The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, 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 6th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need ("CON") program in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes (1992 supp.) AHCA initially published a need for 313 community nursing home beds in the 16 county area encompassing District III on April 17, 1992, which was subsequently corrected and published as a revised total of 321 net bed need for District III. On September 17, 1992, with a cover letter signed by Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA issued notice that it intended to issue: CON No. 6983P to Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare"), for construction of a 60 bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and CON No. 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and, intended to deny, among others: CON 6983 to Unicare for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6989 to Lake Port Properties ("Lake Port") for either the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing beds to 60 community nursing home beds or the conversion of the 60 beds and the construction of an additional 60 community nursing beds to be located in Lake County; CON No. 6991 to Unicare for the addition of 51 community nursing home beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center, in Marion County; CON No. 6992 to Ocala Health Care Associates, G.P., for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds to TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Marion County; and CON No. 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. (Southern Medical) for the addition of 60 community nursing beds to Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that all participants have standing, except Heartland. Additional stipulations, accepted during the hearing, in the absence of a representative for Ocala Health Care Associates, are as follows: subsection 408.035 (1)(m) is not in dispute; proposed project costs and design are reasonable; the applicants' Schedules 1, notes and assumptions, the schematics, and the narrative responses to all of objective 4 in each application are in evidence, not in dispute, and are reasonable. The parties also stipulated to the approval of CON 6991 for Unicare to add 51 beds to its New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County, and the denial of CONS 6983 and 6983P to Unicare. LIFE CARE Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), a privately-held corporation established in 1976, by its sole shareholder, Forrest L. Preston, owns, operates or manages 131 nursing homes and 14 retirement centers in 26 states. In Florida, Life Care manages four facilities with superior licenses, located in Altamonte Springs, Punta Gorda, and two in Palm Beach County, Lakeside and Darcy Hall. Life Care also owns, as well as operates, the facility in Altamonte Springs. Life Care owns and operates 28 nursing homes through leases, 6 or 7 of which are capital leases. Under the terms of the capital leases, Life Care is responsible for capital expenditures and projects. Life Care is not responsible for capital expenditures and projects at approximately 91 of its 131 facilities. Life Care proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in the southwest section of Hernando County, near Spring Hill, and to finance the total project cost of approximately $5 1/2 million from bank loans. Life Care has not identified a specific site for its facility. Life Care has proposed to accept a CON condition to provide 75 percent of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries, to establish a separate 20-bed wing for Alzheimers and related dementia ("ARD") residents, and to provide intravenous therapy, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, wound care and adult day care. Life Care's proposed Medicaid condition exceeds the 1991 district average of 73.78 percent, and is consistent with its experience in Altamonte Springs of up to 73 percent Medicaid without a CON condition, and over 80 percent Medicaid in West Palm Beach. The Medicaid percentages indicate that Life Care will offer mainly traditional nursing home services. BEVERLY Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the ultimate corporate parent of the applicant, owns 830 nursing homes, with a total of 89,000 beds in 35 states. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., the applicant in this proceeding, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly California Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises-Florida ("Beverly") owns 41 of the total 68 nursing homes owned in Florida by Beverly-related companies. Of the 40 nursing homes owned by Beverly at the time the application was filed, 31 had superior licenses. Three facilities had moratoria within the preceding 36 months, one a facility built in 1929, another with a two-week moratorium which is now licensed superior, and a third which is still conditional while physical plant improvements are underway. See, Finding of Facts 28, infra. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Spring Hill, Hernando County, for $5,213,077, with its CON conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of annual patient days to Medicaid residents and a $10,000 grant for gerontology research at Hernando-Pasco Community College. Beverly proposes four beds for a ventilator-dependent unit, two beds for respite care, 20 beds on a separate wing for ARD residents, and to establish an adult care program. Beverly commits to group patients with ARD or other losses in cognitive functioning together in a 20-bed area, to offer subacute rehabilitative care in a 24 bed Medicare skilled nursing unit, and to provide intravenous therapy. Beverly also intends to establish a dedicated four-bed ventilator unit staffed with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience in critical care continuously on duty, a separately staffed adult day care program, and respite care. Beverly's would be the first ventilator beds other than in hospitals and the first licensed adult day care program in Hernando County. One of Beverly's existing Florida nursing homes is Eastbrooke which is also located in Hernando County, approximately 10 miles from the proposed Spring Hill site. Beverly expects its experienced personnel from Eastbrooke to train and assist in establishing Spring Hill. Beverly has identified a site for the Spring Hill facility which is across the street from an acute care hospital. Spring Hill is in southern Hernando County, near Pasco County. UNICARE By stipulation of the parties, the Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") proposal to add 51 beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County was recommended for approval on May 12, 1993. Unicare withdrew its requests for the approval of CONs 6983P and 6983 in Hernando County. As a result, the parties agreed that the number of beds needed was reduced from 321 beds to 270 beds. LAKE PORT Lake Port is a 60-bed licensed skilled nursing center, with a superior rating, located at the Lake Port Properties Continuing Care Retirement Community, in Leesburg, Lake County. Lake Port Properties is a partnership, for which Johnson Simmons Company serves as the managing general partner. The Lake Port community includes independent living residences, a 66-bed adult congregate living facility, and the 60 sheltered nursing beds. Among the services provided are post-operative care and orthopedic rehabilitative therapy for patients who have had knee or hip replacement surgery or shoulder injuries, neurological therapies for stroke injuries, pain management, subacute, open wound and respite care, and hospice services. Lake Port currently has 11 Medicare certified beds, and has had from 8 to 22 Medicare certified beds at a time. Lake Port has a contract with Hospice of Lake-Sumter County to provide interdisciplinary services to approximately five hospice residents a year. Rehabilitation services are also provided by contract at Lake Port. Lake Port has a relatively high volume of residents who are discharged home following intensive therapy within an average of three weeks. As an indicator of the intensity of therapeutic services, Lake Port has provided 26 percent Medicare, while the Lake/Sumter planning area average was 7.2 percent. Life Care projected a Medicare rate of 6.7 percent, Beverly projected 10 percent Medicare, and the Hernando County average is 9.3 percent. In this proceeding, Lake Port proposes either to convert the existing 60 skilled nursing beds to 60 community nursing beds at no cost, or the 60 bed conversion and the approval to construct an additional 60 community nursing home beds, for a total 120-bed community facility at a cost of $1.4 million. Lake Port proposes to have either CON, if approved, conditioned on the provision of 29.2 percent and 33.81 percent Medicaid, in years one and two, and respite, subacute, and intense rehabilitative care. Historically, the payer mix has included 25-30 percent Medicare and 30-35 percent Medicaid. All of the proposed services are provided currently at Lake Port. The effect of the change in licensure categories is to eliminate the requirement that the facility serve exclusively the retirement community residents after five years in operation, or after August 1995. Lake Port would still be obligated to provide nursing home care to Lake Port community residents at discounted costs, pursuant to the terms of their continuing care contracts. Occupancy levels at Lake Port exceed 95 percent, with 7 to 8 percent of patient days attributable to retirement community, and the remainder to patients in a service area which includes West Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port asserts that its financial viability depends on its ability to continue to serve all residents of its service area. SOUTHERN MEDICAL Southern Medical Associates, Inc. ("Southern Medical") is a Florida corporation which owns two nursing homes, one with 60 beds in Okaloosa County and one with 120 beds in Palatka, in Putnam County. Palatka Health Care Center opened with 60 beds in May 1989, added 60 beds in November 1990. Both nursing homes have superior licenses and are managed and staffed by National HealthCorp, L.P., which was founded in 1971, and manages 86 nursing homes, twenty-nine of those in Florida. The management fee is 6 percent of net revenues. In its application for CON number 6993, Southern Medical proposes to add 60 beds to the existing 120-bed nursing home, known as Palatka Health Care Center. Occupancy levels at the Palatka Center ranged between 96 and 99 percent in 1992-1993. Total project costs of $2.1 million will be financed by or through National HealthCorp. Southern Medical proposes that its CON be conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed distinct Alzheimer's wing and the provision of 74 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. Southern Medical provides rehabilitation services in a 14-bed Medicare certified unit, antibiotic intravenous therapy, hospice and respite care. It exceeds the 73 percent Medicaid condition of its CON. SUBSECTION 408.035(1)(a) - NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS The Florida State Health Plan includes 12 preferences to consider in reviewing nursing home CON applications, most of which overlap statutory review criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Preference 1 encourages more nursing homes beds in subdistricts with 90 percent or higher occupancy in existing beds. District 3 is not subdistricted, but its nursing home bed occupancy rate was 91 percent in 1991. Therefore, all applicants for nursing homes in District 3 meet the preference. District 3 has been divided into planning areas by the local health council. The applications filed in this proceeding coincide with the planning areas for Hernando, Putnam, and Lake/Sumter Counties. In 1991, occupancy rates averaged 92 percent for Hernando, 96 percent for Putnam, and 93 percent for Lake/Sumter planning areas. Each applicant meets preference 1 using planning areas as substitutes for subdistricts. Preference 2 favors applicants whose Medicaid commitments equal or exceed the subdistrict-wide average. In the absence of subdistricts, the district wide average is used, which is 73.78 percent. Beverly's 74 percent commitment, Life Care's 75 percent commitment, and Southern Medical's 74 percent commitment, entitle them to be favored under preference 2. In addition, Beverly cites its 76.9 percent Medicaid patient days in 1991 at Eastbrooke, but it has failed to achieve its Medicaid commitment at one Florida nursing home in Cape Coral. Lake Port committed to provide a minimum of 33.81 percent Medicaid patient days and argued that it meets the exception to the preference for providing multi-level care. As described in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, multi-level health systems offer a continuum of care which may range from acute care and ambulatory surgery centers to home health and education, including traditional nursing care. Special emphasis is placed on short-term intensive rehabilitation programs. Although Lake Port's proposal includes some of the features of a multi-level system, such as post-operative rehabilitative therapy and respite care, the Medicaid exception is inappropriate for Lake Port, because the same services are also proposed by Beverly and Southern Medical. See, also, Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Preference 3 relates to providing specialized services, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS") services to residents, ARD residents, and the mentally ill. This preference is met by Beverly, Life Care, and SMA, particularly for ARD patients for which all three applicants proposed to establish separate 20-bed units. The preference is also met by Lake Port, particularly with its emphasis on specialized, intense rehabilitative services. See, also Subsection 408.205(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Preference 4 supports applicants proposing to provide a "continuum of services to community residents," including respite and adult day care. Beverly and Life Care propose to offer both respite and adult day care. Lake Port and Southern Medical propose to provide respite and hospice care. Preference 5, for the construction of facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care, was stipulated as being met by all the parties. The applicants also stipulated that project costs and construction plans are reasonable. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(m),(2)(a) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 6 is met by all of the applicants: . . . proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical propose to offer specialized services to ARD residents. Lake Port and Southern Medical emphasize physical rehabilitation. All of the applicants meet the requirements for preference 6. Preference 7 is for applicants whose charges do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, which, for District 3, is $74.05, or $93.49 inflated at 6 percent to 1996. Life Care Care's proposed Medicaid charges are $93.69 for year 1, and $94.46 for year 2. Beverly projected that the average Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict will be $93.49 in 1996, its charge will be $95.00, but it will expect Medicaid reimbursement to be $93.30 for that year. Lake Port projected proposed charges to Medicaid patients as $90 to $93.92 in year one and $93 to $97.37 in year two, for the full 120 beds or the partial 60 beds, respectively. Southern Medical's Medicaid charges will be $90.22 in year one and $94.28 in year two. Preference 8 applies to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs, as indicated by licensure ratings. Of Beverly's 40 Florida facilities, 31 held superior licenses at the time the application was filed. Of the nine Beverly nursing homes with conditional ratings, six are now superior. Renovations or, in the case of one facility built in 1929, construction of a replacement building, are underway at the three others. Life Care, Southern Medical and Lake Port have histories of consistently superior license ratings. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 9 favors applicants proposing staffing levels exceeding minimum standards. Due to the ventilator, intravenous and rehabilitative services proposed, Beverly will staff in excess of that required by the state, with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience on all shifts and a full-time physical therapist. It intends to rely on its current Hernando County facility, Eastbrooke's relationship with Hernando-Pasco Community College, for recruitment and training of staff, although Beverly has not opened a new nursing home in Florida since 1987. Life Care similarly intends to rely on a CON approved facility in adjacent Citrus County. Southern Medical employs St. Augustine Vocational College students who are certified nurse assistants training to become licensed practical nurses, and licensed practical nurses training to become registered nurses are employed at Palatka, which also has internships for health sciences students from the University of North Florida. Its occupational, speech and physical therapists are full-time employees. Lake Port's staffing ratios will also exceed the minimums, in order to provide intensive rehabilitative therapies. See, also Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Each applicant meets preference 10 based on their proposed or current use of a variety of professional disciplines. See, Finding of Fact 29. Preference 11 seeks to ensure resident rights and privacy as well as implementing plans for quality assurance and discharge planning. All of the applicants were shown to follow well established residents' rights and privacy policies, and to have effective quality assurance programs. Pre-admission screening programs include discharge planning. Beverly has the most highly standardized corporate structure of incentives to maintain quality. Preference 12 relates to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the District. Average costs in District III are expected to be $54.79 for resident care and $13.97 for administrative overhead by 1996. Life Care expects resident care costs of $51.97 a day and administrative costs of $17.43 a day. Beverly projects its resident care to cost $61.89, with administrative costs of $8.86. Southern Medical proposes administrative costs of $19.88 per patient day and patient care costs of $46.23 per patient day. Lake Port's administrative costs are expected to be $27.80 for 60 beds or $22.12 for 120 beds, with patient care costs of $43.04 for 60 beds or $45.08 for 120 beds. Beverly, best meets the preference and expects enhanced economics and efficiency from combining some overhead for the operation of two nursing homes in Hernando County. Life Care, however, notes that its proposal enhances competition in view of the existence of one Beverly facility in Hernando County. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(h) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, which also relate to costs, resources, and competition. District III includes 16 west central Florida counties, from Hamilton, Columbia, Union Bradford and Putnam in the North to Hernando, Sumter and Lake in the south. The allocation factors in the plan for District III are prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, the local health council for the district. The district has not been subdivided by agency rule. Using its planning areas, the local health council has given priority rankings for applicants in certain areas of the district. Dixie, Lafayette and Union Counties, which have no nursing homes, are favored by the local plan. If, as in this case, there are no applicants from these counties, Hernando should be favored, followed by Putnam County. No priority was given to Lake County. The council also quantified bed need by planning area for the January 1995 planning horizon, with additional beds needed, ranging from 120 to 180 in Hernando, and up to 60 in Putnam. The parties agree generally that the council may establish planning areas in the discharge of its duties, but they disagree whether the establishment of upper limits, or caps in numeric need by planning area is authorized by law. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes, requires a uniform need methodology, which the agency has established by enacting the nursing home rule, Rule 59C-1.036(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Once the agency determines numeric need for a district and the district driving time standard, the local plan cannot alter these determinations. The local plan also includes certain fundamental principles for the allocation of new beds: (1) to promote geographic access, (2) to consider the locations of at-risk population need factors, and (3) to increase supply based on demand. In order of importance, the local plan lists three allocation factors (1) for counties without nursing homes, (2) for new nursing homes 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing or approved beds, and (3) for locations without approved beds and with existing nursing homes averaging occupancy levels at least 95 percent for the most recent six month or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. With respect to the specific allocation factors, Life Care, Beverly, Southern Medical and Lake Port are in areas with over 90 percent average occupancy within a 20 mile radius. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical are proposing to establish facilities in areas of greater need than that in the area of Lake Port. Hernando and Putnam Counties also have lower ratios of nursing home beds to population than Lake County. The local health council's determination of the greatest need in Hernando County, was confirmed by expert testimony, based on analyzing licensed and approved beds, occupancy rates, distribution of population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, and most importantly, projected growth of population 65 and older, and of 75 and older. The bed to population ratio for Hernando was, in 1992, 15.5 percent for 65 and older, and 44.9 percent for the population 75 and older, both of which are below the ratios for any other planning areas in the District. The projected increase in population 75 and older for the state is 12 percent, in contrast to the projected increase of 38 percent for Hernando County. Expert testimony for Beverly supported the addition of up to 300 beds in Hernando County to bring Hernando County's bed distribution in line with that of the entire district. The only approved provider in the county, Hernando Health Care, has surrendered its CON to add 18 nursing home beds in Hernando County. On the contrary, Heartland's expert calculated numeric need of only 119 additional beds in Hernando County. AHCA, however, gave no consideration to the effect on occupancy, fill- up rates, or financial feasibility of it preliminarily approving all new beds in Hernando County. The experience was compared, by Southern Medical's expert, to that in Clay County, in which 555 beds were 95 percent occupied, prior to the opening of two 120-bed facilities, one in December 1989, and the other in April 1990. At the end of the first year of operation, the facility that opened first was 48.5 percent occupied, the second was 21.7 percent occupied, and district occupancy was 77.7 percent. At the end of the second year, the rates were 81 percent, 55.6 percent, and 85.6 percent. However, by 1992, the nursing homes in that subdistrict averaged 93 percent occupancy. Opponents to the AHCA proposal to locate all new facilities in Hernando County, contend that the bed-to- population ratio or "parity" approach used to support the approval of 240 beds in that county does not take into account demographic variables among the counties in the district. While the bed-to-population ratio is not reliable in and of itself, alternative analyses for the determination of the location of greatest need within the district support the same conclusions. Those analyses relied upon current nursing homes occupancy levels, poverty, and population migration trends and available alternatives to distinguish among the various proposed locations. Based on occupancy levels, the District III counties of greatest need for additional beds are Putnam, Lake and Sumter, and Hernando, in that order. Putnam County residents are being placed in facilities outside the county due to the lack of available nursing home beds. In terms of poverty level and mortality levels, the figures for Putnam and Marion Counties indicated their populations were less healthy than those in Hernando and Lake. Hernando had 6.05 percent of its over 65 population, which is 85 and older, as compared to 9.34 percent in Lake, 8 percent in Putnam, and 8.28 percent as the district average. Hernando and Putnam Counties also had lower percentages of people 75 and older than did Lake and Marion Counties. ALTERNATIVES AND EXISTING NURSING HOMES IN DISTRICT 3 Subsections 408.035(1)(b) and (d) require consideration of other like and existing facilities in the district, as well as health care services which are alternatives to nursing homes. Currently, there are 4 nursing homes in Hernando County, and 12 in Lake County. In Putnam County, there are 3 nursing homes and 15 additional "swing beds," which may be used for acute care or long term care, approved for Putnam Community Hospital. Those beds are not available to serve Medicaid patients and are not included on the inventory of community nursing home beds. In the 511 existing nursing home beds in Hernando, there is an average daily census of 45 beds occupied by residents originating from other counties, while 23 Hernando residents constituted the average daily census leaving the County. Hernando cannot expect to retain in-migrating patients with the development of nursing homes in those residents' counties of origin, particularly, Citrus and Pasco. Given the decrease in nursing home patient days form 1991 to 1992, there is also no reason to expect any significant increase in use rate for the population in Hernando. The most compelling support for need in Hernando County is that the rate of growth of its over 75 population, which is more than three times that of the State. Putnam County has the lowest migration and a greater demand for nursing home services for the population age 85 and older. Putnam County nursing homes exceed 95 percent occupancy. Lake County area nursing homes were 93 percent occupied for the same period of time, and with the relinquishment of an approved CON for 60 beds by Leesburg Regional Hospital, that occupancy rate rises to approximately 95 percent. The award to Leesburg Regional established a need for 60 beds in Lake County, but there is also an approved CON for a 120-bed facility in Mount Dora. According to Lake Port's expert witnesses, the Mount Dora nursing home will not alleviate the need for beds in western Lake County. That facility, owned by the Adventist health group, is expected to be a referral facility from the nearby Adventist Hospital in Orlando and Sanford. Based on the alternative considerations of occupancy levels, poverty and morality rates, the need for additional beds in Putnam County is greater than the need in Lake County. Projected population increases and the limited alternatives also support the conclusion that a greater need exists in Hernando than in Lake County. Heartland of Brooksville ("Heartland"), is an existing 120-bed community nursing home in Brooksville, which is licensed superior. Heartland contends that the virtually simultaneous establishment of both Beverly and Life Care will adversely impact Heartland, and make it difficult for the new nursing homes to meet their projected utilizations. The trend of twice as many people migrating to, as there are leaving Hernando County for nursing home services, will be reversed as more nursing homes are established in surrounding counties. See, Finding of Fact 45. Heartland reasonably expects gradually to lose up to 30 percent of its residents who came from the Spring Hill area, where Beverly and Life Care intend to build new nursing homes. Heartland also reasonably expects to lose Medicare patients among the group from Spring Hill. Medicare residents average 9.3 percent of the total mix in the county, but account for 15 percent of the patient mix at Heartland. Heartland will be adversely affected for at least the first two years if both Life Care and Beverly are approved. See, Finding of Fact 40, supra. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Heartland, Southern Medical and Lake Port assert that Beverly will be successful in Hernando County, but that Life Care will not. Beverly is already established in the county, will provide services not currently available in nursing homes, and will open its facility seven months before Life Care. Life Care projected a net loss of $589,042 in year one, and a net gain of $254,991 in year two of operation. Life Care's projections fail to consider the company's 6.5 percent management fee, income taxes, and Medicaid reimbursement rate ceilings. By contrast to the other proposals and to the Hernando County average of 9.3 percent, Life Care is relying on a payor mix of only 6.7 percent Medicare, the group for which competition will be most intense. That mix parallels its Florida experience, which has historically allowed it to achieve a profit margin of 16 to 22 percent of net revenues in the third year of operation. Life Care's experience and audited financial statements support its contention that it can borrow essentially 100 percent of the funds necessary to support the project and complete the proposed project, a debt arrangement it has successfully used in the past, without defaulting on loans. Life Care's resources are also potentially subject to a $12 to $18 million judgment, due to litigation which is on appeal. Life Care has a contingency fund of $8 million to satisfy the judgment and has sufficient equity in its properties to pay the balance through refinancing. The deficiencies in Life Care's pro forma and its potential liabilities are off-set by the size and strength of the company, and its Hernando County project is financially feasible in the short and long terms. Beverly projects opening at Spring Hill 15 1/2 months after issuance of a CON, reaching 90 percent utilization within 15 months of opening. Beverly reasonably expects an after tax profit of $239,489 in the second year of operation. Beverly estimates project costs of $5.2 million, financed by the parent corporation, Beverly-California. Beverly-California has from $35 to 45 million available to contribute a 40 percent ($2 million) equity investment, and a $35 million loan commitment from which it will draw the balance to finance the project. Southern Medical has a letter of interest for financing of the total project costs of $2.1 million at 12 percent rate of interest by National HealthCorp. During the construction period, Southern Medical estimates that the existing 120 beds will remain 94 percent full, and that the new beds once open will fill at a rate of 10 percent a month, which is consistent with the experience of the management company, National HealthCorp. Southern Medical's actual experience in Palatka was, in fact, better. The first 60 beds were filled after 5 months while the additional 60 beds were filled in 7 to 8 months. Projected revenues of $290,000 during construction, $323,000 after year one, and $488,000 after year two are reasonable. Southern Medical's balance sheet shows short term debt of approximately $1.4 million attributable to the construction of the Okaloosa nursing home. Although Southern Medical secured a $3 million loan commitment for the Okaloosa facility, it has drawn from that account $473,000. That debt will be refinanced and recategorized as long term debt. Southern Medical's project is financially feasible in the short and long term, based on its actual experience in the existing 120-bed facility. Lake Port has the financial resources to construct 60 additional beds for $1.4 million. Lake Port's proposed conversion of the licensure category for its existing 60 beds is at no cost, except for approximately $37,000 in filing and consultants fees. In its third year of operation, Lake Port has achieved 97 percent occupancy. At present, delays of up to a week may be experienced in transfering patients from acute care hospitals to nursing homes in the Leesburg area. From October to May, due to the influx of northerners, beds are generally not available in the Leesburg area of western Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port's projections of occupancy and its financial ability to complete either 60-bed conversion and/or 60-bed addition make either proposal financially feasible in the short or long term.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That AHCA issue CON 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the operation of a 4-bed ventilator-dependent unit, 2 beds for respite care, an adult day care program, and a 20-bed separate unit for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia. That AHCA issue CON 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of a minimum of 75 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, the operation of a 20-bed dedicated wing for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia, and the operation of an adult day care. That AHCA issue CON 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds at Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the establishment of a 20-bed district Alzheimer's wing. That AHCA deny CON 6989P and CON 6989 to Lake Port Properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6656 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 3. 2-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-10, 24 and 25. 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11-15. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 33. 16-19. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 20-21, 37-39. 20-23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 24-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 32-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 43-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-31. 49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-30. 50-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 50-51. 57-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 or 30. 63-64 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 39 and 46-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 67-68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. 69. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 70-71. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 10. 72-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7, 8-10 and 48-51. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48-49. Petitioner, Southern Medical's, Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 5-14. Subordinate to preliminary statement. 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 16-17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 18-19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 20-22. Rejected in conclusions of law 4. 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 36. 24-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 33-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20-21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 56-57. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 58-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. 65-69. Accepted in or Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34 and 43-45. 70-72. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-18 and 22-23. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29-30. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 76-77. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 78-96. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34-39 and 45. 100-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41-42 and 45. 102. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 103-109. Rejected in relevant part and accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 41-45. 110-112. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in conclusions of law 60. 116-120. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 122-123. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. 124-125. Issue not addressed at hearing. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Petitioner, HCR Limited Partnership I d/b/a Heartland of Brooksville's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 12-14. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 16-18. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 9-16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34-38. 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 43. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21, 42 and 43. 23-33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38, 42 and 43. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 36-41. Accepted in or Subordinate to Findings of Fact 45 and 47. 42-44. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Petitioner, Lake Port Properties's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 40. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and last sentence rejected in preliminary statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 7-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. 30-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39-43 and 46. 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. 36-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 39-42. Facts accepted, conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 43-47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 49-54. Conclusion in first sentence rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Facts accepted in Findings of Facts 39-45. 55-60. Not solely relied upon but not disregarded. Facts generally accepted in Findings of Fact 39-45. 61-74. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 75-82. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 33-38. 83-93. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28-29. 94-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54-55. 101-103. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 54. 104. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. 105-106. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 107-111. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. Remainder of 107-111 accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-38. 112-113. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48, and 49. 114-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 120-121. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. 122-125. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 48. 126-130. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Respondent, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.'s, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-43. 10-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 14(a-d)-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-40. 21(a-d). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 23-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 34-40. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7. 41(a-c). Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 29. 42. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44. 47-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 49-50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. 51-54. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 55-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. 63-64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 65-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 73-74. Accepted. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 76-77. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40-43. 78-79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in conclusions of law. Accepted in preliminary statement. Issue not reached. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Conclusion rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 21 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 4. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-18.8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 5-7 and 19-33. Relevant as to availability due to occupancy ratio in Findings of Fact 37-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Accepted, except first sentence in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. Conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 19-32. Accepted facts in 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15 and 19-32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Manheimer, Attorney Dennis LaRosa, Attorney Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Attorney Lachlin Waldoch, Attorney Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.a. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Anton, Attorney Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Labrador, Attorney Richard Patterson, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 W. David Watkins, Attorney Robert Downey, Attorney Oretel, Hoffman, Fernandez, et al. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Attorney Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact On or about July 15, 1986, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to construct a 60 bed community nursing home with a 45 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Highlands County, Florida. This application was identified as CON 4700. After preliminary review, Respondent denied this application on or about December 23, 1986, and Petitioner timely filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. Highlands County is in Respondent's Service District VI, Subdistrict IV. The parties stipulated that there was a net bed need in the July, 1989 planning horizon for Highlands County of an additional 28 community nursing home beds, based upon the bed need calculation set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. It was further stipulated by the parties that Petitioner's original application met all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a CON, but for the issue of need. Since the parties did stipulate to a need for 28 community nursing home beds, Petitioner sought, at hearing, to offer evidence in support of only an "identifiable portion" of its original application. Thus, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the application it filed with Respondent, and which was preliminarily denied on December 23, 1986. Rather, Petitioner sought consideration and approval of either 28 nursing home beds with 32 ACLF beds, or 30 nursing home beds with 30 ACLF beds. Since the stipulation of the parties could not cover the financial feasibility of either alternative because they were presented for the first time at hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish the financial feasibility of these alternatives. Based upon the testimony of Herbert E. Straughn, it is found that Respondent does not normally approve nursing home CON applications for less than 60 nursing home beds. However, Respondent has approved a CON application for 30 nursing home beds in association with 30 ACLF beds or some other similar service when the need for 30 nursing home beds was shown to exist. Respondent has also approved a CON for less than 30 nursing home beds in connection with an existing 60 bed facility when the stipulated need did not reach 30. In this case, Petitioner's original application was for 60 community nursing home and 45 ACLF beds, and it was at hearing that Petitioner sought to down-size its application to meet the stipulated need of 28 nursing home beds. There are no accessibility problems with regard to special programs or services, or any other problems of accessibility, in District VI, Subdistrict IV. Petitioner's request for partial consideration and approval of its application, which was presented at hearing, would not introduce any new services or construction not originally contemplated in its application, although the size of the project and number of beds sought would be reduced. In its original application, Petitioner proposed a nursing home with two 30-bed units, and now seeks approval for only one 28 or 30-bed unit. From a health planning standpoint, nursing home bed units usually occur in multiples of 60 due to staffing and equipment considerations. No evidence was offered to show why the Respondent should deviate from its usual practice in this case, other than the fact that a need for only 28 beds exists. At hearing, Petitioner introduced revised pro formas for 28 and 30 nursing home beds, associated with 32 and 30 ACLF beds, respectively. These revised pro formas were based on the same ratios of patients by payor class as in the original pro forma. The equity to loan ratios in the revised pro formas to finance the project remained the same as in the original application. The revised pro formas combine revenue and expenses for nursing home and ACLF beds. However, if revenue and expenses for nursing home beds is segregated from ACLF beds, it is found that a 30 bed nursing home facility would not be financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990, and a 28 bed nursing home facility would be even less financially feasible than a 30 bed facility. When revenues and expenses for the ACLF component of the project are considered along with nursing home bed income and expenses, the project shows only a marginal profit in the second year of operation with the 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative. It is barely break-even in the second year under the 28 nursing home bed-32 ACLF bed alternative. Thus, under either alternative, the project is not financially feasible in 1989, and the nursing home component of this project, standing alone under either alternative presented at hearing, is not financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990. The 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative is more financially feasible than the 28-32 alternative since the 28-32 alternative is barely break even in the second year of operation. Specifically, under the 28-32 alternative, pretax income of less than $9000 is projected in the second year of operation with total revenues of approximately $1.321 million and total expenses of approximately $1.312 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4700. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 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 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0667 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 9. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a statement of position and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 13-16 Rejected as conclusions of law and not proposed findings of fact; this legal argument has been considered in the preparation of conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. However the last sentence in the proposed finding of fact is rejected as unclear. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although from a health planning viewpoint a 30 nursing home bed unit is more functional and cost effective than a 28; it is also more financially feasible in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11, and otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Adams, Esquire 215 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 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 HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
The Issue Which one of three Certificate of Need applications for a new nursing facility in AHCA Nursing Home District 3 should be granted: Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc.’s; Life Health Care Resources, Inc.’s; or Arbor Health Care Company’s?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Applications Beverly Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the largest provider of nursing-home care in the nation. Beverly is proposing to construct a 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County from which it proposes to provide hospice services, respite services and, for six days a week, inpatient and outpatient therapy services. The nursing home, if constructed, will contain a 16-bed Medicare unit and a 20-bed secured Alzheimer’s unit. The Beverly application is conditioned upon providing at least 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In addition, Beverly proposes to provide 0.2 percent of its patient days to indigent and charity patients. Beverly proposes to provide care to residents who are HIV positive or have AIDS. If the application is approved, Beverly will contribute $10,000 to a geriatric research fund. Life Care Life Care is a new, start-up corporation formed initially for the purpose of seeking a CON for a nursing home in Hernando County. Life Care’s plan is that it be operated by Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (LCCA), a privately owned Tennessee corporation authorized to business in Florida. LCCA owns, operates, or manages over 185 nursing homes with over 22,700 beds and retirement center units in 28 states. It is the largest privately owned nursing-home company in the United States. Life Care’s application proposes construction and operation of a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County. The nursing home will include a 20-bed secured Alzheimers/dementia care unit and a state-of-the-art adult care unit. In fact, Life Care has agreed to condition approval of its application on inclusion of these two units. Additionally, it has agreed to a condition of service of Medicaid residents at the district average (69.26 percent) at least. Life Care proposes a broad range of Specialized Programs, including care of AIDS victims, respite care, and care to hospice clients and outpatient rehabilitative care. Its inpatient care will include a 20-bed Medicare unit, within which will be at least 12 beds for "subacute" services. Arbor Headquartered in Lima, Ohio, Arbor Health Care Company has 27 facilities located in five states. Twelve of the facilities are in Florida but none of its licensed facilities are in District 3. Of the twelve in Florida, eleven are JCAHO accredited, with the twelfth, newly-licensed, scheduled at the time of hearing for an accreditation survey in December of 1997. Ten of the eleven accredited facilities are also accredited for subacute care. Arbor’s accreditation record is outstanding compared to both the 600 nursing facilities in Florida, 93 of which are JCAHO accredited and 49 of which are accredited for subacute care, and the national record of accreditation of nursing home facilities in subacute care, 23 percent. This record, too, is demonstrative of Arbor’s progress in carrying out its corporate mission: to be the premier subacute provider of long-term care services. Consistent with its mission, Arbor proposes a distinct subacute unit to serve patients with digestive diseases and patients in need of ventilator therapy, infusion therapy, wound care, and cardiac therapy. In addition to subacute services, Arbor proposes to serve residents with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, by utilizing a strongly-developed, individualized- care plan with an interdisciplinary approach implemented upon admission and subject to continuous review and, if necessary, revision. Arbor's application, however, distinctly different from Beverly’s and Life Care’s, does not propose a secured Alzheimer’s unit. Arbor proposes comprehensive rehabilitation care for its patient and residents, as well as outpatient rehabilitation services for both former residents and residents throughout the community. Arbor proposes to provide 0.2 percent of all patient days for charity care and 69.26 percent of all patient days for Medicaid patients within its 104-bed long-term facility. Medicaid patients will also be served in the 16-bed subacute unit. In addition, Arbor proposes to provide, at a minimum, one percent of its patient days for hospice care, respite care, the care of AIDS patients, and the care of pediatric patients. Arbor is committed to such services, as well as the provision of both inpatient and outpatient intensive rehabilitative programs, and has agreed to condition its award of a Certificate of Need upon such commitments. Arbor is the only one of the three applicants committed to provide care and services to pediatric patients. Location Introduction The issue on which these cases turn is location within District 3. (There are other issues in this case certainly. For one reason or another, their disposition will not determine the outcome of this case. Not the least among the other issues is whether Beverly or Life Care should be favored over Arbor because they propose secured Alzheimer’s units. This issue, however important and subject to whatever quality of debate, is not dispositive because at present it has no clear answer. See Findings of Fact Nos. 43-45, below.) District 3 Comprised of 16 counties located as far north as the Georgia state line and southwest to Hernando County, District 3 is the largest AHCA Nursing Home District area-wise. The District is not divided into subdistricts for the purpose of applying the state methodology to determine numeric need of additional nursing home beds. Among the 16 counties in the district are Marion, Hernando and Citrus. The Applicant’s Proposed Locations Beverly proposes to construct its 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County. The specific proposed location is south of the City of Ocala, east of State Road 200 and west of Maricamp Road. From this location, Beverly would serve primarily residents of Marion County, but would also be accessible to residents of Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. Life Care proposes to construct its 120-bed nursing home in the Spring Hill area of Hernando County. Arbor proposes to locate its 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County. It did not propose a specific location within the County. The Best Location Conflicting qualified opinions were introduced into evidence by each of the three applicants. Each applicant, of course, presented expert testimony that its proposed location was superior to the locations proposed by the other two. In its preliminary decision, AHCA approved Arbor’s application and denied the other two. AHCA continues to favor Citrus County as the best location for a new 120-bed nursing home in District 3. At bottom, AHCA’s preliminary decision is supported by Arbor's proposal to locate in the county among Marion, Hernando and Citrus Counties with the greatest need: Citrus. This basis underlying, and therefore, the Agency’s preliminary decision, is supported by the findings of fact in paragraphs 21-35, below. Allocation of Nursing Home Beds Within AHCA Nursing Home District 3 Although the district is identified as a single entity for purposes of the state methodology utilized to determine the need for additional nursing home beds, the local planning council divides the district into geographic units or planning areas in order to specify preferences for the allocation of nursing homes within the district. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., has created seven planning areas in District 3. The local health plan utilizes a priority-setting system to identify the relative importance of adding beds to specific planning areas. After establishing well-defined priorities for geographically-underserved areas and designated occupancy thresholds, the priority-setting system creates a decision matrix: the Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation (PANHAM). The matrix is based on the population at risk, bed supply (both licensed and approved), and occupancy levels within the planning area. The allocation factors in the local health plan are particularly significant with respect to District 3 in light of its lone stance among the Agency’s Nursing Home Districts as lacking a process for allocating number of beds needed to the individual subdistrict. The local health plan provides "the only road map or the only guidance" (Tr. 311) as to how to allocate beds within District 3. The local health plan bases its occupancy priorities upon both licensed and approved beds within each planning area. From a planning perspective, it is reasonable and appropriate to calculate occupancy rates based upon both licensed and approved beds in assessing the need for additional beds. The number of approved beds is a measure of how much additional capacity will be on line in the near future. To ignore the number of approved beds in the evaluation of where to allocate new beds is not a good health planning technique. The three counties in which Beverly, Life Care and Arbor propose to locate are each separate planning areas in the local health plan. Marion is Planning Area 4; Hernando and Citrus are 6 and 5, respectively. The preferences contained within the local health plan for the allocation of nursing home beds within District 3 are listed in terms of importance and priority. Allocation factors "[t]wo and three really are the basis . . . for figur[ing] out in this huge district of 16 counties, how [to] make sense of where the beds ought to go." (Tr. 312.) The first of these is for applicants proposing to develop nursing home beds in geographically-underserved areas. None of the planning areas designated by the three applicants in this proceeding meet this geographic-access priority. The second of these two allocation factors, Allocation Factor 3, assigns a number of priorities in order of significance. These priorities are based primarily upon occupancy or utilization and need determined by the number of beds per area residents of 75 years of age and older. The first priority in Allocation Factor 3 is "an acid test." (Tr. 312.) It states that no nursing home beds should be added in a planning area until the number of nursing home days, considering both licensed and approved beds, for the most recent six months is 80 percent. It is only when an applicant meets this threshold that the remaining priorities in Allocation Factor 3 are considered. If the 80-percent priority is not met in a planning area, then the area should be given no further consideration for the allocation of beds. The only planning area of the three at issue in this case which meets the 80-percent occupancy standard is Planning Area 5, Citrus County. At the time the original fixed need pool for District 3 was published for the batching cycle applicable to this case, Citrus County had 69-approved nursing home beds. Hernando County had 147 (including 27 hospital-based skilled nursing beds), and Marion County had 234 approved beds. The most recent data available at the time of hearing show no new beds in Citrus or Hernando Counties but 309 new beds approved for Marion County. Utilizing the most recent data regarding the number of licensed and approved beds in Citrus, Hernando and Marion Counties, Citrus County remains the only planning area of the three which meets or exceeds the 80 percent occupancy threshold. Assuming that the remaining priority factors contained within the PANHAM matrix are applicable, none of the three applicants received a priority ranking under the PANHAM methodology. Applying the most recent data available, however, only Citrus County is moving toward the highest priority of high need and high occupancy. Both Marion County and Hernando County are moving away from the highest priority. Excluding the two counties within District 3 which have no nursing home beds (Dixie and Union), Hernando County has the lowest bed-to-elderly population ratio in the District. Considering occupancy rates over the past three years based solely upon licensed beds, Hernando County has demonstrated a marked decrease in utilization. Thus, even though Hernando has had a growth in population and experiences a lower bed-to- population ratio than the District as a whole, there is no stress on the nursing home bed supply in Hernando County. There is, moreover, no evidence of a high need to add additional bed capacity in Hernando County. The recently opened 120-bed Beverly nursing home in Spring Hill will serve to suppress or depress the overall rate of occupancy in Hernando County, making the occupancy rate even lower. There are a number of reasons why an area that has a relatively low bed-to-population ratio may also experience low occupancy. While a county or a planning area is defined by political boundaries, people do not necessarily stay within those boundaries for nursing home services. Socio-economic factors, the quality of existing nursing home services and the existence of alternatives, such as assisted living facilities, driving times and distances, the proximity of family, all may play a role in determining occupancy rates in a particular area. With regard to Planning Area 6, Hernando County, there are five nursing homes in northern Pasco County within a 15-mile radius of the center of Spring Hill, Life Care’s proposed location. Three of the four existing nursing homes in Hernando County have had downward occupancy trends. Occupancy rate may be expected to further drop with the recently licensed 120-bed facility in Spring Hill. Marion County has far and away the highest number of approved beds and a very high ratio of approved beds to licensed beds, thus providing significant additional capacity in that planning area. While the local health plan for District 3 affords no priorities based upon data concerning patient origin, Beverly attempted to demonstrate a greater need for additional beds in Marion County, as opposed to Citrus County, through patient origin information reported in those two counties. Beverly concluded that while 99 percent of the Citrus County population placed in a nursing home seek care within Citrus County, only 78 percent of Marion County residents placed in a nursing home seek nursing home care in Marion County. A 1996 nursing home data report showed that 147 Marion County residents sought nursing home care outside of Marion County, primarily in adjacent Levy, Sumter and Citrus Counties. Beverly’s analysis fails to establish need in Marion greater than in Citrus. First, it fails to take into account the 309 approved beds which will significantly add to Marion County’s capacity. Second, Citrus County’s occupancy rates are slightly higher than Marion County’s. Third, the data relied upon by Beverly’s expert performing the analysis is incomplete in that two or three nursing homes in Marion County did not report any data regarding patient origin. And finally, there are a number of reasons, found above, for why residents of one planning area choose a nursing home in another planning area. The Extent and Quality of Services Overview The District 3 local plan expresses a preference and priority for applicants which propose specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Examples of such services include care for special children, care for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients, subacute care, and adult day care. Only a small percentage of nursing home care is provided to children. Proposing such care does not in the ordinary nursing home case carry much weight. Nor was there any demonstration that there is an unmet need for pediatric nursing home services in District 3. Nonetheless, it is at least noteworthy that only Arbor proposes care for special children as part of its pediatric services; the other two do not propose pediatric care at all. Arbor is also the only applicant that demonstrated a need for subacute care in its planning area and that is committed to provide such care. Utilizing a reasonable methodology, Arbor demonstrated a need for 41 additional subacute care beds in Citrus County. Arbor’s 16-bed subacute unit is consistent with that demonstrated need. While Beverly and Life Care propose to offer skilled, short-term services, neither proposes a distinct subacute unit. Indeed, Beverly’s skilled Medicare unit will not provide subacute care or services. Life Care’s subacute "program" will be implemented only if management later verifies a community need for such a program. While Life Care proposes to offer adult day care for five clients, Life Care did not identify a need for such services in Hernando County. Each of the applicants proposes to offer services and programs for residents with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia and each intends to service AIDS patients, provide respite care, and offer rehabilitation therapy services. Given the mix of services proposed, as well as Arbor’s commitment to such services, Arbor best meets the local health plan’s priority for the provision of specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Subacute Care Arbor will offer a full range of subacute services, programs, and staffing it in its quest to be a premier provider of subacute services. In contrast, neither Beverly nor Life Care demonstrated a need for subacute care in their districts. In keeping with this lack of demonstration, neither Beverly nor Life Care made any commitment to a dedicated and distinct subacute unit or the provision of such services. Care for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Patients Approximately 50 percent of residents within nursing homes suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease or some form of related dementia. All three applicants propose to serve such patients and offer specified programs and rehabilitative services to these patients. Arbor, however, differs from Beverly and Life Care in its approach to treating those with Alzheimer’s. Beverly and Life Care propose secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units. Arbor, while clustering patients within the facility in terms of the level of care and resources which each requires, follows a policy of mainstreaming residents with Alzheimer’s within the general nursing home population. There is a difference of opinion in the health care community as to which approach is better: secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units or mainstreaming. There are both positive and negative aspects to dedicated, secured Alzheimer’s units. And it may turn out that the positive aspects prevail ultimately. But, at present, the results of research are inconclusive. The conclusion cannot yet be drawn that a secured, dedicated unit provides a more effective manner, either from a clinical standpoint or a cost-effective standpoint, of treating and caring for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients. Medicaid Services Florida’s State Health Plan expresses a preference for applicants proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Since District 3 is not divided into subdistricts, the applicable comparison is the average District Medicaid utilization: 69.26 percent at the time the applications were filed. Beverly proposes to offer only 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. Beverly showed that Medicaid utilization has been declining in Marion County to the point at the time of hearing that it was 58 percent. But even if it were appropriate to use Marion County as the equivalent of a subdistrict, Beverly’s commitment would not match the Marion County rate, a rate lower than the district-wide rate. Beverly does not qualify for the preference. Life Care proposes 69.5 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients. Life Care qualifies for the preference. Arbor proposes to commit 69.26 percent of its patient days to Medicaid residents in the 104-bed long-term unit of its facility, or a minimum of 67 long-term care beds. In addition, Arbor will dually-certify some of its Medicare-certified beds for Medicaid in its subacute unit for patients who are either admitted on Medicaid or would convert of Medicaid. Typically, an applicant’s commitment to provide a certain percentage of its patient days for services to Medicaid patients is expressed in terms of patient days for the total facility. This batching cycle, however, was unique in that AHCA created a separate subset of nursing home beds, known as short- term beds, and required that separate applications be filed by applicants proposing both long-term and short-term beds. The partition created a problem for each applicant because it set up the possibility that one of the applicant's applications (either the short-term or the long-term) would be approved and the other denied. Arbor solved the problem by considering its 104-bed long term application as an application for a stand-alone project. Beverly and Life Care did not have the problem since they do not intend to have subacute units within their proposed facility. For facilities approved by more than one CON, AHCA uses a blended rate for monitoring compliance with CON conditions. For Arbor’s application, therefore, one could argue that a blended rate of 60.03 percent, composed of 69.23 percent for 104 beds and 0 percent for the 16 subacute beds, which is the rate Arbor proposes for the entire 120-bed facility, should apply. Whether applying a blended rate or using the rate applicable to long-term beds, Arbor is entitled to the State Health Plan preference for service to Medicaid patients. Financial Feasibility With one exception, all parties stipulated that each of the three applicants propose projects that are financially feasible both immediately and on a long-term basis. The exception relates to the listing in Arbor’s application in Schedule 6 of understated proposed wages for certified occupational therapy assistants (COTAs) and licensed physical therapy assistants (LPTAs). The evidence establishes that through inadvertence, Arbor mislabeled the line item designated as COTAs and LPTAs. The item should have borne a description of therapists aides instead of licensed therapists. Had the item been correctly described, the wages listed were salary levels comparable to wages experienced in other Arbor facilities. The error is harmless. The licensed assistants, that is, the COTAs and LPTAs, were included under the therapist line items within Arbor’s Schedule 6. Thus, the total salary expenses reflected in the schedule are accurate and Arbor’s project is financially feasible in the second year of operation. Even if Arbor has misstated the total amount of salaries for therapists and aides in Schedule 6, Arbor’s project would still be financially feasible because the majority of those costs would be allocated to the Medicare unit and would be reimbursed by the Medicare program. Arbor would continue to show a profit (approximately $189,000) in the second year of operation. Arbor’s proposed project is financially feasible in both the short and long terms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The applications of Arbor Health Care Company (CON Application Numbers 8471L and 8471S) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home facility in Citrus County be GRANTED; and the applications of Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8484L and 8484S) and Life Care Health Resources, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8479L and 8479S) to construct and operate 120-bed nursing home facilities in Marion and Hernando Counties, respectively, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane D. Tremor, Esquire John L. Wharton, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0810 Jay Adams, Esquire Douglas L Mannheimer, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Originally, each Petitioner filed an application for a Certificate Of Need for the construction and operation of nursing home facilities in Broward County as follows: HCR - 120 beds, Richmond - 240 beds, Health Quest - 180 beds, and FPM - 240 beds. The applications were reviewed by Respondent comparatively and competitively, and they were denied in a State Agency Action Report on August 12, 1982 solely on the basis that there was no need for additional nursing home beds in Broward County. The formal hearing thereafter requested by all Petitioners was continued several times due to scheduling conflicts and due to the expected promulgation of a new methodology by which the need for nursing home beds is computed. As a result of Respondent's Quarterly Census Report dated November 30, 1983, Respondent determined that in fact there was a need for an additional 101 nursing home beds in Broward County. Accordingly, just prior to the formal hearing and by letter dated January 4, 1984, Respondent's attorney invited each Petitioner to amend its application for the purpose of being eligible to receive a Certificate Of Need for those 101 beds. Each Petitioner so complied. At the final hearing, each Petitioner proceeded on both its original application and its amended application. In spite of the singular ground for denial of each application contained in the State Agency Action Report, Respondent's attorney contended from the inception of this proceeding and into the final hearing that whether any of the applications met all statutory and rule criteria for approval was disputed by Respondent, including the financial feasibility of each proposed project. According to Respondent's only witness, Thomas F. Porter, however, all four applications meet all statutory and rule criteria for approval including financial feasibility. Accordingly, the only facts to be determined herein will relate to the issue of the number of beds needed. Since Respondent stipulated that 101 beds were available to be awarded to one of the applicants in this proceeding (Tr. 17, 36-40, 952), the threshold issue is how many beds in excess of 101, if any, are needed in Broward County. Respondent uses the most recently available information in analyzing applications for nursing home beds, including the Quarterly Census Report which it publishes, and a mathematical methodology contained in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the purpose of which methodology is to project the need for nursing home beds on a three year basis to determine the availability of those beds for award to Certificate Of Need applicants in relation to a projected need. The methodology contains several steps. The first part of the methodology projects the number of beds that will be needed based upon an adjustment of a standard of 27 beds per thousand for the population aged 65 and over to reflect the percentage of those in poverty in the HRS district in relation to those living in poverty in the state. The second part of the methodology contains the present and prospective occupancy rates. Before any of the new beds which are determined to be needed can be added, the average occupancy rate for existing homes must exceed eighty five Percent (85), as the rule is applied to Broward County, the only county in Florida constituting its own HRS district and having no sub-districts. Furthermore, the second part of the formula provides that no additional beds which have been determined to be needed can actually be added if, theoretically, the prospective occupancy rate after the beds are added will be reduced below eighty percent (80 percent). Respondent's determination as to the number of beds needed and the number of beds available for Certificate of Need applicants according to "part two" of the formula is based on its Quarterly Census Reports. The November 30, 1983 Quarterly Census Report revealed that 1,419 community nursing home beds (4,058 needed beds, less 2,789 existing and 300 previously approved but not constructed beds) will be needed in Broward county in 1986, the horizon year for these applicants. The occupancy rate of existing nursing home beds for the six months preceding that report was 91.5 percent. According to that report, since the prospective occupancy rate is 80 percent for Broward County, then the addition of more than 101 beds at the present time will theoretically reduce the prospective occupancy rate below 80 percent. Under normal circumstances Respondent will issue Certificates of Need in accordance with the need methodology set forth above. However, Respondent has discretion to approve applications for nursing home beds which do not conform to the need methodology if the existence of special circumstances can be proven. Special circumstances do exist in Broward County which warrant a determination that more nursing home beds are needed than is demonstrated by a strict application of Respondent's need methodology. One of those special circumstances is the existence in the district comprised of Broward County of an older population than in the other districts in Florida. Broward County's 65 and over population is fairly typical of Florida at the present time, but there is a significant difference in the proportion of the population which is 75 and over and which will be 75 and over in the near future. In 1980 Florida as a whole had 6.5 percent of its 65 and over population in the 75 and over category which was projected to increase to 9 percent by the year 2000. By contrast, according to studies performed by Dr. Robert Weller, in Broward County 35.4 percent of the 65 and over population was 75 and over, and by 1986 this number was projected to increase to 53.6 percent. This difference was classified by Dr. Weller as "very meaningful" to the point where he would be very "uncomfortable" with any attempt to plan for Broward County using statewide averages. This large difference in the composition of the elderly population of the state as a whole and Broward County is a significant special circumstance because the older the population the greater the demand for nursing home beds. In fact, the big predictors of need for nursing home beds are illness and age. The average age of entry into a nursing home is 81. While the population group of 85 and older utilize nursing home beds at a rate 15 times greater than the 65 and older group, the over 75 age category constitutes 70 percent of all nursing home users. Respondent's need methodology does not make an adjustment for differences in the 65 and over category between the various districts. This failure to adjust for an older population may not significantly affect districts with more normal population composition, but since Broward County's population departs substantially from the norm, it is an essential consideration. The failure to consider this situation results in a gross understatement of need in Broward County. Diagnostically Related Groups (hereinafter "DRG") regulations are amendments to the Social Security Act effective in 1983 which alter the method by which hospitals will receive reimbursement for Medicare patients. Under the DRG regulations, which hospitals are required to adhere to by the end of 1984, reimbursement for Medicare patients will be based upon an established length of stay for each type of illness. For example a hospital might be reimbursed for an eight day hospital stay for a coronary by-pass operation whether the patient actually stays in the hospital for seven or for 12 days. The effect of the DRG regulations is the earlier discharge of many patients in need of intensive nursing care. Every expert witness and professional administrator opined at the hearing in this cause that DRG regulations will result in an increased demand for nursing home beds. In addition to the effect the DRG regulations will have in a normal situation, the characteristics of the Broward County will accentuate this effect. The nationwide average for percent of Medicare funding in acute care hospitals is approximately 50 percent while the average for Broward County in last 12 months ranges from 53 percent to about 64 percent. The characteristics of Broward's elderly population also increases the effect of the DRG regulations because the population in Broward County is older than that in the remainder of the state. A study of the effects of the DRG regulations on the need for additional nursing home beds was recently conducted for Palm Beach County. That county has a high percentage of elderly (although not as high as Broward) and a high percentage of Medicaid funding. That study indicated that the DRG regulations would increase demand there by about 225 to 300 beds. Theodore J. Foti, an expert in health planning, utilized the Palm Beach study to estimate that from 325 to 400 additional beds are needed in Broward County to compensate for the DRG regulations alone. In Broward County there are three facilities which Respondent counts as nursing home facilities but which do not provide nursing home services. The Daystar Nursing Home, which contains 44 beds, is a Christian Science facility which does not provide the level of care associated with nursing homes. The Manor Oaks facility, which contains 116 beds, has a hospital license as an extended care facility and is a licensed specialty hospital, not a nursing home. St. Johns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which contains 100 beds, is a specialty hospital. Respondent includes the 340 beds in these facilities in computing the total of existing nursing home beds. Since these facilities are not truly nursing homes, they are displacing beds which normally provide nursing home services. The need methodology, therefore, does not include the true number of existing nursing home beds in Broward County, and, therefore, even if all other data used in the methodology be accurate, the bed need as determined by the methodology is understated by 340 beds. Barbara Palmer is employed by Respondent in its Office of Aging and Adult Services. Her job duties include writing proposed rules, manual material and legislative budget requests for Respondent's program known as Community Care for the Elderly (hereinafter "CCE"). CCE services include case management as well as CORE services, adult day care, chore, emergency alert response systems, home delivered meals, home health aid, medical transportation and personal care. Each of these programs is generally designed to provide services to the clients in the client's home. None of these services are provided to persons who are already in nursing homes. In order to compute need for CCE services, Palmer and Respondent rely on research by Dr. Carter Osterbind which identifies the incidence of "homebound" and "bedfast" individuals in the population aged 65 and over. Respondent defines bedfast as a person who, because of physical or other infirmities, remains in bed and is incapable of being in any other place. Similarly homebound individuals are those who cannot leave their homes without assistance. Respondent routinely uses Osterbind's 8 percent incidence factor to calculate the percentage of the population in the State of Florida 65 and over that can be characterized as homebound and bedfast. Subject to revisions, Palmer prepares the budget proposal for Aging and Adult Services which is then approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for submission to the Governor and which then becomes Services for part of the Governor's budget request which is ultimately submitted to the Legislature. Palmer uses two documents to prepare her budget request: Dr. Osterbind's paper "Older People in Florida" and "Florida Decade of the 80's", a technical appendix provided by the Office of the Governor as a reference for population statistics for use in developing legislative budget requests. Using these two documents, a projected need is compared with the historical data of how many people have been served with the money which was received in a previous budget year. By subtracting the historically met need from the projected need, Palmer arrives at the projected unmet need, which is presented in a table depicting the total number of homebound and bedfast clients who will not receive services. Palmer also uses a factor, developed by Respondent's Community Care for the Elderly Program, to determine how many individuals, but for the fact that their need is going to be met, are at risk of institutionalization. Respondent's Office of Evaluation has developed and published a 42 percent factor and utilizes it as a basis to determine how many of those persons in a category whose needs will be unmet because of lack of budget dollars in the future will actually end up in nursing homes if more dollars are not appropriated. In other words, Respondent utilizes a document promulgated in 1981 by its Office of Evaluation which indicates that a 42 percent factor should be applied to an 8 percent statewide percent of the population 65 and older to determine how many are at risk of institutionalization in a nursing home, and this methodology has been used routinely by Respondent to prepare Respondent's budget requests through 1985. Palmer's approach in preparing the budget request has a purpose of persuading the Legislature that unless money is provided, 42 of all homebound and bedfast individuals will have to be institutionalized but for provision for home health care services. Palmer's last budget request shows that in the decade of the 80's Respondent expects a 69.8 percent increase in the population group 65 and over. The 10 year plan for CCE and CORE services gives the estimated percentage of need which Respondent intends to meet with CCE and CORE services for various budget years through 1990. Respondent will only provide those services to 23.84 percent of those persons needing them in 1985-86 and only 26.48 percent in 1986-87. Estimated unduplicated clients that will be served in those same years are 41,448 and 47,869 respectively. Expert witness, Michael Schwartz, used Respondent's population figures for Broward County and Respondent's methodology according to Palmer to determine how many of those individuals aged 65 and over in Broward County will be homebound and bedfast in the planning horizon year of 1986. Multiplying the number of homebound and bedfast by the percentile of persons that are at risk of institutionalization yields the figure of 9,760 persons for the horizon year. The number of persons projected by Respondent's Office of Aging and Adult Services to actually receive the CCE-CORE services in that horizon year is 3,956. Thus, the number of individuals unable to obtain those services and needing a nursing home bed in that year will be 5,802. These people will need nursing home beds for an average length of stay of two and one-half years (national average). The current inventory of nursing home beds in Broward County, including approved but not built beds, is 3,089. When the existing inventory is subtracted from the number of needed beds, as computed by the Aging and Adult Services methodology, the net need is an additional 2,715. Thus, when Respondent's methodology for determining the need for nursing home beds in the absence of alternatives of CCE and CORE services is applied to Broward County for the year 1986, it yields a need for 2,715 beds in addition to existing and approved beds to accommodate the homebound and bedfast who will not receive those services. However, when Respondent's methodology in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is applied to Broward County for the year 1986 it yields a need for 1,419 beds in addition to existing and approved beds. Yet, when the theoretical prospective occupancy feature contained in that rule is applied to Broward County, only 101 beds are needed to be built in time for service in 1986. It is noteworthy that the formula used by Respondent to induce the Legislature to fund programs for the diversion of the elderly from nursing homes yields double the need for nursing home beds in Broward County in 1986 than use of the formula established by Respondent to evaluate applications for new nursing home beds. Schwartz identified the reason for the difference: The CCE funding formula takes into account those below the poverty level as well as those above the poverty level in determining the number of people who are at risk of institutionalization unless CCE services are provided. However, Respondent's bed need methodology uses a poverty ratio (number of impoverished in the county relative to number of impoverished in the state) to adjust the statewide standard of 27 beds per thousand downward to 15.5 beds per thousand in Broward County. Since the first part of the bed need methodology only measures nursing home bed need for the impoverished (by adjusting 27 beds per one thousand by a poverty ratio) while the formula used by Aging and Adult Services contemplates all persons at risk of institutionalization, whether impoverished or not, and since the Aging and Adult Services methodology yields a higher need figure, tie difference between the two figures must represent the extent to which private pay patients (not impoverished) are using, and will continue to use, nursing home beds in Broward County to the exclusion of Medicaid patients. Utilizing the first part of the bed need methodology, Respondent has determined that Broward County will need a total of 4,508 beds in 1986 and that, when licensed and approved beds are subtracted, 1,419 additional beds will be needed. However, the second part of the methodology which purports to determine the prospective utilization of nursing home beds limits the number of beds which can be added to 101. The premise behind the prospective utilization test is that the addition of more than 101 beds will result in the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County being reduced below 80 percent. Because of the particular situation existing in Broward County this premise is not valid. In November 1983, Richmond's newly-constructed Sunrise facility had 120 beds in service, but Respondent counted all 240 approved beds as being in service for determining its occupancy rate. These 240 beds were, therefore, occupied at a rate of 24.4 percent. In November 1982, the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County was 89.8 percent, while a year later after including all 240 licensed beds in Richmond's Sunrise facility, the occupancy rate had only fallen 3 points to 86.7 percent. Expert witness Schwartz concludes that if 240 beds can be added In Broward County and only drop the occupancy rate from 89.8 percent to 86.7 percent, then certainly more than 101 beds can be added before the occupancy rate will drop below 80 percent. He further concludes that when One examines what actually happened in Broward County rather than what could theoretically happen, the prospective utilization test may well be a valid predictor of future occupancy rates under normal circumstances, but it fails to be in Broward County. Rather, Schwartz concluded that approximately 1,000 nursing home beds can be added in Broward County without lowering the occupancy rate below 80. Expert witness Theodore Foti explained the effect of Respondent's bed need methodology when applied to Broward County. The methodology is based on the premise that the only people who need nursing homes in Florida are the impoverished since the standard 27 beds per one thousand is adjusted only by the poverty ratio. However, nursing home providers prefer private patients because they pay more. In Broward County there are facilities that only accept private pay patients. The provider receives about 25 percent more profit than he would if he had two individuals to care for in the same room when the difference between private and semi-private rates and the decrease in staffing that is possible with the lesser number of patients are taken into consideration. Because of the shortage of supply and the ever-growing demand in Broward County, it is economically beneficial to a 60 bed nursing home for example to take 20 beds out of service and operate with 40 beds because the owner can increase the rates and lower the costs simultaneously. According to Foti, a review of the occupancy rates in Broward County shows that beds in certain facilities have been taken out of use over a period of time by those facilities. Those providers have chosen to serve primarily the private paying individual since it is to their financial benefit to do so. The corresponding result is that the demand for nursing home beds by the medicaid recipient cannot be satisfied because the private pay patient has "squeezed out" the Medicaid patient. The existence of this phenomena in Broward County rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance since Respondent uses a formula to prescribe prospective occupancy rates which are directly controlled by the number of beds that the existing owners place in service or take out of service. Considering the "private pay phenomena" in Broward County, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in Broward County is the lowest in the state, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in the state is the lowest in the country, Foti calculates a need currently in Broward County to be an additional 800 beds as a minimum figure even without considering the DRG regulations which clearly will accentuate that need. Respondent's witness Porter acknowledged that Respondent would look favorably upon applications for Certificates of Need for additional beds in an area where indications are that Medicaid patients are being denied access to beds although Respondent's bed need methodology simultaneously shows that no new beds are needed. He explained that as an extenuating circumstance if there is evidence that a particular population group is being denied access and that Respondent would look favorably upon applications proposing substantial Medicaid beds (such as those under consideration herein) if accessibility for Medicaid clients is limited. He further acknowledged that the Medicaid program office of the division of Adult and Aging Services would be an appropriate authority upon which he would rely in making such a determination. He further acknowledged that the accessibility to Medicaid beds would be increased in Broward County by issuing Certificates of Need with a Medicaid bed condition attached to them since the Medicaid utilization rate has been increasing in Broward County even though the total number of beds has remained constant. Lynn Raichelson as the supervisor of Respondent's Adult Payments Unit for Broward County is responsible for gathering data reflecting the number of people placed in Medicaid beds during the month in Broward County for Medicaid payment purposes. Both her reports admitted in evidence and her testimony at the final hearing noted an overall difficulty in finding placements in Broward County for Medicaid patients. Her reports indicate a number of entries where all Broward County and Dade County nursing homes were contacted but there were no nursing home beds available. The number of days for placement ranged from 23 to in excess of 83 days. Most of the patients were in acute care hospital beds while awaiting nursing home beds. Several health care professionals testified as to the actual need in Broward County as opposed to the projected need based upon Respondent's mathematical formula. One hospital administrator had no problem placing private pay patients but found that Medicaid placements are extremely difficult to make in Broward County. His hospital alone holds 8 to 12 patients on any given day who should have been discharged into a nursing home. The executive director of the North Broward Hospital District which encompasses three hospitals encounters difficulty in placing Medicaid and Medicare patients in nursing homes in Broward County since the nursing homes are at full operational occupancy. Approximately 25 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals in the District are referred to and placed in nursing homes. Of this 25 percent, the District encounters difficulty in placing 10 to 15 percent of the patients. The problems persist year round but are especially difficult during the winter "peak" season. Alan Mahar is the administrator of the Primary Health Care Division of the Health and Public Safety Department for Broward County. He was the supervisor of nursing home placement from 1975 to 1981 when Broward County was making nursing home placements. Between June 1981 and September 1983 he participated in a Medicaid demonstration project called Pentastar which was sponsored by Respondent's District 10 Aging and Adult Program Office. The purpose of the project was to determine if an alternative existed to keep persons out of nursing homes. An important part of the program was the identification of persons aged 60 and over who were potentially at risk of being placed into a nursing home within one year. Those enrolled in the program had to qualify for Medicaid payments. Although he expected he would need to interview approximately 300 to find 150 persons for the program, everyone he interviewed qualified. At the conclusion of the program, none of the persons who received services through pentastar were any less at risk than they were before those services commenced. Services under that program terminated in September 1983. Since Broward County does not have a publicly operated nursing home, Mahar experienced extreme difficulty in placing Medicaid patients and found that it frequently took weeks and sometimes months to find an available nursing home bed for a Medicaid patient. Mahar's opinion that there is not a sufficient number of beds available to Medicaid patients in Broward County is also based on his identification of the trend over the last three years he has been involved in auditing Medicaid matching funds. The money which Broward County has been paying for hospital care for Medicaid persons has almost doubled in the last three years, while the Medicaid match money for nursing home care has gone up only 15 or 20 percent during that same period. The poverty ratio included in Respondent's bed need formula results in an underestimation of bed need for wealthy counties such as Broward County where the majority of nursing home patients are private pay patients. Broward County is the wealthiest county in the state and has the lowest Medicaid usage in the state. The poverty ratio results in a calculated bed-need ratio in Broward County of 15.5 beds per thousand whereas the statewide need ratio is 27 beds per thousand. There is overwhelming competent substantial evidence to show an actual need for community nursing home beds in Broward County currently and in 1986 for in excess of the 780 beds Petitioners collectively seek herein. Substantial competent evidence was presented to show several special circumstances, and respondent's sole witness acknowledged that one of those was sufficient for the grant of all applications filed by the four Petitioners in this cause. The overwhelming need proven herein was uncontroverted by Respondent, and the special circumstances prohibit Respondent from applying the bed need methodology in Broward County at this time. In view of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, there is no need to determine which of the applicants herein is best qualified for the award of the 101 beds in issue in this cause. Additionally, the evidence in this record is insufficient to proclaim any of the applicants to be best qualified. At the final hearing there were a few attempts at a comparative analysis, and none was credible. The attempts at comparative analysis simply resulted in a further substantiation of the fact that all of the applicants are equally qualified. Respondent's witness gave his personal opinion that one of the applicants was preferable but was unable to assign any weight to any of the factors utilized in reaching that individual opinion. Rather, the one factor that he did testify to at length in the hearing as the most important - accessibility by Medicaid patients - was the one item that that applicant would not guarantee. HCR's application for the 101 beds indicated that it would not commit to the number of Medicaid patients that it would serve. In short, the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented provide very little basis, if any, for choosing one applicant over another. Rather, all applicants meet all criteria, and the need for the number of beds originally requested clearly exists.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Granting to Richmond Healthcare, Inc. a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America a Certificate of Need 120 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Quest Corporation a Certificate of Need for 180 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; and Granting to Federal Property Management a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire 1107 South East Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jean Laramore, Esquire and Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1568 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 464 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting Kensington Manor Inc. CON No. 6430 to construct a 120 bed nursing home and to rehabilitate the existing 147 bed nursing home to an 87 bed nursing home in Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3665 Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except #5. Sentence stating "There are no laundry facilities in the nursing home." is rejected as inconsistent with proposed finding #7. Respondent's proposed findings are also accepted. Most of the defects in the application which Respondent finds to be not in compliance with the statutory requirements were corrected by the testimony at this hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Richard Patterson, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Certificate of Need (CON) Application of either South Florida Baptist Hospital, Inc., (Hospital) or John A. McCoy Florida SNF Trust (Trust), or both, meet the statutory and rule criteria for a CON for nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, Florida, and whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve either, or both, of these CON Applications.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Trust The applicant for CON 5924 is John A. McCoy, Trustee, John A. McCoy Florida SNF Trust (Trust). This is the first application for a CON which has been filed on behalf of the Trust. The Trust has never filed income tax returns and has no federal employee identification number. It has never been the licensee, owner or manager of a nursing home. The Trust was formed on April 3, 1989, through a document signed by John A. McCoy, as trustee of the SNF Trust and as trustee of seven individual land trusts, primarily because John A. McCoy always considered himself the owner of all nursing home facilities associated with these various trusts, but felt the Department was not giving him credit for his previous CON approvals. The assets of the Trust are seven individual land trusts designated as: Florida Land Trust 4376, d/b/a Brandywyne Convalescent Center; Florida Land Trust 11, d/b/a/ Sutton Place Convalescent Center; Florida Land Trust 8, d/b/a Surrey Place of Live Oak; Florida Land Trust 9, d/b/a Surrey Place of Ocala; Florida Land Trust 32OR, d/b/a Surrey Place of Orlando; Florida Land Trust 33H, d/b/a Surrey Place of Hillsborough County; and Florida Land Trust 34SL, d/b/a Surrey Place of St. Lucie. The beneficiaries of these individual land trusts are John A. McCoy (47.5%), Stanford L. Hoye (47.5%), and James W. McCoy (5%). The formation of the Trust did not change the ownership of these individual land trusts in any way, and the interests of the beneficiaries of the individual trusts have not been sold, conveyed, or otherwise transferred to the Trust. There are no other documents transferring any beneficial interests to the Trust. Hoye has assigned his beneficial interest in these individual trusts to S&E Partnership. Under the terms of the Trust, the beneficiaries have the power to direct the Trustee, John A. McCoy, concerning the management and control of trust assets. The Trustee has the authority to convey assets of the Trust only when authorized in writing by the beneficiaries. There is no evidence in the record that the beneficiaries have authorized, in writing, the Trustee to convey assets of the Trust. The right to manage, sell, rent or otherwise handle assets of the Trust resides solely with the beneficiaries. Although the document forming the Trust on April 3, 1989, refers to John A. McCoy as trustee for individual land trust 4376, the trustee for this land trust is, in fact, the Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Company. Individual land trusts 32OR, 33H and 34SL do not hold any interest in real property. Land trust 32OR was established for a nursing home facility to be known as Surrey Place of Orlando, but the CON application for that facility has been denied. Land trust 33H was established for the nursing home facility in Hillsborough County that is the subject of this proceeding, and will only hold an interest in property if this application is approved. Land trust 34SL was established for another nursing home facility, the application for which is also pending at this time, and which will, therefore, only hold an interest in property if this other application is approved. John A. McCoy has executed a promissory note in the amount of $1,050,000 as part of the Trust's contribution to be used to develop the facility at issue in this case, as well as two others. However, payment of this note is contingent upon receiving approval of three CONs for facilities to be owned and operated through individual land trusts 32OR, 33H and 34SL. Individual land trusts 4376, 11, 8 and 9 all involve leasehold interests in existing nursing homes, and not interests involving fee simple ownership. There are four other individual land trusts which hold the ownership interest in the real property associated with these existing facilities. Land trust 4375 involves the land associated with the leasehold which is the subject of individual land trust 4376; land trust 10 involves the real property associated with the leasehold which is the subject of individual land trust 11; land trust 7 involves the property associated with the leasehold that is the subject of individual land trust 8; and land trust 6 relates to the real property associated with the leasehold that is the subject of individual land trust 9. Land trusts 4375, 10, 7 and 6 are not included within the Trust which is the applicant in this proceeding, although the Trust's purported audited financial statement that was included with its application included the combined accounts of these non-included land trusts, as well as the accounts of land trusts 4376, 11, 8 and 9 which are included within the Trust. The Trust's expert in nursing home accounting and reimbursement, Ray Bolt, testified that he included the accounts of all these land trusts because he assumed that McCoy, as Trustee, had absolute control over all of these various trusts. This was an erroneous assumption. He testified that it was consistent with generally accepted accounting principles to include the combined accounts of all individual land trusts in the Trust's audit, as long as a disclosure was included in the Trust's audited financial statement. However, the Department requires that the audited financial statements filed with a CON application be of the applicant alone, and if information about entities other than the applicant is included, the financial statement is not considered to be of the applicant. On the other hand, although individual land trusts 32OR, 33H and 34SL are included within the Trust, they were not included within the Trust's financial statement. John A. McCoy is the trustee of several additional land trusts not associated with, or a part of, the Trust which is the applicant in this case. These other trusts include land trust 17-CR and 16-B, to which CONs have previously been issued. At the time the Trust submitted its application for this CON, it included nursing home facilities associated with individual land trusts 4376, 11, 8 or 9, although it was not the licensee for any of these facilities. Subsequent to the submission of the Trust's CON application, the three facilities relating to individual land trusts 4376, 11 and 8 have been sold to National Health Care Affiliates, Inc., and there is no longer any real property interest in these land trusts. McCoy testified that the three facilities associated with these land trusts at the time this application was filed are no longer a part of the Trust. John A. McCoy is also the President of Health Care Associates (HCA), the ownership of which is common with that of the Trust. HCA will develop and manage the facility in Hillsborough County which is the subject of this case, if the Trust's CON application is approved. The Department allows the holder of an approved CON to contract with another entity for the day to day operation and management of a facility after it is licensed. Although its letter of intent did not specifically so state, this facility will be licensed in the name of the Trust, which will be ultimately responsible for its operations despite this common ownership and the contractual relationship which will exist between HCA and the Trust for the development and management of the facility in Hillsborough County. This will be in contrast with the facility associated with individual land trust 9 where HCA was the applicant for licensure and currently holds the license for said facility. The Hospital The Hospital is a 147 bed licensed acute care, not for profit, hospital located in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida. Fifteen of the Hospital's licensed beds are designated as skilled nursing beds. During 1989, the occupancy rate for the Hospital was 45-46%, which was a drop from 1988. The skilled nursing beds had an occupancy rate of only 37-38% in 1989 due to a lesser need for skilled care than anticipated, seasonal variation in the area, and the Hospital's failure to obtain a Medicaid provider number that would allow it to accept Medicaid patients. The Hospital provides care to residents outside its immediate service area and outside the service district. There is local community support for a nursing home at the Hospital. Other than its experience with the fifteen skilled nursing beds, the Hospital has no experience operating a nursing home. The Department The Department is the state agency responsible for reviewing CON applications in Florida under the provisions of Sections 381.701 - 381.715, Florida Statutes, in order to determine compliance with the criteria and standards for approval set forth therein, as well as in rules which it has adopted thereunder. The Applications In order for an application for a CON to be valid, the applicant must be an existing entity at the time its application is filed. The Department has rejected CON applications because it has determined that the applicant shown on the application form was not in fact the actual applicant. The Department expects that if a CON is issued, the CON holder will be the licensee of the facility since it is the licensee that has control and is responsible for operations. The Fixed Need Pool published by the Department projected a need for 99 nursing home beds in District VI, Subdistrict 1, Hillsborough County, for the January 1992 planning horizon. For the second half of 1988, occupancy rates for the Subdistrict were 95.45%, with 3076 licensed beds and 549 approved beds. The Subdistrict Medicaid average was 74.40%. In response to this published need, five applicants, including the Trust and the Hospital, timely filed CON applications. The Trust application was numbered CON 5924, and the Hospital application was designated as CON 5982. The other three applicants are not parties to this proceeding, and have not sought further consideration of their applications. The Trust proposes to construct a 90 bed community nursing home facility in Hillsborough County consisting of a single story structure of approximately 36,500 gross square feet, at a total cost of $3,650,500. It will also have an associated 58 bed ACLF and adult day care program. The Hospital proposes to construct a 99 bed nursing home to serve skilled and intermediate care patients, located adjacent to its existing hospital facility with a covered walkway connecting the nursing home with the hospital. The facility proposed by the Hospital would consist of approximately 26,256 gross square feet, at a cost of $3,688,044. Although its application is not for an addition to an existing facility, the Hospital proposes to share certain services and activities provided in its existing facility with its proposed nursing home, such as food preparation, some therapies, kitchen, laundry, housekeeping, chapel and gift shop. The site proposed by the Hospital in its application for the nursing home is not of adequate size since the foot print of the nursing home facility will encompass the entire site, without any allowance for parking, outside recreation, or view, other than what is already provided for the existing hospital facility. Instead of a .6 acre site as proposed by the Hospital, a site of from 4 to 5 acres is required for a 99 bed nursing home facility which meets minimum requirements for licensure. Additionally, the proposed square footage of this 99 bed facility is approximately 10% below what would be required to meet licensure standards, and the amendment of this proposal to add this additional square footage would be a substantial amendment which is not permitted at this stage of the CON application and review process. After review, the Department deemed both applications complete, and issued its SAAR on or about October 26, 1989, noticing its intent to approve the Trust's application for CON 5924 and to deny all other applications, including that of the Hospital, CON 5982. Therafter, the Hospital timely filed a petition for formal hearing to challenge the Department's notice of intent to deny its CON and to approve the Trust's, and this comparative hearing was subsequently held. The Department's determination that the Trust's application was complete is in error. First, the Trust has not been shown to be an existing entity with the capacity to file an application for CON 5924. Second, in order to be complete, an application must include an audited financial statement of the applicant, and the financial statement filed with the Trust's application contains information about other entities not included within the Trust. Thus, the Trust has not filed its own audited financial statement, but rather one containing the combined accounts of several individual land trusts, including some which do not comprise the Trust. The Department's determination that the Hospital's application was complete is also in error. It was not established that there was an authorized certification to the Hospital's board resolution that purportedly authorized the filing of this CON application and as a result, it was not shown that the Hospital's board of directors has consented to this filing. Additionally, the employee who signed the application was not the authorized representative of the applicant, as filed. State Health Plan Based upon the testimony of Thomas Konrad, Sharon Gordon-Girvin, and Edward Perrine, who were accepted as experts in health planning, it is found that both applications are consistent with relevant portions of the State Health Plan. Specifically, the State Plan sets forth three generalized goals for nursing homes, including supply, appropriateness and adequacy of utilization. Supply is dealt with in the fixed need pool determination, and each application addresses and responds to the need for 99 beds which has been determined and published by the Department. Each applicant proposes the use of its facility to provide long-term nursing home services that are accessible, geographically and financially, to all residents. Local Health Plan The 1988 District VI Local Health Plan identifies 9 recommendations for use in determining preference among CON applicants. The first recommendation is that the subdivision priority need rankings, set forth in the Local Plan, should be considered along with numeric bed need for the Subdistrict. Hillsborough County is a Subdistrict of District VI, and within District VI, northwest Hillsborough County is given the highest subdivision priority ranking, based upon the elderly poverty rate and the population 85 years of age and older in each subdivision. Although the Trust application does not specifically designate a site for its proposed facility, the record in this proceeding clearly reflects the Trust's commitment to locate a suitable site for its facility in northwest Hillsborough County. The Hospital is located in Plant City, in northeast Hillsborough County, and its proposed facility will be adjacent to its existing acute care hospital. Thus, the Trust application is consistent with this first recommendation of the Local Health Plan, while the Hospital's proposal is not. The Trust application is more accessible to the area of greatest need in Hillsborough County. A specific site does not have to be identified in a CON application, although a Subdistrict identification does have to be included. Both applications meet the provision of the Local Health Plan which recommends that beds in a Subdistrict have a 90% or greater occupancy rate for six continuous months before additional beds are approved. In Hillsborough County, the occupancy rate for 1988 exceeded 95%. Both applicants have committed to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the representation of elderly poor in the Subdistrict, and both are, therefore, consistent in their application statements with this recommendation of the Local Plan. However, the Hospital has yet to serve one Medicaid patient in the fifteen skilled nursing home beds at its existing facility, and has not been successful in obtaining a Medicaid provider number. The Hospital has been consistently below the average among hospitals in Hillsborough County for Medicaid patient days. Neither applicant has a well documented history of implementing CONs within statutory timeframes and without cost overruns. As previously found, this is the first CON application filed by the Trust, although John A. McCoy, as trustee of other individual land trusts, has filed other CON applications. The Hospital has not filed a CON application for new nursing home beds prior to this one. The CON which it received in order to relocate its fifteen skilled nursing beds had to be amended to add additional square footage, increasing this unit from the 5,082 square feet in its application to 8,500 square feet. Neither applicant has previously applied for, and obtained, CONs and licensure for nursing homes which were rated as superior by the Department. For this reason, the Local Plan's recommendation that a well documented history of timely implementation of superior rated facilities should be given preference in review of CON applications does not pertain to either of these applications. Quality of Care The Hospital's proposed design and floor plan raise serious questions about the quality of care which could be rendered at its facility. The floor plan and design which it submitted with its application would have to be substantially amended to meet minimum licensure requirements and to provide for quality of care to patients. Its proposal to share essential services between its existing hospital and the proposed nursing home, such as food preparation, laundry and housekeeping, nursing staff, administrators, janitorial services, and therapies is not well integrated, and as presented could reasonably be expected to impair the quality of care available for nursing home residents. As an example, the residents would not have separate rooms for recreation, dining, family visiting and patient lounges, but rather, the same room may serve several of these functions. No evidence was presented to establish that the Hospital's existing kitchen and food service facilities can accommodate the additional workload which would result from serving an additional 99 beds in the proposed nursing home. The atmosphere for residents of the Hospital's proposed facility would be more institutional than the atmosphere presented in the Trust's application. The Hospital's proposal to transfer patients from the nursing home to the existing hospital facility for therapies and some other services would require that they be regularly moved, via a covered walkway, from the nursing home to the hospital, and such an arrangement is not preferred from a health planning, architectural or quality of care perspective. It was not established that the Hospital has maintained a superior rating for its existing facility, although this assertion was included in its application. At the time of application, the Hospital had not finalized an Alzheimer's or AIDS program, although it states in its application that it is committed to serving these patients. In order to provide quality care to residents and to meet the minimum standards for licensure which are set forth in Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, the Hospital's application would have to be substantially amended. For example, it would have to move and increase the size of the soiled and clean utility rooms, add storage rooms, move one wing of the proposed building in order to provide a sufficient view from patient rooms, enlarge its dining and medication rooms, and enclose the proposed covered walkway connecting the nursing home with the existing hospital. The Trust will seek a superior rating for its facility, and although the Trust does not have a documented history of superior ratings of nursing homes for which it has been the applicant, John A. McCoy has had approximately thirteen years experience in designing, developing and operating nursing homes. The Trust's proposed facility would provide an integrated, self-contained program for its residents in a residential atmosphere with natural lighting, wide corridors, and a separation of service areas from areas utilized by residents. The lounges, dining spaces, treatment rooms, 15,000 square foot courtyards, and public spaces in the Trust application all exceed those in the Hospital's. The visitor's lounge is designed to allow privacy while residents are visiting with family or friends. The size of the residents' rooms significantly exceed the minimum standard set forth in Chapter 10D-29. There are several lounges for residents with covered patios leading to the courtyard, and a large screened porch off the dining room. While each semi-private room has a residential toilet, rather than an institutional flush valve type, bathing facilities are centralized in order to provide greater supervision and less hazard for the residents. A safe and secure separate unit for Alzheimer patients, with safety fire doors, is proposed in the Trust application, and these residents will have their own dining facility and lounges which will lessen the stress that they tend to feel when in crowded dining rooms with other patients. The building which the Trust proposes to construct will be made of concrete, which offers greater fire resistence than a wooden structure, and will meet or exceed all Chapter 10D-29 requirements for life, fire and safety code regulations. Availability and Access The addition of these two new programs would obviously increase the availability of services in the District. Existing nursing homes in the District are operating at a very high utilization rate, and demand for nursing home beds is significant. The Hospital has committed to provide 74% of its services to Medicaid recipients, while the Trust has committed to only 60% Medicaid utilization. The Hospital agreed, in its CON for fifteen skilled nursing home beds, to a condition to provide 5% Medicaid, but has yet to serve the first Medicaid patient. The reason for this failure is that it has been unable to obtain a Medicaid provider number from the Florida Medicaid program because its skilled nursing beds remain licensed as hospital beds. The Trust's location in northwest Hillsborough County will increase accessibility for patients in the highest priority area of the District. The Trust's proposed Alzheimer program is more complete in its presentation than that proposed by the Hospital. The Hospital's design plans do not adequately address the location and facilities for an Alzheimer or AIDS unit. Alternatives Considered The Hospital's fifteen skilled nursing beds are not an alternative for the beds sought in this proceeding. Since Medicaid will not, at this time, pay for services to patients in these fifteen beds, they are not available for indigent care to nursing home patients. The construction of a new facility to meet the need determined by the Department to exist is the best alternative available since existing nursing homes in the District have experienced very high occupancy rates and no existing provider is proposing the expansion of an existing facility to meet this need. Personnel Availability and Costs The Trust has not provided any revision of its FTE staffing data for the second year of its operation when compared with its FTE figures for year one, although for year one its proposal exceeds staffing requirements. It is reasonable to expect that a facility's occupancy rate will increase in its second year of operation, and that therefore, its staffing needs would also increase. In several instances, the Hospital has failed to include an estimate of expenses and supplies associated with various personnel, such as housekeeping, administration, nursing, and dietary. The Hospital's estimate of such expenses was understated by approximately $327,000. In its application, the Hospital proposes to pay its Director of Nursing a lower hourly wage than registered nurses on staff, an unrealistic and unreasonable proposal. The Hospital has not included sufficient staff in its application to provide quality care to residents, or to meet the minimum requirements for licensure found in Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. The estimate of aids and LPNs required for a 99 bed facility is insufficient. It has failed to include a social services director or activities director. Where functions are proposed to be performed by existing hospital employees, the allocation of FTE's for these individuals to the proposed nursing home is unclear and incomplete. It was established that each applicant can identify and recruit sufficent personnel to staff its proposed facility. The Hospital has a record of successful staff recruitment and training for its existing facility, and has an extensive ongoing volunteer program which includes 150 volunteers who provided 35,000 hours of service to the Hospital last year. Financial Feasibility Although there is no requirement that final architectural plans be included with a CON application, an applicant cannot increase square footage after CON approval. The deficiencies in the Hospital's proposed floor plan and design are substantial and would require extensive changes and increases in square footage in order to meet the licensure requirements of Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the square footage of the proposed nursing home would have to be increased by approximately 10% according to Dennis O'Keefe, an expert in nursing home architecture, design and cost estimation, and this increase would add approximately $175,000 to the construction costs indicated in the Hospital's application. Further, in order to simply provide the services and facilities described in the Hospital's application narrative, the square footage of its proposal would have to be increased by 25%. Even the Hospital's architecture expert, Larry Fusaro, conceded that its proposal would have to be increased by 800 square feet. At $52.25 per square foot, the Hospital has underestimated the square footage costs to construct its facility, and was unable at hearing to establish that this estimate is reasonable. In its application, the Hospital proposes financing at least $600,000 more than is necessary for the capital expenditures associated with this project. Additionally, the Hospital is proposing to obtain a cash contribution from its existing hospital of $383,798 in funds over the amount of projected capital expenditures. This extra $600,000 financing and excess funding of $383,798 are significant factors in the Hospital's projection of financial feasibility in the first and second years of operation. The Hospital has failed to include an estimate of the cost to provide food to its residents. While there are a number of additional expense items that do not appear on the Hospital's expense statement because they are being provided through the existing hospital facility, it was not shown that the Hospital has specifically and completely accounted, through the existing facility's budget, for all such expense items which are missing from this proposal. Since the nursing home proposed by the Hospital will not be a cost center of the existing facility's operations, but will be a separate entity with its own financial records, these deficiencies and uncertainties in sharing arrangements are all the more significant. The income from private pay rooms was overstated in the Hospital's application by $82,000. Additionally, its non-nursing home revenue was overstated by $29,000, and "other revenue" was also overstated by approximately $110,000. When errors and underestimates in the Hospital's estimate of project costs, as well as its overestimates of revenue are considered, the Hospital's project is shown to lack financial feasibility. In its application, the Hospital's letter of commitment for financing only indicates an interest in studying the feasibility for financing the project, rather than setting forth an actual commitment for financing. There have been cost overruns in four CONs previously issued in which John A. McCoy was involved, and three of these overruns were significant, ranging from $399,000 to $496,000. The purported audited financial records upon which the Trust proposal is based include a $1,050,000 unsecured note from John A. McCoy, and $475,000 from this unsecured note is listed as a source of funds for the Trust project. It was not established that John A. McCoy has the financial ability to cover this note, which is contingent upon the approval of several CONs. Due to the unsecured, contingent nature of a significant portion of its financing, the Trust proposal is not financially feasible in the short-term. The current financial ratio reflected in the parties' applications is a measure of each applicant's ability to meet short term obligations. Based solely on the information presented by each applicant in their applications, the Hospital would be able to meet short term obligations, but the Trust's current ratio is such that it would be reasonable to expect that it would have difficulty meeting short term obligations. The Hospital would have a significantly lower long term debt to equity ratio than that reflected in the Trust's application. The Trust's application is highly leveraged, with a significant amount of debt in its balance sheet as compared to equity. This can reasonably be expected to make financing of this project more difficult. The times interest earned ratio for each applicant indicates that while the Hospital would be able to meet debt service payments, the Trust would not. Similarly, the Hospital's operating margin return on assets and return on equity ratios are all positive, indicating it would be able to generate profit on sales revenue from patients, return on assets and on equity. However, these ratios for the Trust's second year of operation indicate that it would experience a loss during this fiscal period. Thus, the Trust proposal has not been shown to be financially feasible in the long-term, according to the data supplied in its own application. Effect on Competition and Costs It cannot be determined whether there will be a significant difference between the charges proposed by each of these applicants and the actual charges at existing providers. The Trust has indicated a charge of $81 for a private room and $72.34 for semi-private, while the Hospital has proposed a $92 private room charge and $79 for semi-private. Comparison of Applicants The Trust application is superior to that of the Hospital in terms of the applicable statutory and rule criteria against which these applications are reviewed. Specifically, the Trust application is superior in terms of structural design, ability to meet life, fire and safety code requirements, ability to provide quality care to residents, and in terms of its proposed programs, including its program for Alzheimer's patients. Its construction cost estimates and projected costs of fixed and movable equipment are reasonable and adequate. However, as set forth above, there are deficiencies in the completeness of this application, as well as its financial feasibility, which preclude its approval. The Trust's projected capital expenditures are estimated at $3,630,500 for a facility of 36,500 gross square feet, while the Hospital's proposal is for 26,256 gross square feet at a capital cost of $3,688,044. Thus, while the Hospital is seeking 99 beds and the Trust is only seeking approval for 90 beds, the Hospital is proposing a facility that is substantially smaller, and yet more costly, than that which is proposed by the Trust. As stated above, the Hospital's cost estimates are substantially understated, and therefore, its proposal would be even more costly than is reflected simply by a comparison of the proposed cost estimates contained in these applications. While the Hospital's proposal could provide for easier access to a hospital facility for nursing home residents requiring hospitalization, a balanced consideration of all criteria for approval establishes that the Hospital's application should not be approved, even if the Trust's application is denied. Specifically, its design is incomplete, inadequate, and institutional in nature. The site proposed for this facility is inadequate. It could not expand this facility to 120 beds at this site since the site is entirely encompassed by the footprint of the proposed nursing home. The Hospital's construction costs are unrealistically low, contributing to the understated nature of cost estimates in its application. The program and facility proposed by the Hospital is dependent upon the existing hospital facility for sharing of essential services, such as dietary and therapy programs, and it was not established that the existing hospital facility would be able to provide such services, or what their cost would be. In contrast, the Trust proposes an independent, self supporting, integrated facility and program. The Hospital does not propose to locate its facility in an area of priority need within the Subdistrict, as does the Trust.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which denies the application of South Florida Baptist Hospital, Inc., for CON 5982, and of John A. McCoy Florida SNF Trust for CON 5924. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the Hospital 1-2. Adopted in Finding 12. 3-5. Adopted in Finding 21. 6. Adopted in Findings 14, 42. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 14. 9. Adopted in Finding 18. 10-12. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 13. Adopted in Finding 22. 14. Adopted in Finding 17. 15. Adopted in Finding 1. 16. Adopted in Finding 4. 17. Adopted in Finding 2. 18. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 19. Adopted in Finding 2. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 8. 21. Adopted in Finding 5. 22. Adopted in Finding 9. 23. Rejected as unnecessary. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 2. 26-27. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 28-29. 30. Rejected as an excerpt of testimony and not finding of fact. Adopted in Finding 1. a proposed 31. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 32. Adopted in Findings 28, 31. 33-34. Adopted in Finding 1. 35. Adopted in Finding 10. 36. Adopted in Finding 5. 37. Adopted in Finding 11. 38. Adopted in Finding 10. 39-41. Adopted in Finding 11. 42-43. Adopted in Finding 17. 44-46. Adopted in Findings 8, 23. 47. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 48-50. Adopted in Finding 11. 51-52. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 53-54. Adopted in Finding 1. 55-56. Adopted in Finding 8. 57. Rejected as unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Finding 18. 59. Adopted in Findings 24, 26-27, but Rejected in Findings 25, 28. Adopted in Finding 24. Rejected in Findings 25, 28. Adopted in Findings 21, 46. Rejected in Finding 25. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 29. 65-67. Rejected in Finding 29, and as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Findings 18, 32. Rejected in Findings 29, 30. 73-74. Rejected as irrelevant. 75. Rejected in Findings 29, 30. 76-77. Rejected in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 57. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 39. 80-82. Adopted in Finding 37. 83-84. Adopted in Finding 38. 85. Rejected in Findings 29, 40, 41, 46. 86-87. Adopted in Findings 21, 29. 88. Adopted in Findings 14, 42. 89-90. Adopted in Findings 21, 29. 91. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 40, 41. 92-94. Adopted in Finding 41. 95. Adopted in Finding 46. 96-99. Rejected in Findings 40, 44-48. 100-101 Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 102-104 Adopted in Finding 51. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 52. Rejected in Findings 53, 54. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 28. 109-112 Adopted and Rejected in Findings 21, 43. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in part in Finding 43. Rejected as immaterial. 116-117 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 118. Rejected as irrelevant. 119-121 Rejected in Findings 43, 44. 122-123 Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 124-125 Adopted in Finding 50. Adopted in Finding 34. Adopted in Finding 33. 128-129 Rejected in Finding 27. Rejected in Finding 27, and as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 36. 133-136 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 137. Adopted in Finding 52. 138-141 Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 39. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 57. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 33. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the Trust: Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 20. Rejected in Findings 10, 11. Adopted in Finding 25. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Findings 1, 11. Adopted in Finding 23. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 1-3, 31. Adopted in Finding 20. Rejected in Finding 50, and as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings 20, 51, but Rejected in Findings 51, 52. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 8, 23. Adopted in Findings 1, 5, 7, 8. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 21, 45. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 46. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 23. Adopted in Findings 22, 57. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 27, 34. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 28. 43 Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Findings 24, 25. Adopted in Findings 29, 55. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 21, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Findings 29, 55. 51-54. Adopted in Finding 31. 55. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 39. 56-57. Adopted in Finding 31. 58-61. Adopted in Findings 21, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 29. 64-65. Adopted in Findings 40, 41. Adopted in Finding 33, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 27, 34. 68-74. Rejected as unnecessary due to Finding 52. 75. Rejected in Findings 8, 23. 76-80. Rejected in Finding 52, and otherwise as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 51, 52. Adopted in Findings 40, 46. Adopted in Finding 47. Adopted in Finding 48. 85-87. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 39, 42. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 40, 41. 92-94. Adopted in Finding 56. 95-97. Adopted in Finding 54, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 98-99. Rejected as cumulative. 100. Adopted in Finding 43. 101-115 Adopted in Finding 31, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-117 Adopted in Finding 55. 118-119 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 120-145 Adopted in Findings 21, 29, 43, 44, 57, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative, immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 57. Adopted in Finding 29. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the Department: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3. Adopted in Findings 1, 2. 4-5. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. 9-10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-13. Adopted in Finding 5. 14-18. Adopted in Finding 7. 19-20. Adopted in Finding 10. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in part in Finding 11. 26-31. Adopted in Finding 8. 32. Adopted in Finding 6. 33-35. Adopted in Findings 21, 29, 30, 43. Adopted in Finding 44. Adopted in Findings 21, 43. 38-39. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Findings 43-48. Adopted in Findings 21, 43. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Findings 40, 41. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 49. Adopted in Finding 29. 48-53. Adopted in Finding 30. 54. Adopted in part in Finding 43. 55-56. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 55. Adopted in Finding 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Findings 21, 57. Adopted in Findings 12, 29. 63-64. Adopted in Finding 45. 65-66. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 47. Adopted in Finding 45. 69-70. Adopted in Finding 40. 71-73. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 55. Adopted in Finding 57. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 77-78. Adopted in Finding 17. 79. Adopted in Findings 8, 23. Copies furnished: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 500 Tallahassee, FL 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire F. Philip Blank, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, Acting General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 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.
