the completion of background checks by the agency's abuse hotline. In a separate incident, by order of the owner of The Ambrosia Home, another resident W. D., was forcibly given a haircut and shaved for pulling a fire alarm. Respondent took no steps to address this incident, and doubted that the incident occurred. Agency Actions As a result of the severity of the findings verified by the survey team, the agency placed The Ambrosia Home on a 23-day termination track. Respondent, as the administrator of the facility, was notified of the deficiencies, and on July 28, 1995, signed the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction for The Ambrosia Home. On August 9, 1995, the survey team returned to The Ambrosia Home for a second follow-up inspection. The deficiencies first verified by the survey team in July 1995 were not corrected. After the second inspection, Respondent was terminated from her position as administrator and the locked unit within The Ambrosia Home was closed. The residents were placed in other facilities. Standards of Nursing Home Administrators Respondent, as nursing home administrator of The Ambrosia Home, was responsible for operation of the facility in accordance with state and federal statutes, rules and regulations. As indicated above, The Ambrosia Home served residents with significant medical infirmities and of limited financial resources. Respondent was aware of the deficiencies of the facility and attempted at times to bring these problems to the attention of the owner. During her tenure as administrator, Respondent attempted to work in good faith with the owner of The Ambrosia Home to address the deficiencies of the facility; however, due, in part, to the medical circumstances of the residents and the financial constraints of the facility the deficiencies of The Ambrosia Home were not corrected. Respondent did not adequately supervise the staff of The Ambrosia Home. The deficiencies of The Ambrosia Home developed over several years during Respondent's tenure as administrator of the facility. Respondent was, however, responsible for being aware of the incidents of mistreatment of residents, as referenced above, and for taking the appropriate measures to address such incidents to protect the welfare of the residents of the facility. Respondent did not take appropriate measures to become aware of these incidents of mistreatment in a timely manner, and did not take appropriate measures to address the incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from the practice of nursing home administration for a period not to exceed one year, and to reinstate Respondent’s license upon completion of additional educational courses as determined by Petitioner.DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Howard J. Shifke, Esquire 701 North Franklin Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602 John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5403
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns property in Dade County, Florida, located at 47 Northwest 32nd Place, Miami, Florida. Improvements have been erected on the property. The Petitioner leases the property and improvements to Flordean Nursing Home, Inc., a Florida corporation. The corporation operates a skilled nursing home on the premises, and pays a monthly rent of five hundred dollars to the Petitioner for the exclusive occupation of the property and improvements. The Petitioner is the president and majority stockholder of the corporation, and the administrator of the nursing home. The nursing home is licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The corporation provides extended care treatment and skilled nursing home services to its clients or patients. The clients pay a single charge for the services which include a room, nursing care, laundry, meals, activities, and medical attentions. Activities include movies, religious services, birthday and other holiday celebrations, and similar functions. The corporation does not and has never simply rented a room to any client. The nursing home is a commercial venture for profit, and it in fact makes a profit. The average age of the nursing home guests is 84. Typically they are admitted through physicians. They become permanent residents. They receive their mail at the home and typically do not leave until they die. The average stay is three years, five months. At the time of hearing the nursing home housed 52 guests in 19 rooms. The rooms are private, semiprivate and three in a room. The petitioner applied for a certificate of registration from the Florida Department of Revenue in June, 1968. The certificate was issued under sales tax number 23-08-102316-82. The Petitioner has paid sales taxes on the monthly rental payments that she has received from the corporation. She is seeking a refund of these taxes for the period from March 1, 1972 through and including May 30, 1978. The corporation does not collect sales taxes from the nursing home guests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order denying the petitioner's refund application. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Rm. LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack R. Rice, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 350838 2424 N. W. First Street Miami, Florida 33135
