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 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 Each applicant in this proceeding submitted its application in the January, 1986 batching cycle for the January, 1989 planning horizon, each requesting a certificate of need to build a 120-bed nursing home in Brevard County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that each applicant's letter of intent and application was timely filed, that there is a need in the January, 1989 planning horizon for additional community nursing home beds, and that 120 of those beds should be awarded to one of these applicants. They further stipulated that there are sufficient professional staff available in the Brevard County area to completely staff a new nursing home facility and that each of the applicants is able to obtain the funds necessary to construct its project. Maple Leaf of Brevard County Health Care, Inc., a new corporation to be formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of HCR proposes a 120-bed community nursing home to be located in central Brevard County in the area of Rockledge and Cocoa. In addition to traditional skilled and intermediate care, the nursing home will provide services for sub-acute patients, and a separate wing of the nursing home will be set aside for Alzheimers and related dementia disease patients (hereinafter "Alzheimers patients"). The HCR proposal includes an adult day- care unit for Alzheimers patients and respite care on a bed- availability basis. At final hearing, HCR submitted an application supplement which provided updated calculations, projections and program descriptions to account for changes occurring as a result of the elapse of time between submission of the original application and the final hearing. The application supplement does not include any programmatic changes from the original application and does not add any new concepts or elements to the original HCR proposal. The adult day-care unit will provide care to Alzheimers patients for four to eight hours a day and from one to five days a week, depending upon the needs of the patient and caregiver. The program will be staffed by a nurse director and an assistant. Patients will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimers disease victims. This program provides placement for the patient who does not need inpatient care but whose caregiver needs rest or an opportunity to attend to matters outside of the home, such as employment. Respite care at the HCR facility is intended to provide placement for patients on a 24-hour basis while the family or caregiver attends to needs such as vacation or hospitalization incompatible with overnight care of the patient at home. Respite care provides inpatient nursing home care for short periods of time, typically a week or two. Sub-acute care is a more intensive form of skilled nursing care than typically has been provided in nursing homes. Historically, this care was provided in hospitals, but adoption of the DRG (diagnostically related group) system of acute care reimbursement has resulted in an earlier discharge from hospitals of elderly patients who continue to need an intense level of nursing care. Sub-acute care includes the provision of high-tech services such as ventilator care IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and short- and long-term rehabilitation. HCR provides a wide variety of these sub- acute care services in its existing facilities. Hospitals in Brevard County report difficulty in placing patients who require sub-acute care and high-tech services. Particularly difficult to place are these patients whose care is reimbursed by Medicaid. The availability of sub-acute care also provides continuity of care for bedridden Alzheimers patients in the later stages of the disease when they require life support systems. HCR proposes to devote a 29-bed wing of the facility to the care of Alzheimers patients. Special design features, patient activities and programs and modified staffing will be provided to meet the special needs of Alzheimers patients. Alzheimers disease, a form of dementia, is a degenerative condition of the brain which results in a progressive dementia and loss of Previously- acquired intellectual functions and memory. Generally, the disease has three or four stages. In the earliest stages, the victims experience some mild memory loss, behavioral changes, loss of interest in previous hobbies, depression, anxiety and increased difficulty handling some routine day-to-day affairs. In the early stages, victims often are in reasonably good physical condition and symptoms tend to be fairly subtle. In stage two memory loss is much more apparent, and victims begin to have problems with the use of language. They may have increased difficulty with spatial relationships and become lost in familiar surroundings. These victims experience more noticeable problems with their memory in terms with dealing with their family and friends; as the disease progresses to stage three, those problems tend to worsen and become apparent even to people who are not otherwise familiar with the patient. The victims may have additional behavioral or psychiatric difficulties associated with depression or severe anxiety. A delusional stage is frequent. These victims experience disruption of their sleeping cycles and sleep during the day and wander during the night. Seizures may become a problem. In stage three, the victims usually require supervision. As the disease progresses through stage three, the victims have difficulty with personal hygiene, difficulty getting dressed and difficulty performing the simplest human task. As the disease progresses into stage four the victim becomes bedridden and requires total nursing care. There is no cure for the disease. It is terminal. Nursing home care is probably appropriate for everyone in stage four of Alzheimers disease. Most patients in stage three require nursing home care. Some patients in stage two may require nursing home care, depending upon the type of care that is available at home. According to some estimations, approximately 2.5 million American adults suffer from Alzheimers disease and approximately one-half of existing nursing home patients, and 15 percent of the population age 75 and over suffer from Alzheimers disease (4 - 5 percent 65 and over, 20 - 30 percent 85 and older). There are eleven nursing homes in Brevard County, but there is only one nursing home in Brevard County which provides a separate unit for Alzheimers patients. This facility is located in West Melbourne in south Brevard County. There is no nursing home which provides a separate Alzheimers program in central or north Brevard County. Historically, Alzheimers patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimers patient in the nursing home has often created management problems because of wandering, incontinence, confusion, loss of cognitive and communicative capabilities, unusual sensitivity to normal environmental stress, and socially, unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, nursing homes have sometimes avoided admitting Alzheimers patients. Often, when such patients were admitted, their behavior was controlled by sedation and physical restraints. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimers disease are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimers patient. The Alzheimers patient exhibits such unacceptable social behavior as going through other patients' belongings, sleeping in other patients' beds, violent behavior, being unresponsive to attempted communications and continually wandering. A separate unit for the Alzheimers disease victim also accommodates the needs of the non- Alzheimers patient. It is medically appropriate to separate Alzheimers patients from other nursing home patients. Frequently, the Alzheimers patient is suffering from mental problems resulting in confusion and disorientation but is otherwise physically healthy and ambulatory. Other patients in the nursing home often have a variety of medical problems which require more intensive nursing care. Placing Alzheimers patients in the same area with those patients with medical problems requiring more nursing care can be disruptive to the nursing care being provided to the non- Alzheimers patient, The design of the HCR facility is intended to reduce the environmental stress on Alzheimers disease victims and allow them to maintain their cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Special wall coverings, floor coverings, labeling and color coding features are provided. Separate dining and activities areas are provided. Wandering is permitted. A fenced courtyard is provided. A monitoring system will alert the facility staff when a patient begins to wander out of the facility. Bathrooms are designed to avoid fright and confusion by automatic lighting systems, coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Safe dinnerware and tables which enhance the Alzheimers victim's ability to continue to feed himself or herself are provided. Additional staffing in the Alzheimers unit and staff training in Alzheimers care will be provided. The goal of the Alzheimers design and program is to maintain the patient's activities of daily living and assist in the retention of the patient's cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Separate, specialized Alzheimers care units are beneficial for several reasons. They are safer for the Alzheimers patient. They reduce the agitation and disruption of the Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimer's patient. They provide programs for Alzheimers patients which are within the patient's cognitive abilities. The units are smaller, and each patient receives more individual attention. Sedation and physical restraint is eliminated or reduced. Individual dignity is enhanced. HCR confirmed the need for an Alzheimers program in Brevard County by calculations based upon nationally-accepted statistics and contact in Brevard County with individuals knowledgeable of the availability of care being provided to Alzheimers disease patients. Special units for Alzheimers patients are a fairly new phenomenon. HCR proposes to develop Alzheimers units in other nursing homes in Florida and has submitted applications to add Alzheimers wings to existing nursing homes in Florida. HCR also proposes to convert a wing in an existing facility in Dade County to provide care for Alzheimers patients. HCR will locate its nursing home in the Rockledge- Cocoa area, about thirty miles north of Melbourne and thirty miles south of Titusville, in central Brevard County. All 120 nursing home beds in the HCR nursing home will be certified for Medicaid reimbursement. New equipment for the HCR nursing home is projected to cost $412,079. This represents an increase in cost over the original estimate of $370,000 because of a general increase in equipment cost since the original application and an allocation of approximately $13,800 for equipment for the daycare unit, a cost which was not included in the original estimate. HCR's estimate for purchase of new equipment is reasonable. Projections of payor-mix, facility utilization and revenue and expenses of a nursing home are useful to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project. All projections utilized by HCR to evaluate financial feasibility are conservative projections. The updated projections presented by HCR at final hearing are more conservative than the projections presented in HCR's original application. If the projections found in HCR's original application were realized, the facility simply would be more profitable. HCR's estimate of an 11 percent interest rate for the funds to be borrowed for this project is a reasonable and conservative estimate. HCR's estimate of 50 percent intermediate care patients and 50 percent skilled care patients is a reasonable estimate for the patients expected to be found in this facility and is a conservative estimate. No other applicant provided such an estimate. In computing revenues and expenses, HCR assumed an inflation factor of 3 percent for Medicare and Medicaid revenues, 5 percent for other revenues and 5 percent for expenses. These inflation factors are reasonable. HCR's projections of 22 percent in year one and 25 percent in year two for payroll taxes and fringe benefits are reasonable and consistent with HCR's actual experience. HCR utilized reasonable and appropriate depreciation periods of 40 years for the building and 10 years for equipment. These are the depreciation periods used by HCR in its regular course of business. The patient charges projected by HCR, including Medicaid, Medicare and private room rates and ancillary charges, are reasonable projections. HCR projected that private pay room charges at the nursing home would be $75 for a semi-private room and $85 for a private room in July, 1989. These updated projections are consistent with existing (1987) private pay rates in Brevard County, which range from $59 for a semi-private room to $90 for a private room. The HCR rates, inflated forward to 1989, are reasonable and consistent with the existing private pay charges in Brevard County. Private pay room rates charged at nursing homes tend to reflect the market for private pay rates in the vicinity of the nursing home. HCR's updated projection of payor-mix is consistent with the actual experience in central Brevard County and an open admissions policy for Medicaid patients. HCR projects that the facility will reach 95 percent occupancy within 12 months of operation. This projection is based upon HCR's experience subsequent to filing the original application. This projection is reasonable and more conservative than those of the other applicants. HCR anticipates a loss in the first year of operation of $293,885, but a profit in the second year of Operation of $241,084. These projections reveal that the project proposed by HCR is financially feasible, and these projections are reasonable. Staffing of the HCR nursing home is comprised of an administrator, a director of nursing, an assistant director of nursing, an Alzheimers program director, 8.4 FTE (full time equivalent) registered nurses, 6.3 FTE licensed practical nurses, 39.9 FTE nurse-aides, 1 full time occupational therapy aide, 1 full time recreational therapy aide, a social worker, an activities director, 10 FTE dietary personnel, 3 FTE laundry personnel, 8 FTE housekeeping personnel, a maintenance person, 2 clerical workers, and 1 medical records worker. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, and speech therapy will be provided by licensed therapists on a contract basis. The updated staffing pattern represents minor changes from the staffing pattern in the original application. These changes are a direct result of HCR's experience in operating an Alzheimers wing within a nursing home. HCR's staffing level for staff who provide direct patient care (RNs, LPNs and Aides) exceeds that of Wuesthoff and Unicare. Staff levels in the HCR nursing home are designed to meet the special needs of the Alzheimers patients. An Alzheimers program director will be responsible for the Alzheimers wing and will be an advisor for the day-care facility. HCR's staffing pattern assumes 15 wandering Alzheimers patients in the Alzheimers wing. Care for Alzheimers patients requires increased staffing. Higher nurse-aides staffing is required in the Alzheimers wing during the evening and night hours than in the remainder of the nursing home because Alzheimers patients tend to wander without regard to the time of day. HCR estimates construction costs to be $2,200,000, not including site preparation, which is estimated to cost $275,000. Construction costs per square foot are estimated at $55 and $61.87 when site preparation is included. The estimates of construction cost and construction cost per square foot include an allocation of 2,000 square feet and $110,000 for the day-care unit. The cost per square foot projected in the updated application differs from that projected in the original application because the original application included site preparation, assumed a facility size of 36,000 square feet and was not changed when the original design was changed to add day- care in the original application supplement. The actual size is approximately 40,000 gross square feet. The original HCR application submitted a blueprint which is somewhat different in shape from that which HCR currently intends to build. When HCR added day-care in its Original application supplement, a change in the shape of the building was required and a new design was submitted, but cost estimates were not changed. The design which HCR will use for this facility is similar to the design being used in four ongoing HCR projects in Florida, and which, therefore, meets HRS' requirements. The design relied upon by HCR at final hearing is not substantially different from the design presented to HRS in the original application supplement. HCR's estimates of construction cost, construction cost per square foot, construction cost per bed, equipment cost per bed and total project costs are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the construction of the proposed facility. HCR's updated construction cost estimates are based upon its construction experience in Florida, its experience in having built the design proposed and its discussions with contractors and subcontractors on the east coast of Florida. HCR is currently building two facilities on the east coast of Florida. HCR does not anticipate any cost overruns on any of the facilities currently under construction. All HCR facilities under construction are being constructed within the certificate of need budgets for those facilities. HCR estimates project development costs, including feasibility studies, surveys, legal and accounting fees, planning and HRS's plan review, to be $55,000, which represents an increase over the estimate in the original application due to the passage of time. HCR estimates professional services required for the construction of the facility to cost $90,000. These services include architectural and engineering fees and a site survey and soil investigation report. These costs are approximate1y $5,000 less than the original estimate. This reduction in cost is a direct result of HCR's new staff of civil engineers. Previously, HCR had contracted for site survey work with outside engineers. Thus, while architectural and engineering fees increase, the costs for site surveys and soil investigation reports decrease. The HCR nursing home will be located on approximately 5 acres. HCR estimates land cost for the facility to be approximately $500,000. This - represents an increase over the original land cost estimate because HCR intends to acquire a site which requires less site preparation, located near a hospital. The HCR estimates for land cost are reasonable and consistent with other applicants' estimates. Site preparation costs are estimated at $275,000, a reduction from the original site preparation cost estimate of $315,000. This change is accounted for by HCR's intention to acquire a more costly site which will require less site preparation. HCR intends to build and operate the nursing home proposed for Brevard County and is willing to accept a condition to that effect on any certificate of need issued. HCR estimates a project completion schedule which will result in its nursing home being occupied and in use in July, 1989, and this project completion forecast is a reasonable forecast. HCR has taken steps to ensure that failure to initiate construction within statutory requirements will not occur. HCR has undertaken numerous nursing home projects since 1983 and has successfully constructed or initiated construction on all of those projects. At this time HCR has approximately six projects under construction, four projects have been completed, and one project is under construction for a third party. The design of the HCR facility incorporates numerous energy conservation measures and efficiencies. The HCR facility will comply with all energy code requirements. HCR owns and operates seven nursing homes in Florida. Three of these facilities have superior licenses, and the remaining facilities have standard licenses. HCR nursing homes adhere to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patients' rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurses services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, patient activities, infection control, patient care planning, safety and the physical environmental, menus, diets, nutritional care and scheduling and staffing of dietary personnel, personal appearance and hygiene for dietary personnel, and food storage, preparation and sanitation. These standards and guidelines will be applicable to this proposed project. The standards and guidelines cover all areas of operations and patient care and incorporate survey tools used by the state of Florida and the Health Care and Finance Administration of the federal government for their annual licensure surveys. Additionally, administrators of HCR facilities have a financial incentive to optimize the performance and the quality of care of their facilities. HCR estimates that approximately 60 percent of the patient days in the facility (53 percent of the revenue) will result from Medicaid patients. This estimate is consistent with the experience in the Rockledge-Cocoa area, where one facility has a very low percentage of Medicaid patients and the remaining facilities have very high Medicaid populations (over 60 percent). HCR's estimate also takes into account HCR's recent experience in staffing a facility which includes an Alzheimers wing. HCR will not restrict the number of Medicaid patients in the Alzheimers wing or the remainder of the home. HCR's original application assumed approximately 45 percent of the patient days (42 percent of the revenues) would be accounted for by Medicaid patients. This assumption was based upon HCR's assumption at that time that, in order to cover the assumed high cost of additional staffing in the Alzheimers wing, a greater percentage of private patients (at a higher daily charge) would be required. Subsequent to submission of the original application, HCR has gained actual experience which has demonstrated that the level of staffing proposed by the original application is not necessary and that the cost of staffing can be reduced. The result is that HCR can reduce its reliance on the additional revenue generated by the private paying patient. HCR's design for its Brevard County Alzheimers unit is based upon a state-of-the-art Alzheimers wing at its facility in Perrysburg, Ohio, and HCR's experience gained there. In addition, HCR operates two other facilities which have separate units for Alzheimers patients. The HCR application is consistent with both state and local health plans. HCR projects a charge for Medicaid patients to be $60.93 and, for Medicare patients to be $76 in July, 1989. The increase in charges between the updated projections and the original projections is due to increases in costs during the passage of time since the original estimates were made. The cost of care for patients who are unable to pay is subsidized by the general revenue of the nursing home. Although HCR and Unicare have not projected a percentage of "charity" patients who will not be paying for their services, there will always be some patients who do not pay for all of their care. Patients who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford standard private pay rates are charged at lower contract rates. The loan fees projected by HCR of $57,000 for the amount of the project financed by debt are reasonable projections based upon current discussions with lenders. HCR estimates that interest during construction will cost $225,000. This amount represents the interest expense paid during the period of construction. This estimate is reasonable. HCR estimates $50,000 will be required for preopening expenses - those incurred in preparing the facility for the opening day. These expenses include marketing and the hiring of an administrator, a director of nursing, and other employees prior to opening. $50,000 is an adequate amount to cover the pre- opening expenses for the proposed facility. HCR's pro forma assumptions, proposed patient charges, projections of revenue and expense, staffing and projections of salaries are reasonable. Each HCR nursing home provides individual patient care plans for each patient, a statement of patients' rights and a resident council (which is a unit of individuals selected by the patients to afford an opportunity to have a formalized, direct method to state preferences, grievances and other opinions related to the operation of the nursing home), and each HCR nursing home has transfer agreements with local-hospitals. The planning director of the Local Health Council responsible for Brevard County performed an analysis of the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County. The results of the study demonstrate that the central part of Brevard County has a lower number of nursing home beds per thousand population over 65 than the remainder of Brevard County. If additional nursing home beds are to be approved for Brevard County, the beds should be located in the central part of the county because the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County is greatest in central Brevard. The HCR architectural design best accommodates the needs of the nursing home patient. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., is a non-profit corporation affiliated with Wuesthoff Hospital, Inc., a 305-bed non-profit hospital serving Brevard County, through a common parent Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. Wuesthoff Hospital provides some indigent medical care in central Brevard County, and the Wuesthoff nursing home certificate of need application commits to providing some indigent care at the proposed nursing home facility. Wuesthoff, through its affiliated non-profit companies, operates within Brevard County a home health agency, a hospice, four family practice clinics, Life Line for the elderly or disabled who live alone, and Brevard Medical Transport, a no- cost transportation service for the elderly. It also operates a retail pharmacy through a for-profit affiliated corporation. The hospital has for several years maintained a senior citizens' advisory council which concerns itself with the needs of the elderly in Brevard County. It also intends to compete with other businesses in operating Brevard County's Meals On Wheels due to a recent expansion of the size of the Hospital's kitchen. The proposed nursing home will be located on a tract of land owned by Wuesthoff Hospital which will make the property available to Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., at either the nominal rental of $1 per year for the useful life of the nursing home or by outright contribution if required by HRS. The land has been owned for several years by Wuesthoff Hospital, but Wuesthoff included $48,000 for land costs in its original certificate of need application. The site for the Wuesthoff nursing home is part of a large tract of land which already has located thereon a 20,000 square feet ambulatory care center, diagnostic testing center, family practice physician, dental facility, and retail pharmacy, all of which are owned by one of the Wuesthoff corporations. The ambulatory care center includes laboratory services, physical therapy services, radiology services, two out-patient surgery suites, and 24- hour physician coverage. The nursing home will be connected to the ambulatory care center by an air conditioned, enclosed corridor through which the nursing home patients will be transported to receive any therapies or services which they require. The farthest distance from any patient room in the nursing home to the ambulatory care center, including physical therapy rooms, is approximately 400 feet. Wuesthoff's nursing home would be located in the area which the Local Health Council recognizes as having the greatest need for nursing home beds, i.e., central Brevard County in the Cocoa/Rockledge area. According to Wuesthoff's updated application the total project cost for its 120-bed nursing home would be $2,901,213, and the facility will consist of 37,500 square feet. The project size actually includes 1,000 square feet for the corridor which connects the nursing home to the ambulatory care center. Therefore, the facility itself consists of only 36,500 square feet. It is unclear whether that figure should be further reduced since Wuesthoff decreased the size of its kitchen in its amended application so that the nursing home would no longer have a full-service kitchen. Similarly, the total project cost was substantially higher in Wuesthoff's original application wherein the total project cost was given as $4,417,884. Wuesthoff made changes from its original to its updated application either because the applications were prepared by different persons or because decisions were made to change Wuesthoff's application, as follows: The original application included a full-service kitchen, while the updated application contemplates meals will be prepared at Wuesthoff Hospital and transported seven miles to the nursing home. The removal of the kitchen affects the square footage of the facility along with equipment costs, staffing costs and other costs associated with the operation of the proposed nursing home, such as the increased costs associated with transporting the food to the nursing home. In its original application, one individual was listed as both the nursing home administrator and director of nursing. In its updated application, Wuesthoff treated these as separate positions. Wuesthoff proposed $376,000 for equipment costs in its original application and projected $187,400 for equipment costs in its updated application. Wuesthoff projected 45 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare in its original application and 50 percent Medicaid and 2 percent Medicare in its updated application without any evidence that the needs in the community had changed. Wuesthoff removed the debt service, in its updated application, thus reducing the financing costs. The underwriter's fees between the original and updated application were reduced based upon a dimunition of the bond size as a result of reduction of square footage in the facility and the elimination of the debt service. Wuesthoff reduced land cost from $48,000 in its original application to no cost in its updated application despite the fact that the land was owned by Wuesthoff at the time the original application was filed. Wuesthoff changed the equity contribution between its original and updated applications without any testimony of extrinsic factors while evidence showed that the funds were available to make the equity contribution at the time of the submittal of the Original certificate of need application. Although Wuesthoff's application' represents that approximately 3 percent of the revenues from private pay patients would be devoted to indigent or charity patients, the 3 percent actually applies to both charity and bad debt. Wuesthoff failed to demonstrate how much of its revenues, if any, would be allocated to charity care alone. Wuesthoff projected charges of $65 for a semi- private room for a private paying patient and $73 for a private room for a private paying patient. These charges, projected for mid-1989, are below existing (1987) charges at nursing homes in Brevard County. The projections of financial feasibility and the pro formas for the Wuesthoff facility are based upon the assumption that the Wuesthoff nursing home will be owned and operated by Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. The only financial statements provided by Wuesthoff in support of its application are those relating to Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital. Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital is a corporation separate and distinct from Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. Further, the financial statements of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital provided by Wuesthoff do not include the "notes" normally appended to those statements. The "notes" to the audited financial statements are typically included in any complete financial statements and are required for a full understanding of the financial statements. The pro formas of Wuesthoff assume that 15 percent of salaries would be allocated to fringe benefits. This assumption is based upon the assumption that the employees of the nursing home will not be unionized and, therefore, their fringe benefits will not be as high as those for unionized employees. The nurses at Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital are unionized and have higher benefits than proposed for the nursing home. Unionization is a decision made by employees and not by management. Wuesthoff's assumptions for fringe benefits do not assume any increase in the fringe benefits from year to year. Wuesthoff agrees that there are required increases in fringe benefits, such as increases in required contributions to social security programs over the next few years. Thus, the amount for fringe benefits assumed by Wuesthoff understates the amount likely to be paid. A participant in the Medicaid reimbursement system is entitled to reimbursement on the basis of fair rental value of the nursing home. Although the fair rental value aspect of the reimbursement plan includes consideration of the value of land upon which a nursing home is situated, and although Wuesthoff assumes that it would receive reimbursement under this element of the plan, Wuesthoff does not include in that reimbursement any value for land value. Wuesthoff would be entitled to that form of reimbursement, but Wuesthoff was unable to specify "how that's going to be done." The Medicaid reimbursement system incorporates certain caps on reimbursement, including caps for patient care costs, operating costs and property costs. Wuesthoff is unable to specify which Medicaid reimbursement caps it utilized when calculating its Medicaid charges. It is not possible to calculate Wuesthoff's Medicaid reimbursement and Medicaid charges based upon the exhibits presented by Wuesthoff, including its applications. The Wuesthoff application does not contain any description of patient care costs or costs of operation of the Wuesthoff facility upon which Medicaid charges can be determined. Wuesthoff represented that certain services would be provided to the Wuesthoff nursing home by Wuesthoff Health Services or Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital at no charge to the nursing home. The exact nature of the services and their value are unspecified. Although Wuesthoff contends fewer staff will be needed at the nursing home, Wuesthoff has not determined how many additional staff would be required at the hospital and has not calculated the cost of transporting food to the nursing home. Ordinarily, a related entity providing services to a nursing home is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of those services under the Medicaid reimbursement system. Wuesthoff has not determined whether the Medicaid statutes and regulations will allow a related entity to waive its entitlement to such reimbursement. Wuesthoff's parent company, Wuesthoff Health Systems, and Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital will incur costs for providing those services to Wuesthoff which Wuesthoff represents will not be reimbursed. These entities' budgets and Medicaid reimbursement are regulated and audited by HRS and the Hospital Cost Containment Board. By providing services to the nursing home and no longer allocating 100 percent of costs to operation of the hospital, the hospital's reimbursement and budget will have to be adjusted. These required adjustments have not been taken into consideration by Wuesthoff. In preparing its budget to be submitted to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, the hospital will be required to allocate a certain amount of time for those persons providing services to the nursing home. The hospital will not be reimbursed for those services by Medicaid or Medicare. The total cost of providing care to nursing home residents must be reported by the nursing home in its Medicaid cost report. If a nursing home does not include allowable Medicaid costs in its cost report, HRS will include those costs when HRS audits the cost report. When those additional costs are included, the nursing home's reimbursement (Medicaid charge) will increase. It is not a generally accepted accounting principle to exclude allowable costs in a Medicaid cost report. By not including certain costs, expenses are understated and profit is overstated. Wuesthoff attempted to present evidence that a hospital-based nursing home facility maintains lower costs which can be passed on to its patients, because of an absence of taxation and the presence of group purchasing. However, this evidence also revealed that the hospital-based nursing home to which Wuesthoff sought comparison had patient care and operating costs which exceed the caps for Medicaid reimbursement. Additionally, Wuesthoff's Medicaid costs are higher than those of HCR. Wuesthoff proposes an architectural plan for its nursing home which has never been built in Florida. Wuesthoff is the only applicant which proposes three nurses' stations for 120 beds. The 120-bed nursing home with two nurses' stations is more efficient to operate than a 120-bed nursing home with three nurses' stations. Three nurses' stations result in a higher cost per patient day than two nurses' stations. Wuesthoff's architect was unable to estimate the cost of site preparation and was unable to specify the exact nature of site preparation required. However, site preparation will be required. There is confusion concerning the cost of equipment for the Wuesthoff project, particularly with regard to food service equipment. Although the Wuesthoff architect testified that Wuesthoff originally had consulted with him concerning the cost of equipment, the witness was unable to identify the equipment costs listed in the application. The equipment list relied upon by Wuesthoff and the list of used equipment and food service equipment was not prepared until the first week of the final hearing. Wuesthoff's projection of construction cost ($57 per square foot) was not prepared by Wuesthoff's architect and the source of the projection is unspecified. The project is not based upon any actual experience of nursing home construction in Florida. The original estimate was provided by the architect to Wuesthoff several years earlier and was lower than $57 per square foot. Wuesthoff proposes to connect its nursing home to a nearby ambulatory surgical center by a corridor. There are no physical therapy or Occupational therapy rooms provided at the nursing home. Although recreational therapy and speech therapy must be provided at the nursing home, only small meeting rooms are available for these purposes. A nursing home patient transported from a nursing home to a location outside the nursing home for therapies must remain in the care of nursing home staff. This mode of operation requires more staff than one in which all therapies are provided within the physical confines of the nursing home. Wuesthoff did not include in its estimate of project development cost any estimate for attorney's fees or consulting fees of the planners and financial consultants retained for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need. The shared services referred to by Wuesthoff are not free services, and no evidence was offered to show that the sharing of those services would be cost efficient. The corridor between the ambulatory surgical center and the nursing home is estimated by Wuesthoff to be 1,000 square feet. The cost for the corridor is -included in the costs projected for the nursing home, and the corridor is included in the total size (37,500 square feet) of the nursing home. Wuesthoff proposes to equip the nursing home with used equipment and furniture. The used hospital beds which Wuesthoff proposes to use at the nursing home are eight to twelve years old. Although Wuesthoff proposes to provide therapy through professional staff from Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Wuesthoff could not estimate how many additional therapists must be hired by the hospital in order to provide therapy for the nursing home patients. Wuesthoff contends that it will provide a high level of charity care in its nursing home at the same level that is provided at the hospital. However, when calculating the percentage of charity care at the hospital, Wuesthoff included care provided within programs where some form of governmental funding was available to pay for care. For instance, Brevard County contributes funding toward the care of patients who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement. There is also a state fund for indigent care and Wuesthoff expects to receive revenues from that fund. The total allowance for bad debt and charity care proposed by Wuesthoff is 1.1 percent of gross patient revenues. Wuesthoff will require financial screening of patients prior to admission. Unicare proposes as total project cost in both its original and updated applications the amount of $3,360,000. The project cost cannot be relied upon, however, since it will be necessary for Unicare to modify its design. As further set forth below, Unicare's projected revenues and expenses are suspect. Unicare has never constructed a new nursing home in Florida or built the design proposed. When filing a cost report and determining Medicaid reimbursement for a new nursing home, all costs incurred throughout the process of developing and constructing the project, including feasibility studies, attorney's fees, accounting fees, consulting fees and certificate of need fees must be included. Unicare failed to include all project development costs in its application. The pro formas and projections of revenues and expenses for Unicare were prepared solely by Unicare's certificate of need consultants, based upon the consultants' experience in their own nursing homes and not upon any information (other than home office costs) concerning the operation of Unicare nursing homes. Unicare's in-house financial expert agreed that it is difficult to project revenues and expenses for operation of the proposed Unicare nursing home without having knowledge of what Unicare's general costs and expenses are. Two Unicare homes have failed to comply with the isolation room requirements of Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the licensure of nursing homes. The Unicare design does not provide any single, licensed isolation room as required by HRS licensure regulations. The Unicare architectural design provides only one toilet room between two patient rooms to meet the needs of four nursing home patients. The company which designed and expects to construct the Unicare facility has not performed any nursing home construction work in Florida since 1983 or 1984 when the company remodeled a nursing home. The last nursing home which this company completed for Unicare was prior to 1985. This company did not prepare the construction cost estimates relied upon by Unicare. Calculation of the size of the Unicare facility did not include a reduction of 9 square feet for each indented, V-shaped window in the facility. There are 23 such windows proposed for the Unicare facility. Accordingly, the Unicare facility is 207 square feet smaller than represented in the application. Licensure regulations require an unobstructed view (vista) of 20 feet from the window of a nursing home resident's room. At least four Unicare patient rooms have an unobstructed view of less than 20 feet. Therefore, the design presented by Unicare at final hearing does not comply with the rules for licensure of a new nursing home, pursuant to Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. The Unicare design has never been built, although it was prepared more than five years ago. The design was intended for patient programs not now proposed by Unicare. The original facility design accommodated residents who require a degree of care below and can participate in activities above typical nursing home residents, such as residents found in adult congregate living facilities. The design and location of the sinks in the Unicare patient rooms do not allow sufficient space for a patient in a wheelchair to have access to the sink at the same time that the door to the toilet room is open. Unicare proposes to locate its facility in the Titusville area in north Brevard County. The local health plan shows the greatest need for additional nursing home beds to be in central, not north, Brevard County. Unicare's selection of Titusville as the area for location of its nursing home was not based upon any demographic analysis or determination of need for additional nursing home beds in the Titusville area. Rather, the selection of Titusville would avoid competition with another of Unicare's facilities located in the Rockledge/Cocoa area. In determining equipment needs, Unicare's certificate of need consultants did not refer to the design of the Unicare nursing home. Unicare projects that its facility will reach 97 percent occupancy in the first nine months of operation. However, the last nursing home to open in the Titusville area, Vista Manor, did not reach 97 percent occupancy until after the first year of operation. Unicare will staff at skilled levels. Its proposed staff salaries are reasonable. Unicare has not yet settled on any site in the Titusville area although it has narrowed its search down to four sites which vary between four and seven acres with prices ranging from $25,000 to $90,000 per acre. Its current total project cost of $3,360,000 computes to a project cost per bed of exactly $28,000. Unicare's parent, United Health, Inc., is the entity that must fund this project and has, by resolution, committed to such funding "provided that said expenditure shall not exceed $28,000 per bed." Consequently, it is highly likely that the proposed design, which has never been built anywhere, which must be redone to comply with HRS codes, and which will be built on land that is yet to be acquired but which will likely require a zoning variance, will cost more than $28,000 per bed. The HCR nursing home is larger and provides more area for patient care than the facilities proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare. The HCR facility will provide more gross square feet per bed and a larger nursing unit area (which includes patient rooms, the nursing support unit and corridor areas). The entire facility proposed by HCR will be 40,000 square feet, 2,000 of which is allocated to day-care; the day-care area will be available to nursing home residents during those hours in which the day-care area is not in use by day- care residents. The Wuesthoff facility is said to be 37,500 square feet, but 1,000 square feet consists of an outside corridor; thus, the net usable space at the Wuesthoff nursing home is only 36,5' 00 square feet. The smallest proposed facility is the Unicare facility, said to be 34,121.5 square feet, but actually less than 34,000 feet when accurately measured. The nursing homes proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare are at or below the low gross square foot average determined by HRS. Larger patient care areas are desirable. It is not desirable to place only one toilet room between two patient rooms to accommodate four patients, as proposed by Unicare. It is a generally accepted standard for nursing home skilled nursing units to be organized in groups of 60 beds. Units of this size offer the best efficiencies of operation in terms of economics and quality of care. Each nursing unit must include, in addition to patient bedrooms, toilet rooms and bathing facilities, one nurses' station, a clean utility room, a soiled utility room, a medication preparation room, a nourishment room, a janitors closet, an equipment storage room, a stretcher and wheel chair alcove, a clean linen closet and a nurses' toilet and lavatory. By providing three nursing units, Wuesthoff must devote more space to meet these requirements than would be required for two nursing units.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order: Granting HCR's application for a certificate of need; Denying Unicare's application for a certificate of need; Denying Wuesthoff's application for a certificate of need; and Dismissing the Petition to Intervene of Brevard Medical Investors, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2686, 86-2687, 86-2688 and 86-2690 Unicare's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 22, and 25 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Unicare's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 13 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 2, 4-7, 12, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 26 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 9 and 18 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 27 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 36, 39, and 40 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 31 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 1, 7-18, 22-30, 32, 34, and 41 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 19-21, 33, 35, 37 and 38 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 42 - 43 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-66, 68, 70-81, 83, 85- 92, 94, 96-104, and 106-123 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 67 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; 69 as being cumulative; 82 and 95 as being irrelevant; 84 as being unnecessary; 93 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law; and 105 as being not supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 3231 Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact FMCC's application is to provide a 102-bed long-term care nursing facility in Fort Myers, Florida, while AHC's and HSI's applications are to provide 120-bed long-term nursing care facilities. When each of these applications was presented to the south Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. (HSA), the application of FMCC was approved and forwarded to Respondent recommending approval and the other two applications were disapproved and so forwarded. The primary reason given by HSA for disapproving HSI's application was lack of firm financing and for disapproving AHC's application was cost of construction. Trained personnel to man the proposed facilities are in short supply in Lee County. Applicants' plans to import personnel, if necessary, from other parts of the country were supported by no evidence to indicate such personnel would be amenable to move to Lee County. All applications were disapproved by Respondent and each applicant requested a hearing which resulted in this consolidated hearing. At present there are 741 existing or approved long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County, Florida. A 120-bed facility at Cape Coral became operative in February, 1979 and a 60-bed addition to Beacon-Donegan Manor nursing home has also been approved. Prior to the opening of the newest 120-bed facility at Cape Coral, the occupancy rate for the other long-term care nursing homes was greater than 90 percent. Due to its recent opening, no evidence was presented as to the occupancy rate in Lee County following the opening of the Cape Coral facility. The population of Lee County in 1978 was 184,841 with 41,984 more than 65 years old, which is less than 23 percent of the population. This is in line with the population forecasts by the University of Florida and validates the estimated 1980 population figures which were used by all parties in submitting their applications. In 1978 Respondent proposed a State Health Plan which included a determination that the long-term care nursing home bed needs were 27 per 1,000 population greater than 65 years old. This determination was unacceptable to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) whose decision is binding on Respondent. In refusing to accept this standard, HEW reaffirmed the requirement that the formula contained in the Hill-Burton Act be utilized in determining certificates of need. Following the Hill-Burton formula results in no additional long-term care nursing home beds needed in Lee County. Modification of the results produced by use of the Hill-Burton formula when extenuating and mitigating circumstances exist is authorized by the Florida Medical Facilities Plan. Accordingly, when use of Hill-Burton formula produces results contrary to obvious facts, such as a showing of no need for additional facilities when occupancy rates are high and long waiting lists for admission exists, these extenuating circumstances are considered and a finding of need is made. The parties stipulated that extenuating circumstances, notably the greater than 90 percent occupancy rate in nursing homes in 1977 and most of 1978 and the existing waiting lists created need for 100 to 120 additional beds. No evidence was presented establishing a need for more than 100-120 additional long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County. In fact, no evidence was presented showing the current occupancy rate, current waiting lists, or any other information not previously submitted to the Health Systems Agency was here presented other than the latest Census Report, which merely confirmed the accuracy of the forecasts. Even if the 27 beds per 1,000 population greater than 65 which was proposed by the South Central Florida Health Systems Agency were used to establish the number of beds needed, their limitation, that no more than 50 percent be added in the two-year planning period, would preclude approving more than one additional nursing home at this time. Absent evidence showing a need for more than one additional nursing home, the only issue remaining is which of the applicants is best qualified to provide the best service at the lowest cost for the stipulated need. HSI submitted proposed construction costs and patient charges in line with those submitted by FMCC. However, although their application states, and the Health Systems Agency apparently accepted, their allegation that an option to lease had been obtained on the property on which the proposed facility was to be erected, testimony at the hearing disclosed that only an oral agreement to lease the property had been obtained by HSI. An oral agreement affecting a long-term lease of real property comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. This fact alone renders all cost estimates submitted by HSI suspect. Further, the financing proposed by HSI to construct the facility shows less than $200,000 equity capital available and a requirement to borrow $1,300,000. One ground noted by the Health Systems Agency for disapproving this application was the inadequacy of their financing. No evidence presented at this hearing contradicted this Health System Agency's finding. AHC operates some 50 nursing homes in 14 states with two nursing homes in the Orlando area. A certificate of need has been obtained for a third nursing home in Jacksonville. Florida Living Care, Inc., the parent corporation of FMCC, manages some 44 nursing homes and owns 25. It has certificates of need for 6 nursing homes in Florida, one of which is completed and in operation, while 3 are under construction. AHC proposes to finance 87 percent of the cost of the 120-bed project, or $2,160,000, in a 40-year loan at 8.5 percent interest. FMCC proposes to finance 80 percent of the cost of a 102-bed project, or $1,000,000, in a 25-year loan at 9.5 percent interest. Although no testimony regarding the current status of mortgage money was presented, it is recognized that interest rates are at historically high levels and that FMCC is more likely to get financing on the terms it proposed than is AHC on the terms the latter proposed. HSI proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.16 per patient per day. FMCC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.96 per patient per day. AHC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $34.40 per patient per day. No significant difference exists in the services proposed by each of the applicants. Savings from combined purchasing can result when numerous facilities are operated. Both AHC and FMCC are in a better position in this regard than is HSI. Additional savings in group food purchasing can result when facilities are within 200 miles of each other. The facilities FMCC's parent corporation is opening in Sebring and Port Charlotte are close enough to Fort Myers to allow group food purchasing for these facilities. AHC's construction costs are approximately 50 percent higher per bed than are the costs submitted by FMCC and HSI. This factor must result in higher charges to amortize these higher construction costs.
The Issue The parties have stipulated that Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, F.S., and that the attorney fees requested are reasonable, up to the $15,000.00 statutory limit. The issue remaining for resolution is whether the expungement proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are adduced from the record, consisting of the transcript and exhibits in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C, from the stipulations of the parties, and from the final order of the agency adopting the recommended order of Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers, dated March 20, 1990. Petitioners are sole proprietors of Forest Haven, an unincorporated adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and located at 8207 Forest City Road, Orlando, Florida. Petitioners and Forest Haven have their principal office in Orlando, Florida and are domiciled in Orlando, Florida. They have less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million. On March 17, 1989, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) survey team visited Forest Haven to conduct an annual survey of the facility. The survey team was comprised of 10 persons, enlarged due to a training exercise. Several of the team members were registered nurses; several members were Office of Licensure and Certification supervisors. During the course of the visit and observations of the residents, members of the team determined that eight residents required a higher level of care than could be provided at the ACLF. As found in the recommended order adopted by the agency, the basis for this determination was, As to T.M., age 81, the need for a restraining vest, and the existence of bruises and gashes on the face and head; As to H.L., age 89, the presence of a foley catheter, total disorientation, low weight and poor skin turgor (brittle skin); As to F.W., age 72, the presence of a foley catheter, observation of fresh blood in the catheter bag, and low body weight; As to M.B., age 81, incontinence and nonambulatory status; As to R.T., age 84, a foley catheter and contraction of both legs; As to L.O., age 94, edema of lower extremities, contracture of both knees, low body weight, skin tear on left buttocks, and possible bed sore on right buttocks; As to P.B., age 88, incontinence, low body weight, and inability to transfer from wheelchair to bed without assistance; and As to F.H., age 89, one-half inch bed sore on coccyx, pitting edema of legs, incontinence and somewhat confused state. An adult protective services investigator was summoned, as well as law enforcement personnel, and the above residents were removed from the facility on an emergency basis and were placed in a nursing home. They were evaluated at the nursing home the following day by Carolyn Lyons, a Registered Nurse Specialist with HRS, who found that intermediate or skilled nursing home services were required. A ninth resident, C.K., was evaluated by a medical review team nurse and an adult protective services worker at the ACLF on March 20, 1989, and was removed from the facility and placed in a nursing home the same day. C.K., age 89, was found to be confused, incontinent, with bruises, a swollen foot, non- ambulatory, and with a red rash on the trunk of her body. HRS obtained orders from the Circuit Court to provide protective services for seven of the above-mentioned residents. Of the remaining two, one was competent to consent to the nursing home placement and another was returned to his own home by relatives. On March 22, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Annette Hair, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. of the eight residents who had been removed from the ACLF. She relied on her own observations of the individuals, on the medical assessments performed by the survey team nurses at the ACLF, and the subsequent assessment of Carolyn Lyons, the HRS staff person responsible for making an evaluation of the level of care required for medicaid nursing home placement. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Hair's report provides, in pertinent part: * * * Based on the facts obtained during the course of this investigation this case is being classified as CONFIRMED. In accordance with F.S. Section 415.102(4) it is clearly estab- lished that [S. and J.G.] were the caregivers of the eight alleged victims of this report as they had been entrusted with the care of said individuals. The allegation of neglect is verified for each of the eight alleged victims in that [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the care and service necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of an aged person that a prudent person would deem essential for the well-being of an aged person (F.S. Section 415.102(13)). Specifically each of the eight alleged victims has a medical condition which required twenty-four hour skilled nursing care and supervision which the caregivers, [S. and J.G.] failed to provide for said individuals. Five of the eight alleged victims, [H.L., L.O., T.M., F.H. and P.B.] had Scabies (a highly contagious disease caused by parasitic mites that burrow under the skin. This disease is associated with unsanitary conditions and causes a painful itch). [S. and J.G.] failed to provide the supervision necessary to detect this disease and in so doing jeopardized the health and well-being of the other residents in the facility. [H.L.] in addition to having Scabies, was semi-comatose, had bed sores on her buttocks and pelvic area and had a foley catheter. [T.M.] had open lacerations on her face, was extremely mentally confused and was known to wander and fall which required her to be physically restrained. [L.O.] had two open skin areas and Edema. [M.B.] has an excoriated area on her buttocks, Edema of the feet, and her right knee was swollen. [R.T.] had a cough of unknown origin, contraction of both legs, and an in-dwelling catheter. [F.W.] had an in-dwelling catheter which was draining bloody urine and appeared malnourished. [P.B.] appeared malnourished and was incontinent of both bowels and bladder, was extremely confused, and had an open draining wound. [F.H.] had bed sores, and Pitting Edema in addition to Scabies. [S. and J.G.], in addition to being negligent for failing to provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the alleged victims, were in direct violation of F.S. Section 400.426(1) as they did not perform their responsibility of determining the appropriateness of residence of said individuals in their facility. (Petitioner's exhibit 2, in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) On April 4, 1989, HRS Protective Services worker, Kathleen C. Schirhman, classified the report in her investigation as "confirmed" medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. She relied on her own assessment of the resident, and on the medical assessments by Nurse Lyons, and by medical staff at the receiving nursing home, including a physician, Dr. Parsons. The narrative "investigative conclusion" of Ms. Schirhman's report provides: Based upon the facts obtained during the course of this investigation, both alle- gations of medical neglect and other neglect were determined to be verified, and the case is being classified as CONFIRMED. [J.G. and S.G.] assumed the responsibility of care for [C.K.] and, therefore, became her caregivers. They did not provide the care and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of [C.K.] that a prudent person would deem essential for her well-being. She required medical services and nursing supervision in a skilled nursing facility. Pursuant to F.S. 400.426 "the owner or Admini- strator of a facility is responsible for determining the appropriateness of admission of an individual to the facility and for deter- mining the continued appropriateness of resi- dence of an individual in the facility." The assessment by the CARES nurse determined that [C.K.] was being medically neglected, because she required 24 hour nursing care, which she was not receiving. She had Scabies, for which she was not being treated. The CARES nurse believed that the alleged victim was at risk and requiring immediate nursing home placement. Allegation of "other neglect" was added to the original report. [C.K.] was being neglected, because she was a total transfer patient, who required restraints, which were not used and cannot be used in an ACLF. Furthermore, the potential for harm to her was great: She was blind, confused, and unable to self-preserve. (Petitioner's exhibit number 1 in cases number 89-4151C/89-6087C) S.G. and J.G. requested expungement of the reports but the request was denied on July 10, 1989. Thereafter, through counsel, they made a timely request for a formal evidentiary hearing. The hearing was conducted on February 14 and 15, 1990, by DOAH Hearing Officer, K.N. Ayers. Depositions of David J. Parsons, M.D. and Gideon Lewis, M.D. were filed after the hearing, by leave of the Hearing Officer. In his recommended order issued on March 20, 1990, Hearing Officer Ayers found that the HRS investigators did not contact the physicians who had signed the admissions forms when each of the residents at issue had been admitted to the ACLF. Nor did the HRS staff obtain records from the home health agency which, at the treating physicians' direction, was providing, or had provided, home health care to most of the residents at Forest Haven. Skin lesions (decubitus) and scabies were found to be frequently present in nursing home and ACLF residents. Edema and underweight conditions are also common in these residents. Dr. Lewis, the treating physician for most of the residents at Forest Haven, had ordered the vest restraint for T.M.'s protection. He had also written to HRS about a year prior to the survey, recommending that efforts be made to relocate H.L. to a skilled nursing facility. The recommended order found that no evidence of exploitation or neglect, other than medical neglect, was presented at the hearing. The order also found that evidence of medical neglect by S.G. and J.G. was not presented, but rather, "[t]o the contrary, the evidence was unrebutted that Respondents [Petitioners in this proceeding] promptly reported to the resident's physician all changes in the resident's physical condition." The agency's final order was filed on May 29, 1990, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by Hearing Officer Ayers, and granting J.G. and S.G.'s requests for expungement. The Final Order addressed the department's exceptions to the recommended order, as follows: RULING ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT The dispositive issue is whether retention of a resident (or residents) in an ACLF whose medical condition is more serious than the established criteria for residence in an ACLF (see Section 10A-5.0181, Florida Administra- tive Code for the criteria) constitutes per se neglect under Chapter 415. Inappropriate retention of a resident may constitute grounds for disciplinary sanctions under the licensure rules, but it does not automatically consti- tute abuse under Chapter 415. See State vs. E. N. G., Case Number 89-3306C (HRS 2/13/90). The evidence of medical neglect was based on the inappropriate retention of certain resi- dents. The Hearing Officer's finding that these residents were not medically neglected is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, the department is obligated to accept this finding. Johnson vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), B. B. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 542 So2d 1362 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). In pursuing expungement, Petitioners incurred fees, costs and interest in the total amount of $22,772.49. The amount of interest included in that total is $1,000.91. As stipulated, the fees, up to the $15,000.00 statutory maximum, are reasonable.
The Issue The issue is whether a certificate of need should be issued to permit Tamarac Hospital, Inc. d/b/a University Community Hospital (Tamarac) to convert 10 acute care medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds. Based on their presentations at the final hearing and their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the central issue is whether there is a need for the proposed nursing home beds.
Findings Of Fact Tamarac proposes to convert 10 currently licensed medical/surgical acute care beds into skilled nursing facility beds. The skilled nursing beds would be available at the hospital to treat patients who no longer require acute hospital care but do require skilled nursing services beyond those required by ordinary nursing home patients. (Tr. 15-16) 1/ The capital cost of the project would be approximately $20,000 for renovation to provide a private bathroom in the existing group of hospital rooms which would be converted to use as the skilled nursing facility (Tr. 25). The testimony of the petitioner with respect to the financial feasibility of the project was undisputed (Tr. 25, PX 1, p.14). Tamarac has encountered problems in placing patients who no longer require acute hospital care in nursing homes in HRS District 10, Broward County, when those patients require more than normal nursing home services. These patients, due to their diagnosis or treatment, require more skilled nursing care, more technical assistance, supplies or more frequent checking than traditional nursing home patients (Tr. 15). These are patients with infectious diseases or draining wounds who require isolation; patients requiring ongoing intravenous administration of medications including antibiotics and narcotics; patients on chronic ventilator support; patients with tracheostomies requiring respiratory support, suctioning or oxygen; patients with naso-gastric feeding tubes and patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (PX 1, application, p. 2). Tamarac introduced a study it had conducted concerning discharge delays for the one year period prior to its application which included 70 patients (Tr. 12, PX 3). The study is anecdotal in nature. The director of social services for Tamarac, who is in charge of discharge planning coordination, testified that the 70 cases were representative and randomly sampled (Tr. 12, 21). There was no specific evidence of the sampling methodology, however. In the absence of better evidence of the sampling methodology it is not possible to determine what inferences validly may be drawn from the information presented in PX 3. For example, the evidence fails to show whether the 70 cases included represent 1 percent or 100 percent of the instances where a discharge was delayed. All that is known is that in 53 percent of those 70 cases studied the discharge delay occurred because the patient could not be placed in a nursing home (Tr. 12). These 37 patients might have been served at Tamarac if a skilled nursing facility had been in operation. Due to the limited evidence of how the sample was chosen, the study has been given little weight. In addition, the application and Tamarac's study focuses solely on the experience of Tamarac in attempting to place patients who no longer required acute care in a nursing home. There is no basis for determining whether there is a general community need for the project proposed. The narrowness of the proof offered is apparently due to the restriction Tamarac made in the application that "this project is for [Tamarac] hospitalized patients only". Application, PX 1, page 6 paragraph 4. Tamarac also conducted a survey of Broward nursing homes to determine what services they provide, PX 4. That survey indicates that there are some specialized nursing services that are not available in nursing homes in Broward County, e.g., services for patients on chronic ventilators and patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (although Tamarac did not indicate that it proposed to offer services to AIDS patients). There are also services which are not commonly available. Many nursing homes will not accept patients on intravenous medication in the form of chemotherapy or narcotics or patients with draining wounds, and the few that do generally require no pathogenic organism be present as shown by negative culture test. Even when some nursing home in Broward County provides a specific service, a bed at that nursing home may not be available to a patient in Tamarac Hospital ready for discharge from acute care when the bed is requested (Tr. 14- 15). Tamarac's placement problem is made more difficult because it is to some extent in competition with other Broward County hospitals for the available nursing home beds for patients needing skilled, subacute nursing services (Tr. 16). This generalized evidence of competition does not rise to the level of demonstrating a need in HRS Service District 10 for the proposed skilled nursing facility. Tamarac has attempted to persuade existing nursing homes to expand services to accept on a routine basis patients needing the type services which Tamarac proposes to provide, but has been unsuccessful (Tr. 16). The bed need calculation methodology set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for the July 1988 planning horizon shows a surplus of 92 nursing home beds in Broward County (RX 1 and 2, Tr. 32-44). Approximately 258 nursing home beds are unoccupied in Broward County on a daily basis, assuming 100 percent occupancy actually could be achieved (Tr. 39). The availability of empty nursing home beds in the district does not necessarily mean that beds are available for a particular patient at Tamarac Hospital who needs more than normal nursing services on a specific day (Tr. 55). Individual patients requiring subacute care may remain in the hospital (Tr. 18). Patients ready for discharge from acute care are not eligible for Medicare coverage (Tr. 17), and are potentially liable for their hospital costs incurred awaiting placement. If they were transferred to a skilled nursing facility such as that proposed by Tamarac, those patients would be eligible for the Medicare benefits for the first 20 days, with an additional 80 days of co- insurance reimbursement thereafter (Tr. 26). The average hospital room, board, and ancillary charges at Tamarac is $900 per patient and per day. The charge to be made in Tamarac's proposed skilled nursing facility would be $115 per day (Tr. 26). According to the application (PX 1, table 7, utilization by the class of pay), 65.6 percent of its patient days of service are provided by Tamarac to Medicare patients. Tamarac would recover approximately $115 per patient per day for patients utilizing its skilled nursing facility, rather than writing off, as it does now, approximately $900 per day for those Medicare patients requiring subacute care who remain in Tamarac due to an inability to identify an appropriate skilled nursing facility in Broward County to accept them when their care requirements are greater than that normally provided by Broward County nursing homes (Tr. 29). Few Medicaid patients utilize the services of Tamarac because of the nature of the population surrounding the hospital. Referring again to the evidence of utilization by class of pay, only one tenth of one percent of the patient days spent at Tamarac during the period January 84 through December 84 were days spent by Medicaid patients. There would be no restriction on access to the skill nursing facility unit if one of the rare Medicaid patients at Tamarac Hospital required those services (Tr. 27-28).
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Tamarac Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital to convert 10 medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 20th day of October, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county 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: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home 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. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home 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 community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
