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 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
Findings Of Fact Procedural. 1. Meridian, National, HBA and ten other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Subdistrict 4 of District This area includes Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department and the District 4 Local Health Council within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need applications within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department comparatively reviewed the applications of the applicants involved in these cases and those of ten other applicants. Based upon this review the Department issued a State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle (hereinafter referred to as the "SAAR") on February 18, 1988. The SAAR was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. In the SAAR the Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by HBA and to deny all other applications. Ten of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioners except the two Petitioners in these cases and HCR withdrew their Petitions prior to the formal hearing of these cases. HCR participated in the formal hearing of these cases but withdrew its Petition prior to the issuance of this Recommended Order. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for nursing home beds to be located in Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian. Meridian, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Towson, Maryland. The stock of Meridian, Inc., is owned by five individuals. Volusia Meridian Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "Partnership") is a Maryland limited partnership authorized to conduct business in Florida. Meridian, Inc., is the Partnership's general partner. The Partnership owns a nursing home in Ormond Beach, Florida. The Ormond Beach nursing home is leased to Meridian Nursing Centers, Inc. For the past twenty years, Meridian has owned, operated, developed and managed long-term health care facilities, retirement communities and other health care services for the elderly. Meridian owns and operates thirty-three facilities, in five States. These facilities have approximately 4,800 beds. In Florida, Meridian owns nursing homes in Lakeland, Plantation and Ormond Beach. As of the date of the formal hearing, Meridian had two other facilities under construction in Florida: one located in Longwood, Florida; and the other located in Melbourne, Florida. National. National is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership, authorized to conduct business in Florida. National's principal offices are located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National was created in 1971 with the purchase of fourteen existing nursing homes located in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia. National now operates seventy nursing homes and health care centers in ten different States. Twenty-two of these homes and health care centers are managed, but not owned, by National. National also operates four retirement complexes, eighteen home health agencies and seven to ten specialized Alzheimer's units. In Florida, National owns two health care centers and manages eighteen centers owned by other companies. None of these facilities are located in Flagler or Volusia Counties. HBA. HBA is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of developing, constructing and operating nursing homes. The principals of HBA have owned and operated nursing homes for approximately twenty years and in Florida for approximately fifteen years. HBA's corporate headquarters are located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. HBA owns or operates twenty-four nursing homes located in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. In Florida, HBA owns or operates six nursing homes. They are located in New Smyrna Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Plantation, Tamarac and Miami. The New Smyrna Beach nursing home, Ocean View Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Ocean View"), is located in southern Volusia County. The Proposals. Meridian's Proposal. Meridian's Ormond Beach nursing home is located in northeast Volusia County. This facility consist of 60 nursing home beds. It began operation in November, 1987. In this proceeding, Meridian is seeking approval of the addition to its Ormond Beach nursing home of an additional 60 nursing home beds. Meridian is proposing the construction of a 14,531 square foot (329 square feet per bed) addition to its existing Ormond Beach nursing home. The total size of the Ormond Beach facility will be 39,000 gross square feet if Meridian's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of Meridian's project is $1,247,800.00. The total project cost of the resulting 120-bed Ormond Beach facility will be $4,262,361.00. National's Proposal. In this proceeding, National is seeking approval of a certificate of need authorizing the construction and operation of an 80-bed nursing home to be located in the Palm Coast area of Flagler County, Florida. The exact location of the facility has not been identified by National. National is proposing the construction of a facility consisting of approximately 44,183 gross square feet (552 square feet per bed). The total proposed cost of National's project is $3,786,846.00. HBA'S Proposal. HBA currently owns and operates Ocean View. Ocean View is located in southeast Volusia County. Ocean View currently is licensed to operate 179 nursing home beds. In this proceeding, HBA is seeking approval of the addition to Ocean View of 60 nursing home beds. HBA is proposing the construction of an 18,000 gross square foot (263 square feet per bed) addition to Ocean View. The total size of Ocean View will be 63,000 gross square feet if HBA's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of HBA's project is Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Numeric need for additional nursing home beds is determined pursuant to the need methodology provided in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Need Methodology"). The Department determines the need for additional nursing home beds by applying the Need Methodology for "planning horizons" three years into the future from the certificate of need batching cycles. For the batching cycle involved in these cases, the Department published pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, the net number of additional nursing home beds, the "fixed need pool," in the Florida Administrative Weekly, for the first time. In these cases, the Need Methodology must be applied to determine the fixed need pool for the July, 1990, planning horizon for Flagler and Volusia Counties. These Counties make up Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4. Initially the Department determined that the fixed need pool involved in these cases was zero. Pursuant to Department policy, the Department published a corrected fixed need pool during the grace period of Rule 10- 5.008(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, on September 18, 1987. Based upon the corrected fixed need pool, the Department determined that there was a need for 80 additional nursing home beds for Subdistrict 4 of District 4. No point of entry was provided by the Department for challenging this fixed need pool. The Department's calculation of a fixed need pool of 80 nursing home beds was based upon a misapplication of the Need Methodology by the Department. Based upon a proper application of the Need Methodology there is a need for 68 additional nursing home beds for the planning horizon at issue in these cases. The applicants involved in these cases filed their applications in reliance upon the Department's published fixed-need pool of 80 additional nursing home beds. The proper components of the Need Methodology for determining the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, are as follows: The projected population age 65-74 in District 4 for July, 1990, is 125,990 (POPA); The projected population age 75 and older in District 4 for July, 1990, is 91,109 (POPB); The population age 65-74 in District 4 in July, 1987, was 113,083 (POPC); The population age 75 and older in District 4 in July, 1987, was 77,867 (POPD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 (LB); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 65-74 of District 4 is 0.01034836 (BA); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 75 and older of District 4 is 0.06209018 (BB); and The total number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, is 6,961 beds (A). The proper components of the Need Methodology for allocating the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, to Subdistrict 4 are as follows: The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 2,290 beds (LBD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 beds (LB); The occupancy rate of Subdistrict 4 was 85.83% (OR); and The gross number of nursing home beds allocated to Subdistrict 4 is 2,532 beds (SA). Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides the following with regard to determining the number of licensed nursing home beds to be taken into account in calculating gross bed need for the batching cycle involved in these cases: [B]ed rates established prior to the second batching cycle letter of intent deadline shall be calculated on the number of licensed community nursing ads and the population projections as of July 1... Once the gross number of nursing home beds needed in Subdistrict 4 for July, 1990, is determined, the net number of beds needed is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed beds and 90 percent of approved beds in the Subdistrict from the gross number of beds needed. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.i., Florida Administrative Code, provides the manner in which net bed need is to be determined. In particular, this Rule provides the following: The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987; ... The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 2,410 beds. The number of approved licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 60 beds. The increase in licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 from 2,290 beds as of July 1, 1987, to 2,410 beds as of August 1, 1987, was caused by the licensing of the approved 120-bed Indigo Manor nursing home owned by Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America on July 21, 1987. It is not inconsistent for the Department to use the number of licensed nursing home beds as of July 1 for purposes of determining gross bed need and August 1 for calculating net bed need. The use of these dates by the Department is consistent with good health planning and the requirements of the Need Methodology. The State Health Plan. The Florida State Health Plan contains the general goals of fostering cost containment and developing an adequate supply of accessible and appropriately utilized long-term care health services. Each of the applicants will increase the accessibility of nursing home beds and are proposing appropriate utilization of health services. HBA's proposal will enhance the accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County. The District Health Plan. The 1987 update to the 1986 district health plan for Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4, contains recommendations to be considered in determining community nursing home care bed need. These recommendations, and their application, are as follows: If the state determines that Subdistrict 4 is eligible for additional beds, these beds should be awarded to the Flagler Beach/Palm Coast area of Flagler County if the occupancy rate of Meadowbrook Manor meets or exceeds 85 percent occupancy at the time of CON decision and if it could be shown that the level of occupancy is likely to continue. The average occupancy rate for Meadowbrook Manor for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 58 percent. Meadowbrook has never achieved an 85 percent occupancy rate as of the date of the formal hearing of these cases. At the time of the "CON decision" in these cases, Meadowbrook had not achieved an 85 percent occupancy. This recommendation, therefore, does not apply. If a high rate of occupancy at Meadowbrook Manor in Flagler County does not materialize and if the occupancy rate at Ocean View Nursing Home in southeast Volusia County continues at 85 percent or higher and it could be verified that it will remain at a high rate, then 60 nursing home beds should be awarded in the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. The CON applicant must be willing to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients. The remaining portion should be awarded in West Volusia County. The average monthly occupancy of Ocean View for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 86 percent. Since September, 1987, the occupancy rate at Ocean View has been 94 percent or higher. This high rate of occupancy should continue. HBA proposes to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients and proposes to add its sought after nursing home beds to the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. HBA is the only applicant that meets this recommendation. If the conditions in Nos. 1[a] and 2[b] are not met, the state should award all beds to West Volusia. The conditions of 2[b] have been met. Therefore, this recommendation does not apply. No nursing home beds should be awarded to East Volusia County out of the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area. Refer to recommendation 2[b] above. The Meridian proposal seeks to add beds to its facility located in East Volusia County outside of the New Smyrna/Edgewater area. Meridian's proposal is, therefore, inconsistent with this recommendation. HBA's proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the updated 1986 district health plan. Meridian's and National's proposals are not consistent with these recommendations. The 1988 district health plan does not contain the specific recommendations concerning the allocation of nursing home beds within Subdistrict 4 of District 4, quoted above. The specific recommendations concerning where beds should be located within Subdistrict 4 of District 4 were eliminated in response to a suggestion by the Department that the recommendations were too specific and did not allow more flexibility. Need for Services. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. The evidence did not prove that any of the applicants are proposing services not being provided in Subdistrict 4 of District 4. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Subdistrict 4 (consisting of Flagler and Volusia Counties) of District 4 are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care, except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for additional nursing home beds in the subdistrict. The accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County has been restricted since September, 1987. Ocean View's occupancy during this period of time has been at or above 95 percent. Nursing home beds in eastern Volusia County have been at 75 percent occupancy. Meadowbrook Manor, located in Bunnell, Flagler County, has not achieved an occupancy rate of 75 percent since it opened in November, 1985. Meadowbrook Manor is a 100-bed nursing home. It has been experiencing one of the lowest, if not the lowest, occupancy rates of all nursing homes in Subdistrict 4. Although the evidence proved that Meadowbrook Manor has experienced difficulties in attracting residents, the evidence failed to prove that Meadowbrook Manor is not an appropriate, available and accessible nursing home or that the difficulties experienced by Meadowbrook Manor will continue in the future. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Meridian. Meridian's licensed nursing home facility in Plantation, Florida, is currently rated superior. Meridian has been informed by the Department that its nursing home facility in Ormond Beach will be rated superior. Meridian's facility in Lakeland has not been in operation long enough to be eligible for a superior rating. Therefore, the Lakeland nursing home has been rated standard. Meridian will provide extensive training for its staff at its Ormond Beach nursing home. Meridian will provide staff for the Ormond Beach facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. Meridian has an extensive quality assurance program, including its Quality of Life Program. Meridian's findings of fact numbers 5-12 and 14-22 are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Meridian proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Meridian should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its facility. National. Four of National's fourteen existing nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other ten facilities have be rated standard. National has a policy of seeking accreditation by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. National will provide staff for its proposed facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. National has an extensive quality assurance program. National's finding of fact number 24a-g and k is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. National proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. National should be able to provide adequate-quality of care in its proposed nursing home facility. HBA. Four of HBA's seven nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other three facilities have been rated standard. Ocean View has been rated a superior facility by the Department for the past five years. HBA will provide extensive training and development for its staff at Ocean View. HBA proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HBA should be able to provide adequate quality of care at Ocean View. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. All three of the applicants in these cases operate a number of nursing homes and other health care facilities in Florida and other areas. Each will enjoy the benefits, including joint purchasing power, which inure to multi- facility organizations. None of the applicants, however, proved that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources more effectively than the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all of the residents of Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian has proposed to provide 53% and 51% of its patient days during its first year and its second year of operation, respectively, to the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has proposed to provide 4% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has proposed to provide 57% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. National has proposed to provide 10% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has not determined, however, how many nursing home beds it will dedicate to the care of Medicare patients. National has indicated that it will dedicate fourteen to twenty-four beds as a Medicare certified distinct-part unit. Nationally, 8% of National's total patient days for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, were Medicare patient days. HBA has proposed to provide 60% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. HBA has proposed to provide 5% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. The parties have stipulated to the following with regard to immediate financial feasibility of the proposals in these cases: All applicants are ready, willing and capable of raising all the required capital and obtaining all financing at the rates, conditions and amortizations shown in the applicants' certificate of need applications submitted in this cause. Long-term Financial Feasibility. (1). Meridian. Meridian has projected a profit of $67,976.00 on revenue of $2,536,518.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond- Beach facility and a profit of $136,712.00 on revenue of $2,881,804.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond Beach facility. Meridian has also projected a profit from the operation of its proposed 60-bed addition for the first two years of operation. Meridian has projected a payor mix of 49% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 44% private pay and 3% other during the first year of operation and 46% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 46% private pay and 4% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. Meridian's Ormond Beach facility opened in November, 1987. Although it was projected to fill up in twelve months, it only took five months. The facility had a waiting list of twenty people when it opened. Meridian's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. Meridian's projected patient charges are reasonable. Meridian's proposed Medicare charges are the lowest of the three applicants. Meridian's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. Meridian's project is financially feasible in the long term. (2). National. National has projected a loss of $96,990.00 on revenue of $986,598.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed facility and a profit of $269,603.00 on revenue of $1,847,865.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed facility. National has projected a payor mix of 52% Medicaid, 12% Medicare, 31% private pay and 4% other during the first year of operation and 48% Medicaid, 13% Medicare, 33% private pay and 5% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. National's projected fill up rate is reasonable. National's projected patient charges are reasonable. National's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. National's project would be financially feasible in the long term if there was a need for 80 nursing home beds. (3). HBA. HBA has projected a profit of $127,542.00 on revenue of $5,658,984.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility and a profit of $188,614.00 on revenue of $6,213,164.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility. HBA has projected a payor mix of 53% Medicaid, 6% Medicare, 34% private pay and 7% other during the first two years of operation. These projections are reasonable. HBA's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. HBA's projected patient charges are reasonable. HBA's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HBA's project is financially feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes. Generally, all of the applicants will improve competition if their projects are approved. Based upon projected Medicaid and Medicare rates, Meridian will have the least adverse impact on patient charges. HBA will have the least adverse impact on private-pay patient charges. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The cost of constructing Meridian's proposed addition is $932,100.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $64.14. Meridian's existing Ormond Beach nursing home is located on a 5.5 acre wooded site. The existing building was constructed with sufficient ancillaries for a 120-bed nursing home. Site plans, road work, sewer, utility connections and zoning have been designed and approved for a 120-bed facility. The cost per bed for Meridian's proposed 60-bed addition is $20,797.00, based upon the total projected project cost. The cost per bed for the existing 60-bed facility was $51,242.00. The cost per bed for the proposed 120-bed facility will be $35,519.00. Meridian's projected costs of construction are reasonable. Meridian's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing National's proposed facility is $2,789,346.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.13. The cost per bed for National's proposed 80-bed nursing home is $47,355.00. National's projected costs of construction are reasonable. National's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing HBA's proposed addition is $1,145,000.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.61. The cost per bed for HBA's proposed facility is $25,000.00, based upon the total projected project cost. HBA's projected costs of construction are reasonable. HBA has proposed construction of its 60-bed addition as a second floor addition to an existing first floor 60-bed wing at Ocean View. The second floor will be constructed by a method of construction which uses twin T concrete planks. These planks support the second floor. When the planks are placed over the existing wing patients in the existing wing will have to be displaced for a portion of one day. The existing dining room will not be used for approximately 4 to 6 weeks. The construction of HBA's addition will not endanger patients at Ocean View. HBA has successfully constructed second floor additions over existing facilities in the past. Although there will be some inconvenience, quality of care should still be provided during construction. The other applicants have raised a number of questions concerning the appropriateness of HBA's proposed addition. Those questions do not, however, prove that HBA will not provide an adequately designed and constructed addition or cannot provide quality of care. HBA's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The evidence failed to prove that there are alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction to the construction methods proposed by Meridian, National or HBA available. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants presented evidence concerning past or proposed care of the medically indigent, other than their care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has committed to provide 55% of its patient days in its Ormond Beach nursing home for the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has not yet reached this level of care of Medicaid patients, however. At the time of the formal hearing Meridian was providing 46% Medicaid care. Meridian has not declined to serve Medicaid patients if a bed was available. During its fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, National provided 20.6% of its company-wide patient days to skilled Medicaid patients and 38.5% to intermediate Medicaid patients. HBA has been providing approximately 65% of its patient days at Ocean View to the care of Medicaid patients. All of the applicants propose to provide adequate care to Medicaid patients. The projected percentages of Medicaid patient days and revenue have been listed in previous findings of fact. Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes. To the extent applicable, all of the applicants comply with the requirements of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting HBA's application for a certificate of need authorizing the addition of 60 nursing home beds to Ocean View and denying Meridian's and National's applications for certificates of need. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 1st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NUMBERS 88-1836 88-1839 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. All of the parties have filed proposed findings of fact which pertain to HCR. HCR also filed a proposed recommended order. In light of the fact that HCR has voluntarily dismissed its case, those proposed findings of fact have not been considered in this Appendix. Meridian's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9, 11-12 and 46. 2 19-20. 3 90. The last two sentences are hereby accepted. 4 70. 5-12 See 49. 13 The parties stipulated that the criterion to which this proposed finding of fact relates has been met by all the parties. 14-22 See 49. 23 67-73. 24-27 These proposed findings of fact fail to take into account the fact that some of the costs attributable to the additional 60 nursing home beds sought by Meridian in this proceeding have been included in the cost of the existing facility. 28 107. 29 The proposed construction cost per square foot is $64.14. See finding of fact 89. 30-33 90. Hereby accepted. 34-41 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 42 16-17. 43 23-25. 44 101 and hereby accepted. 45-49 See 103. Although there was evidence that supported these proposed findings of fact generally, the proposed findings of fact overlook the fact that HBA's drawings are preliminary and will be revised as needed to comply with the Department's requirements. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that HBA's proposed methods of construction and costs are reasonable despite the necessary corrections in its preliminary plans. The proposed finding of fact concerning parking spaces is not relevant to this proceeding because the weight of the evidence failed to prove that any costs associated with additional parking spaces which may be needed have been left out of HBA's projected costs. The availability of parking spaces is not a consideration under the criteria of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, except to the extent that costs associated with parking spaces should be taken into account. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are not relevant to these proceedings. The rest of this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence did prove that, as of the date of the hearing of these cases, HBA should have filed a different pro forma which takes into account changes in its projected Medicaid revenue and its salary projections if this proceeding was a completely de novo proceeding. The Department has, however, taken the position that applicants cannot "amend" their applications between the date that an application is reviewed and a formal administrative hearing concerning the application. Therefore, HBA did not change its pro forma to reflect the most current information concerning Medicaid and salaries. HBA's financial expert was aware of the changes in Medicaid and salary expenses. Despite this knowledge, he testified that HBA's proposed facility is financial feasible. This testimony was accepted. 54 14-15. 55 21-22 and 95. Not relevant to this proceeding. 64. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 58 51. 59 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. National presented evidence that it would designate a portion of its proposed facility as a dedicated Medicare unit. 60 18, 21, 24 and 27. 61 26-29. 29. The last sentence is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 64-65 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties. 66 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties and not relevant. National's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2 and 21. 2 1 and 3. 3-4 Hereby accepted. 5 4-6. 6 13-14. 15 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 21 and 64 and hereby accepted. 10 21-22. 11 26. 12 27. See 28. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-32 and hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. See 34-35. 17 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. The first sentence is accepted in finding of fact 34. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence or is an erroneous conclusion of law. 20 28. See 37-38 and 45. National's proposal is not consistent with the 1987 district health plan. Subparagraph A. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Subparagraph B. is not relevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence of subparagraph C. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. The last sentence of subparagraph D. and subparagraphs e-h are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although subparagraph I. is generally correct, it is not sufficient to justify locating the nursing home beds to be awarded in this case in Flagler County. Subparagraph j. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are hereby accepted. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 49 and 51-55. Subparagraph h. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 59. Stipulated by the parties as true of all of the applicants. 27 60 and 63. 28 67 and see 75-79. 29 86. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, is to be applied to all of Subdistrict 4 of District 4 and not just Flagler County. 22, 94, 97 and hereby accepted. 32 64 and 108. 33 See 111. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. HBA's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 2 2-3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9-12. 9 14-15. National does not have a corporate headquarters since it is not a corporation. 10, 14, 21, 25, 32 and 35 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 11 16-17. The evidence proved that HBA owns 6, not 7, nursing homes in Florida. 12 18-20. 13 21-22. 15 23-24. 28, 30 and 34-35. Subparagraph b) is a statement of arguments advanced by Meridian and National. 27, 38 and hereby accepted. Subparagraph's c)1)-4) and 7) pertain to HCR. 18 See 42-45. 19 See 46-47 and 50. Subparagraph b) is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 20, 51 and 54. 22 56-58 and hereby accepted. 23 59. 24 60. 26 Stipulated. 27 67. 28 85. See, however, 79. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31 See 89. 33 18-20, 89 and 93. 34 22 and 96-97. 36 24-25, 101-104 and hereby accepted. 37 111. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 28. 3 30. 4 2-3 and 7. 4 and 6. Not relevant to this proceeding. 7 26 and 28. 8-15 Although there is evidence to support these proposed findings, they are not relevant to this proceeding. As a matter of law, the Department cannot through agency policy circumvent the requirements of the Need Methodology of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, by publishing a "fixed need pool" for which no point of entry to challenge has been provided. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Hereby accepted. Not relevant because the parties have stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, applies to these cases. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 32 and 36. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 32. 23 34. 24 33. 25 36. 26 29. 27 28. 28 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Charles D. Hood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Lee Elzie, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretarey Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. By application dated April 15, 1983, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., (hereinafter "Beverly" or "Petitioner") applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the issuance of a certificate of need for the construction of a new 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. The application was deemed by HRS to be complete effective September 15, 1983. (Pet. Ex. 1) By letter dated December 5, 1983, HRS advised Beverly that its application was denied. (Pet. Ex. 2) The letter included the following reasons for denial: The proposed project is not consistent with Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, nursing home bed need methodology. With a six month occupancy of 58.2 percent in the subdistrict of Collier County, the utilization threshold of 90 percent developed from the application of Chapter 10-5.11(e), (f), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, is not satisfied and no further bed need is demonstrated for this subdistrict. There are 97 approved but unlicensed beds in the subdistrict which, when added to the existing licensed bed supply, should effectively maintain the county-wide occupancy at a reasonable level through 1986. Further explication was contained in the State Agency Action Report which accompanied the HRS letter of December 5, 1983. Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with the applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (a), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. (Pet. Ex. 3) A step-by-step application of the methodology described in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) through (h) to the facts in this case is as follows. Under the formula, bed need is determined by first looking at the poverty level in District VIII and in Collier County (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.252). The poverty level is computed by comparing the number of elderly living in poverty in the district, which is 8.61, to the number of elderly living in poverty in the State, which is 12.70, resulting in a poverty ratio of .68 (Tr.252). The bed need ratio is computed by multiplying the poverty ratio of .68 times 27 beds per thousand population 65 or older, which results in a bed need ratio of 18.3 beds per thousand residents 65 years or older (Tr.252). When the bed need ratio is applied to the 65 and over population in District VIII, the total bed need is 3,858. The bed need for the subdistrict of Collier County is 514 beds (Tr.252). The number of licensed and approved beds in the district is 4,618 and the number of licensed and approved beds in the subdistrict is 429 (Tr.252). When the need for beds is subtracted from the total number of licensed and approved beds, there is a surplus of 760 beds in District VIII, but a need for 85 beds in the subdistrict of Collier County (Tr.253). When a need for beds exists in the subdistrict but not the district as a whole, subsection (g) of the rule allows new beds to be added only if existing beds are being utilized at a 90 percent or greater occupancy rate (Pet. Ex. 5, Tr.253-255). The current utilization rate for nursing home beds in Collier County is 61.1 percent (Pet. Ex. 7, Tr.255). Since the current utilization rate is less than 90 percent, no additional beds are needed in Collier County (Tr.256). Approval of the Beverly application to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Marco Island would, in the words of the applicable rule, "cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) . . . " of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (Pet. Ex. 2, 5, 6, and 7; testimony of expert witnesses Mr. Knight and Ms. Dudek.) HRS is presently considering the adoption of amendments to the nursing home need methodology provisions presently found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.11 (21)(b) through (h). If the present form of the tentative amendments to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) through (h) were to be adopted and become effective soon enough to be applicable to Beverly's application in this case the result would be the same as under the current rule. Approval of Beverly's application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in HRS District VIII to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology of both the existing rule and the tentative amendments to the rule. (Testimony of expert witness Knight.) Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), adopted by HRS, reads as follows: (2) Policies and Priorities. In addition to the statewide criteria against which applications are evaluated, applications from District 8 will be evaluated against the following local criteria: a. * * * b. Nursing home services should be available within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District 8. (Pet. Ex. 3) HRS District VIII consists of seven counties. The current population estimate of these seven counties is 679,019. According to the most recent census information, the permanent population of Marco Island is 8,605. Four community nursing homes are located in Naples, which is also in Collier County. Typical travel time by automobile from the center of Marco Island to the center of Naples is approximately 30 to 45 minutes, depending on the season of the year. (Tr.59-60, 83, 118, and 151) In arriving at the current utilization rates for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS relied on the latest available quarterly nursing home census reports. (Pet. Ex. 7; Tr.255-256) In compiling the Collier County average occupancy rate for purposes of applying the need determination methodology, HRS counted as existing beds all of the licensed beds of all of the community nursing homes in Collier County, which included 114 beds licensed for Gulf Drive Residence, Inc., and 120 beds for Americana Healthcare Center. (Pet. Fx. 2)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case DENYING the application of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a new community nursing home in Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On or before July 15, 1985 Petitioner timely filed an application for a certificate of need (CON No. 4179) to add 42 beds to an existing nursing home in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner's application was denied by Respondent, subject to the right to a hearing, by letter dated December 6, 1985 for the sole stated reason that: Application of Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to Lee County shows no need for additional beds in the County through 1988. The letter further states that the "basis of the above decision" is contained in the State Agency Action Report. Petitioner timely sought a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing concerning Respondent's notice of its intention to deny this application. The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation on December 3, 1986 which states that the only statutory criteria at issue in this proceeding are those contained in Sections 381.494(6)(c)1, 2 and 12, as well as the criterion at Section 381.494(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, insofar as it relates to the need for the proposed additional nursing home beds. Further, the parties stipulated that the only rule criteria at issue are found at Rules 10-5.11(1), (3) and (6), as well as the criterion at Rule 10-5.11(5), Florida Administrative Code, insofar as the long-term financial feasibility of the project is related to the need for the services being proposed. It is readily apparent that the parties have stipulated to issues in this proceeding which may be beyond the scope of the sole reason for denial of this CON application set forth in Respondent's letter of December 6, 1985. The parties' stipulation has been accepted, however, and will therefore define the issues to be determined in this case. Petitioner has an existing 78 bed nursing home in the vicinity of Ft. Myers, Florida. This is located in Respondent's District 8, Subdistrict Lee- County. Previously, Petitioner received approval to construct 120 beds at this facility but was only licensed to use 78 beds. In fact, Petitioner has already constructed, equipped and furnished the additional 42 beds, and now seeks approval to use these beds. No additional capital expenditures would be necessary to place these beds in service. The methodology for calculating need for community nursing home beds is set forth in Rule 10-5.l1(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code. As more particularly set forth in Findings of Fact 7 through 23, this methodology can be summarized as follows: Determine the planning horizon to which an application is directed. Determine the district's age adjusted number of beds in the horizon year by applying the current bed rates for population age groups 65-74 and 75 + to the district's horizon year population. Determine the gross allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by multiplying the district's age adjusted number of beds by the ratio of licensed beds in the subdistrict to licensed beds in the district, and also by the ratio of the average occupancy rate in the subdistrict to .90. For purposes of this calculation in this case, licensed beds are determined as of June 1, 1985 and occupancy rates are those that existed from October, 1984 to March, 1985. Determine the net allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by subtracting the total number of licensed beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing plus 90 percent of approved beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing from the subdistrict gross allocation. The first step in calculating need pursuant to Respondent's methodology set forth in Rule l0-5.11(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code, is to establish a planning horizon. Subparagraph (b) of the rule states: the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds three years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10. (Emphasis supplied.) The Respondent interprets this to mean that the planning horizon is established by counting three years into the future from the filing deadline, established by rule, for a particular application. This is a reasonable interpretation and is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule. Thus, in this case the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is addressed is July 15, 1988. The next step in applying the need methodology is to determine what is meant by "current population" as that term is used in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)2. The Respondent interprets this to mean the population current on the application filing deadline which in this case was July 15, 1985. This is also a reasonable construction of the rule, and is therefore accepted. However, the Respondent further contends that the "current population" estimates to be used in applying the rule methodology are those that were available from the Office of the Governor when this application was submitted, and that more recent updates of those estimates should not be considered. Since all population estimates and projections are only approximations, rather than actual counts, it is more reasonable to use updated revisions of "current population" which may be available at the time of hearing. These are still estimates of the population current as of the date an application is filed (in this case July, 1985), but they can reasonably be expected to be more accurate than the prior estimate. In the same manner, estimates of the planning horizon year population (July, 1988) available at the time of hearing should also be used rather than July, 1985 estimates of that population. Respondent's interpretation which is hereby rejected and which would require the use of population estimates available when the application was submitted, excluding all revisions and updates, is not set forth by rule. Additionally, Respondent offered only the testimony of its consultant, Joyce Farr, to explicate this "incipient policy" but she was neither involved in, nor part of, the decision making process which lead to this announced policy. Further, the position advocated by Farr is at variance with Respondent's prior application and interpretation of its rule, and is contrary to the interpretation used when Petitioner submitted this application. At the time of hearing, Farr did not know of any Final Order of Respondent, nor was any policy memoranda introduced, which set forth and adopted the interpretation she espoused as Respondent's policy. The only explanation offered for her interpretation was that she had been told by her supervisor that Respondent would take this position in all cases as a result of the Recommended Order in Case Number 86-0051, dated October 10, 1986, but not yet acted upon by Respondent at the time of hearing. No other evidence was presented by Respondent in support of Farr's interpretation, or to otherwise explicate this non-rule policy. Before applying the need methodology rule, a determination must also be made as to how "occupancy rates" will be measured, as used in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)4. As recently as May 8, 1986, Respondent's Administrator of Community Medical Facilities concurred in an interpretive memo prepared by Reid Jaffe, consultant supervisor, which indicated that at the time of hearing the latest available six months occupancy rates would be used. Yet, at hearing Joyce Farr again announced a change of policy to freeze everything, including occupancy rates, to the time of the original application. Under this interpretation, "occupancy rate" in this case would be based on the six months' data for October, 1984 through March, 1985. Petitioners urge the use of "occupancy rate" data from April, 1986 to September, 1986, the latest six months' occupancy data available at the time of hearing. The interpretation announced by Farr at hearing is reasonable, and although in apparent conflict with the interpretive memo dated May 8, 1986, it is consistent with the plain meaning of Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 which requires the review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle (in this case July, 1985) to "be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle" (October, 1984 through March, 1985). Petitioner's position regarding the data to be used in determining "occupancy rate" is therefore rejected as contrary to, and inconsistent with, the plain meaning of the applicable rule. Next, the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation must be determined. The district licensed bed figure is explained by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and- LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Petitioner urges that licensed beds be based on June, 1986 data and Respondent urges data from June 1, 1985. Petitioner's position is again contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, and is therefore rejected. For purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4, LB and LBD are determined as of June 1, 1985. Petitioner contends that its 78 community nursing home beds previously authorized by CON 1616 were licensed on May 31, 1985, and should therefore be counted as "licensed beds." Respondent's witness testified that these beds were actually licensed on June 3, 1985, and therefore should not be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of applying subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation in this case. Petitioner has the burden of proof, but has not offered competent substantial evidence to support its position. It has not established that these 78 beds should be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 since it has not been established that they were actually licensed on or before June 1, 1985. The provisions of Rule l0-5.1l(21)(b)1-4 and 7 can therefore be applied to calculate gross bed need for Lee County using July 15, 1988 as the applicable planning horizon, updated estimates of "current population" for July 15, 1985 and for the planning horizon which were introduced by Petitioner, the "occupancy rate" as determined by data from October, 1984 through March, 1985 which was introduced through exhibit by Respondent, and the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 and the Lee County subdistrict on June l, 1985, as also introduced through exhibit by Respondent. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive BA, the current bed rate for the age group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph (b)2 of Rule 10-5.11(21) as follows: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The district licensed bed figure (LB) is then defined by subparagraph (b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications - for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)2 to this case produces the following calculation: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + (6 x 79,661) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + 477,966) BA = 4,005 / 609,608 BA = .0065698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the current bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)3, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0065698 BB = .0394188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)1 as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future . . . Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)1 to this case produces the following calculation: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) A = (142,791 x .0065698 + (90,467 x .0394188) A = 938.10831 + 3,566.1006 A = 4504 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community home beds" (gross bed need in this case). This calculation is defined by subparagraph (b)4 as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle . . . . The subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is defined, consistently with LB, by subparagraph (b)7, supra. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)4 to this case produces a gross need in July 1988 of beds, as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA = 4504 x (808/4005) x (.9689/.90) SA = 4504 x .20174 x 1.0766 SA = 978. The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph (b)9, this need is derived as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant depart- mental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under sub- paragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8). . . (Emphasis added.) In order to apply subparagraph (b)9 and thereby determine "net" need, it is necessary to decide on what date the licensed bed inventory should be calculated. Respondent asserts that "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraph (b)9 is the same as LB and LBD used in subparagraph (b)2 and 4, as defined in (b)7. The rule, however, is silent as to how licensed bed inventory should be calculated for purposes of subparagraph (b)8. Respondent did not explicate the reasons for its interpretation. Respondent's position that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory for subparagraph (b)9 ignores not only the clear link between (b)7 and the gross need methodology, but also the plain language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9 which is to derive a realistic estimate of net (or actual) need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles will serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it is only reasonable to include these beds when calculating net need. It would be unreasonable not to count any beds licensed or approved after June 1, 1985 in the calculation of net need. In fact, subparagraph (b)9 itself addresses "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not just beds that existed on June 1 1985. Petitioner's 78 beds should therefore be counted as "licensed" for purposes of applying the net need methodology calculation in subparagraph (b)9 of Rule 10-5.11(21), and the 143 beds reserved pursuant to the decision in-Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) should be counted as "approved beds". Net need is then calculated under subparagraph (b)8 as follows: Subdistrict allocation for Lee County = 978 Less Licensed beds = 996 Less 90 percent of 143 approved beds = 129 Surplus in Lee County = 148 Therefore, according to Respondent's need methodology as established in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) there is a surplus of beds in Lee County for the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is directed. Petitioner has not established that there is a need for the beds sought in CON 4179 under review in this case. The source in the record of the data used in the above calculations is as follows: LB, LBD, OR - Respondent's Exhibits 1,2 POPC, POPD, POPA, POPS - Petitioner's Exhibit 4 It has not been established that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but are unable to access services currently available. The need for services which have been denied has not been documented by attending physicians' plans of care or orders, or assessments by either Respondent or attending physicians, as required by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10. Petitioner has not established that a geographic or economic accessibility problem exists in Lee County which would warrant approval of this application notwithstanding the lack of need under the methodology of Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4179. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1987 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 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0047 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate Finding of Fact. 4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 6-23. Rejected as simply a quote from an exhibit and not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-11 Rejected in Findings of Fact 6-23. 12-19 Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 20 Rejected in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 21-22 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate finding of fact. 25-32 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 33-36 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and statement of position rather than a finding of fact; otherwise cumulative and unnecessary. 37-38 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 39-44 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 45-47 Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, but rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Fl 32314-6507 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700
The Issue The issues under consideration are those associated with applications filed by the aforementioned private parties seeking certificates of need for skilled nursing home beds based on a fixed need pool of May, 1989, which identified 261 beds for the January, 1992 planning horizon. The beds are available in HRS District III. The applications are for: CON Action No. 5987 Inverness--20 beds; CON Action No. 5912 Suwannee--60 beds; CON Action No. 5913 McCoy-- 60 beds; CON Action No. 5962 Starke--120 or 60 beds; and CON Action N. 5905 Regency--120 beds.
Findings Of Fact Related to the May, 1989 batching cycle HRS has identified a need for 261 nursing home beds in District III. The applicants accept that determination of the pool of beds, that is to say no applicant has sought beds over and above the 261 beds identified by HRS. Further, the parties have expressed their agreement to allow Regency to be granted CON 5905 to construct a new nursing home facility in Lake County, Florida, which will have 120 beds. The written stipulation sets out the parties belief that all applicable criteria for obtaining a certificate of need as set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, have been met. That stipulation is accepted, provided the following conditions are met in issuing the certificate of need: The annual resident population of the facility shall include at least 62% of Medicaid patient days. Two beds shall be dedicated to the care of Alzheimer and respite care residents. The facility shall be a one story design consisting of 43,000 square feet in size. Likewise, the parties have agreed to allow the issuance of CON 5987 to Inverness to add 20 community nursing beds to its existing facility in Inverness, Florida. That written stipulation points out the agreement by the parties concerning the Inverness compliance with all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes as well as any implementing rules set forth in Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code. The arrangement is one by which existing ACLF beds are converted to nursing home beds. That stipulation is accepted, upon condition that Inverness commit to provide a minimum of 75.2% of total patient days for Medicaid patients. The Inverness stipulation which reiterates Inverness' lack of opposition to the grant of a certificate of need to Regency also withdraws its opposition to McCoy, Starke and Suwannee. By the terms of the stipulation's 140 of the 261 beds in the pool are spoken for. This leaves for consideration the applications of Suwannee, Starke and McCoy. In the absence of subdistricting, District III is divided into seven planning areas. The planning areas are as established by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. Planning Area l is constituted of Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Columbia, Union and Bradford counties. Suwannee intends to place its facility in Suwannee County. Starke intends to place its facility in Columbia County. The expansion of the McCoy facility would occur in Marion County which is the sole county in Planning Area 4. By resort to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council District III Health Plan preferences can be seen concerning the allocation of beds among the applicants within the various planning areas. A copy of that plan is HRS Exhibit No. 2. Under this scheme the McCoy application to add 60 additional nursing home beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, is considered a third priority. A third priority would allow the addition of at least 60 beds and no more than 120 beds. The Suwannee and Starke applications are a fourth priority under the local plan which allows for an addition of up to 60 beds. The McCoy application as presented at hearing responds adequately to all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, to include the State Health Plan and District III Health Plan. McCoy holds a superior license rating at present and has a proposed capital expenditure for this project of $1,568,000. Taking into consideration the proposed allocation of beds set forth in the local health plan, the distance between the McCoy facility and the proposed facilities in Suwannee and Columbia counties by the applicants Suwannee and Starke and absent proof which clearly identifies that Suwannee and Starke are meaningful competitors against McCoy and its attempt to gain a certificate of need calling for expansion of its facility, the McCoy application should be granted. That grant should be conditioned upon a willingness to serve Alzheimer patients in the proposed 14 bed unit and the commitment to provide Medicaid at a 60% level as a minimum commitment. This arrangement would bring the total number of nursing home beds at McCoy to 120, a desirable number when considering economies of scale. What must be resolved by comparative analysis of the applications of Suwannee and Starke, is which of those competitors for 60 beds out of the 61 beds remaining in the pool should be granted a certificate of need, if any. Starke had noticed its intention to apply for 120 beds and made application for 120 beds and in the alternative for 60 beds. The decision to notice its intent to apply for 120 beds was not misleading nor inconsistent with HRS policy in a circumstance where the application was stated in the alternative for 120 beds or 60 beds. The significant point is that Starke explained its alternatives of 120 beds or 60 beds in detail in the course of the application. HRS perceives that the 120 bed notice of intent took into account a lesser number of beds being applied for on the due date for applications and that perception is reasonable. Suwannee noticed the intent to apply for 60 beds and applied for that many. Both Suwannee and Starke met all procedural requirements for consideration of their applications for nursing home beds. In determining the disposition of the 60 nursing home beds needed for Planning Area l within District III, it is noted that Suwannee and Columbia counties are contiguous. Columbia is east of Suwannee. While the main emphasis by these applicants is to serve the needs of residents within the two counties where the facilities would be located, given their contiguity there is a potential for either applicant to serve needs within both counties. Columbia county is the more populous county. However, in the two counties the age cohorts in the 65 and over group and 75 and over group are similar, especially in the 75 and over group. Occupancy rates in the existing nursing homes within the two counties are also similar. The J. Ralph Smith Health Center in Suwannee County has 107 existing beds and 54 beds approved. Those additional 54 beds were designated for residents of the Advent Christian Village exclusively; however, the residents of that village constitute part of the population base in Suwannee county. Therefore this limited utilization of that resource still benefits citizens within Suwannee county. Surrey Place in Suwannee county has 60 beds and the Suwannee Health Care Center has 120 beds with 60 more approved. The 60 additional beds may not be constructed in that the applicant failed to proceed to construction in the time contemplated by CON 3746 and may lose the beds. Columbia County has Tanglewood Care Center with 95 beds. It has Lake City Medical Center with 5 beds associated with a hospital. Palm Garden of Columbia has approval for 60 beds. On balance there would not appear to be an advantage to placing the 60 beds at issue in either Suwannee or Columbia counties when considering the population to be served, present occupancy rates for existing nursing bomes and geographic accessibility to the proposed nursing homes. Suwannee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. The parent corporation filed the application with the permission of Suwannee. The 60 bed nursing home facility is part of an overall project which includes the replacement of an existing 60 bed acute care hospital with a 30 bed acute care hospital. If the proposals are accepted the hospital and 60 bed nursing home would be located on a common parcel. HRS has granted CON 6179 to decertify 30 beds. The approved cost of the delicensure and establishment of the new hospital is $6,752,824. The nursing home component of this project is stated to cost $3,408,100 in the way of capital expenditures with an operating equity in the amount of $300,000. The overall health care delivery system contemplated in the hospital and nursing home project includes the replacement hospital, the new nursing home, an out patient diagnostic center, home health care, hospice and adult day care services. Suwannee has the financial backing of its parent corporation which owns a number of health care facilities including six hospitals, two health maintenance organizations and six other health related corporations. Both Suwannee and the parent corporation Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. are not for profit. The Santa Fe operations are in Florida and its hospital holdings include other rural hospitals in addition to Suwannee which is a rural hospital. Before filing the application for the 60 bed nursing home neither Suwannee nor the Santa Fe parent corporation had any involvement in long term health care delivery. Suwannee intends to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and to provide services to persons needing subacute care. In its present hospital facility in Suwannee County it has 24 swing beds with which it serves patients needing subacute care and which beds are seen as an alternative to nursing home beds. That alternative has limited utility. Although swing beds may serve nursing home patients they are not an alternative for long term care in lieu of community nursing home beds. To the extent that Suwannee Hospital has tried to place patients in nursing homes needing a high level of skilled care, described as subacute care, it has experienced problems. Existing nursing homes in Suwannee County have not accepted the placement of those patients. It is unclear from the record what portion of subacute care needed in the service area will continue to be met in the hospital proper with the advent of delicensure of 30 beds. There was testimony to the affect that the hospital has the option to request swing beds in its remaining 30 bed hospital facility, but it has not been shown that the hospital will avail itself of that opportunity and through the use of the swing beds be able to render subacute care. The description by Suwannee of the subacute patients that it is contemplating serving through its nursing home are those who require a shorter stay in nursing facilities, who are said to have fragile medical condition and require intensive licensed nursing care. In the application, it states that the Medicare patients contemplated as being served by this prospective nursing home would be the principal users of the subacute care. There patients would have an average length of stay of 15 days with 12 patients per month being served. The Medicare per diem charge of $130 for the first year of operation is said to include the cost of care given to these patients who are said to be heavy users of subacute care. That per diem charge reflects ancillaries such as the various therapies as well. Having considered the explanation of this application, it is less than apparent what the difference would be between the subacute care services now being provided by the hospital in its swing beds and those contemplated by its nursing home application. In a similar vein, it is unclear what the distinction would be between the subacute care rendered in the proposed nursing home when contrasted with the subacute care being provided in swing beds that might be available in the 30 bed replacement hospital. If granted a certificate of need Suwannee is committed to serving AIDS patients. Suwannee intends to serve Medicaid patients and it projects a percentage of patient days attributable to Medicaid patients in the first two years of operation to approximate 73%. This is contrasted with experience statewide of 62%, within District III of 75% and within the planning area of 81%. Projected per diem rate for Medicaid reimbursement within the first year of operation is $68. The financial expert presented by Suwannee said that the applicant could charge as much as $10 to $12 more, making the Medicaid rate $78 to $80 per day. This increase contemplates raising the present caps on reimbursement. The record does not support increases in the caps of $10 to $12 in the relevant planning period. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay per diem rate at Suwannee reflects $97 as the charge and $80 as the charge for semiprivate room, private pay. This is as compared to $130 for Medicare per diem. Although it is unacceptable to charge more for Medicare than private pay, Schedule 12 within the application shows the inclusion of ancillaries for the Medicare patient and the exclusion of ancillaries for private pay. Under the circumstances it is difficult to tell whether the Medicare per diem charges exceed the private pay per diem charges as has been contended by Starke. The inclusion of the therapies as ancillary costs is shown on page 39 at Schedule 12 of the application of Suwannee. On Schedule 17 in the first operating year the therapies as ancillary costs are not broken out as individual items such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy separate and apart from routine services. Instead an aggregate figure is given. That precludes an understanding of what portion of the per diem charge for Medicare patients is attributable to those ancillary costs. The circumstance is made more bewildering in that the financial expert presented by Suwannee stated that the $130 per diem charge had application to residents who were receiving subacute care. What portion of the per diem charge for Medicare residents is attributable to the subacute care component is not revealed in the application. Neither, is it explained in the testimony. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Suwannee financial planner that the Medicare rate projected for the first year of operation is in keeping with the Hospital Cost Containment Board's data on the average rate structure, that comment and his other explanations failed to establish the reasonableness of that charge. This is especially true when considering the fact that the Medicaid charges, even accepting an adjusted rate of $80 per day, are also indicated at Schedule 12 as including therapies and are far less than the Medicare per diem. Schedule 17 shows the Medicaid without reference to the therapies as an aggregate item in the same fashion as described with the Medicare category of reimbursement. Further, evidence of the fact that private room, private pay, does not exceed the Medicare per diem charge is related at Schedule 12 where it describes the subacute private room, private pay patient as paying $150 and the semiprivate, room private pay as paying $130. Again, in the Suwannee application in the first year of operation for both Medicaid and Medicare therapies are said to be included in the basic charges of $68 and $130 respectively shown at Schedule 12 and carried forward in the aggregate on Schedule 17. From the explanations stated by the financial planner, the projected costs for therapies by those two categories of patients is not reflected in the ancillary cost centers for physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy found at lines 11-13 of Schedule 18. Instead, they are reflected at line 39 under other costs centers in the amount of $80,900. Moreover the $80,900 is said to include subacute services as well as the therapies. Having considered Schedules 12, 17 and 18 for the first operating year, together with the other evidence presented in the course of the hearing, the estimate at line 39 of Schedule 18 of $80,900 is unreliable. The Suwannee project contemplates a facility of approximately 24,370 square feet. The construction cost estimate is $62.44 per square foot. The total project cost per bed is $56,802. That far exceeds the caps for the property cost component related to Medicaid residents which is presently $30,350 per bed. Put another way, that translates to a differential of $11.64 per patient day above present reimbursement levels for Medicaid residents. That differential cannot be made up by resort to payments for ancillary services for that category of resident. The shortfall attributable to the costs per bed differential in the application of $56,802 compared to $30,350 per bed plus ancillaries is not expected to be made up by resort to other revenue sources within this proposal either, nor can it be properly be. This is particularly true when approximately 70% of the patient days are expected to be provided by Medicaid residents. Even if Suwannee were able to obtain reimbursement for the per bed cost of $56,802, this is much more than the Starke cost per bed which is approximately $30,000 as built. The cap that has been mentioned is the one effective July 1, 1990. Nothing in the testimony would suggest that the caps would approach $56,802 within the planning horizon for this review cycle. In summary, the financial feasibility of the Suwannee proposal has not been established. While the parent corporation, Santa Fe Health Care, Inc., is strong financially and able to sustain Suwannee in its nursing home operation in the short term, even with expected losses, the losses will be extraordinary and the long term feasibility has not been demonstrated either. Simply stated, too much money is being expended to establish this facility and it may not be recouped by resort to the reimbursement scheme identified in the application. Under the circumstances, the nursing home is not perceived as a means of promoting the financial well being of the overall project constituted of the nursing home, relocated hospital and associated services. It is not accepted that the manner and quality of care proposed to be delivered by Suwannee is so superior that it justifies the inordinate expense in delivering the care. In other particulars Suwannee has shown that it meets all applicable criteria for granting it a certificate of need, but the overall costs are so exorbitant that they preclude financial success in the project. In addition, even if the project met the criteria its costs compared to the Starke proposal are so much more that the Suwannee proposal should be rejected in favor of the Starke proposal. It is not accepted that a hospital based nursing home is superior to a freestanding nursing home as urged by the presentation made by Suwannee. Starke had applied for a 120 bed nursing home, with a separate request explaining its proposal to construct a 60 bed nursing home. It is that latter proposal that fits the need in Planning Area I of District III. The total capital expenditure for that alternative proposal is $1,882,713. The cost per square foot is approximately $60 in the 22,500 square foot facility. The per bed costs is in the neighborhood of $30,000. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay is $89; the semiprivate room, private pay rate is $79; the Medicaid rate is $69.50 and the Medicare rate is $69.50. These rates do not include ancillary charges for therapies. The Starke proposal will include a unit for Alzheimer, subacute care, adult day care and respite care. Starke will provide 80% of its patient days for Medicaid residents and 10% of its patient days for Medicare residents. The Medicaid performance exceeds that of Suwannee. That rate is consistent with the experience which Starke has in the operation of its Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida, a 120 bed nursing home facility which has held a superior license rating over the three years preceding the application. Starke as a corporation would own both the Starke, Florida facility and the proposed Lake City, Florida facility. The principals in that corporation with 50% ownership are J. D. Griffis and George R. Grosse, Jr. The subacute care that is to be provided is in patient rooms which are directly adjacent to the nursing station. It is the intention of the applicant to build these rooms to allow support for medical equipment needed in the treatment of those residents. Although some criticism has been directed to the architectural design of the proposed nursing home facility, Starke has committed itself to meet all applicable codes. Under the circumstances it does not appear that this application presents significant problems associated with resident safety or inordinate costs in making necessary adjustments to comply with applicable codes. The Starke application was prepared by Jerry L. Keach, the then administrator for University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, operated by Covenant Care Corporation. By the comments found in the application it was contemplated that the Covenant Care group would manage the Starke facility in Lake City, Florida, which would do business as Lake City Care Center. No contract has been executed between Starke and Covenant Care Corporation to allow the latter entity to manage the Lake City facility assuming the grant of the certificate of need to that applicant. At hearing the principals for Starke indicated that Covenant Care together with other unnamed organizations would be considered as management for the nursing home in Lake City. Although this issue of management is unresolved, reservations about the project are overcome in recognition of the success of the Starke corporation in the operation of the Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida. That suffices as an indication that Starke is capable of installing appropriate personnel to operate the Lake City facility, and provide quality care. The assumptions concerning the various aspects of the proposals set forth in the Starke application are sufficiently explained in the course of the final hearing and those explanations are accepted. It is reasonable to expect that the nursing home could be constructed, staffed and operated in a manner consistent with the explanations found in the application and through testimony at hearing. A successful outcome is anticipated whether the Covenant Care Corporation is employed to operate the facility or not. The favorable impression of the Starke proposal is held notwithstanding the criticism directed to the financial feasibility by remarks offered by Suwannee. In particular the Suwannee Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence questioning the assumptions of the Starke applicant concerning income projections for the first two years have been taken into account. Whispering Pines Care Center presently offers care for Alzheimer patients and subacute services. Therefore problems are not anticipated in the provision of those services in the proposed facility. With due regard for the criticisms that have been directed to the financial ability of Starke to maintain its Whispering Pines Nursing Center and the proposed project in Lake City, Florida, it is found that the applicant has the ability to conduct those businesses. As with the matter of financial feasibility, Starke has satisfied all other applicable criteria for the grant of a certificate of need to construct the 60 bed nursing home.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires all CONs granted to be consistent with the applications and in keeping with that intention: Grants CON 5987 to Inverness for the addition of 20 community nursing home beds to its existing facility upon condition that those beds be constituted of a minimum of 75.2% total patient days for Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5962 to Starke for construction of a nursing home in Columbia County, Florida, constituted of a minimum of 80% total patient days for Medicaid patients, that provides Alzheimer services, subacute care, day care and respite care; Grants CON 5910 to McCoy for the addition of 60 beds upon condition that 60% of the patient days be devoted to Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5905 to Regency for construction of a 120 nursing home facility with 62% of its patient dads being devoted to Medicaid patients, 2 beds dedicated to Alzheimer patients, provision of respite care and that the facility shall be a one-story design consisting of 43,000 gross square feet in size; and Denies the application for a 60 bed nursing home in Suwannee County made by Suwannee under CON Action No. 5912. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 19th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 90-0043 and 90-0045 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Inverness Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Suwannee Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the Starke application can be advanced without a resort to an affiliation with Covenant Care Corporation. Paragraph 9 is accepted; however, those facts do not cause the rejection of the Starke proposal. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is accepted as factually correct; however, this is not crucial in determining the outcome of this case. Concerning Paragraph 13, while the record reveals that Mr. Keach was responsible at a time moratorium had been placed on admissions into University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, the record was not detailed enough to ascertain what influence that might have on his ability to act as an administrator at the Starke facility proposed in this instance or his competence in preparing the application. The representations found in Paragraph 14 do not preclude the consideration of the Starke application. Concerning Paragraph 15, the first sentence is rejected as fact. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 16, those items which are mentioned did not cause the rejection of the Starke application in that Starke is committed to abide by all applicable codes to insure control over the patients. Paragraphs 17 through 21 are contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 22-24, the Starke proposal is found to be financially feasible. Paragraph 25-27 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 28, notwithstanding economies of scale they will not overcome the inherent extravagance in the costs associated with bringing the Suwannee project on line. Concerning Paragraph 29, while diversification for rural hospitals is desirable, the present attempt by Suwannee is unacceptable. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 31 see comment on Paragraph 29. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is accepted; however, the principal service area would appear to be Suwannee County. The existence of service over to Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette and Columbia Counties does not change the perception of this case. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 is contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 36 and 37. Concerning Paragraph 38, the affiliation of Suwannee with the Santa Fe Health Care system does not overcome the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 46 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 47-55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57-60 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 63 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 65, notwithstanding these observations they do not justify the rate structure or per diem charges set out in the Suwannee application. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found as are the first two sentences of Paragraph 67. The last sentence to Paragraph 67 is rejected. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are contrary to facts found. The first sentence of Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not relevant. Paragraphs 71 through the first sentence of Paragraph 73 is contrary to facts found. Concerning the last sentence of Paragraph 73, Starke is found to be financially feasible and Suwannee is not. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 and 76 have been taken into account in deciding that there are no particular advantages to placing the 60 beds in Columbia County as opposed to Suwannee County. Paragraph 77 in all sentences save the last is accepted. The last sentence is contrary to facts found in that subacute care will be rendered in the Starke facility. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is accepted in the premise, but use of Suwannee as the facility to serve this population is rejected based upon the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the subacute patients would not be best placed with Suwannee. Paragraph 84 and 85 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 1-5 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning that latter sentence it is clear that Suwannee would intend to build the nursing home facility together with the hospital or exclusive of the hospital project. Paragraphs 6-8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is accepted and it is acknowledged that the applicants can approximate that average. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13 Suwannee did establish its percentage of commitment to Medicaid through proof at hearing. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that Starke offers no greater enhancement than Suwannee in terms of geographic accessibility and is not really a competitor in this criterion with McCoy. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found in that Suwannee did identify the programs that it intends to offer. Paragraphs 29 through 36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 37 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 39 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 40 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion that there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 42 is rejected. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the reason that the Suwannee project is not found to be financially feasible does not include reference to a higher charge for Medicare patients than the charge to private pay patients. Paragraphs 55 through 60 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 60 are subordinate to facts found. The nursing home is intended to be built whether the replacement hospital is built or not. Paragraphs 61 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Starke Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the latter two sentences in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning the next to the last sentence, it was made clear that the intentions on the part of Suwannee were to build the nursing home. The last sentence to the extent that it is intended to suggest that this applicant is incapable of offering long term care services is rejected. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 12 to the extent that it suggests that Suwannee is not willing to provide services to Medicaid recipients, it is rejected. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found in that Starke is not seen as enhancing geographic accessibility to a greater extent than Suwannee its true competitor. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found ih that Suwannee has identified its special programs. Paragraphs 26 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 37 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion than there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 39 is rejected. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 42 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found except as it suggests that the difference in rate between Medicaid patients and private pay patients in the Suwannee proposal forms the basis for the criticism that the Suwannee project is not financially sound. Paragraphs 53 through the first two sentence of Paragraph 59 are subordinate to facts found. Related to the latter sentences in Paragraph 59 it is clear that the schematic pertains to the basic design of the Suwannee facility whether attached to a new hospital or free standing. Paragraphs 60 through 64 are subordinate to facts found. McCoy Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 83 are subordinate to facts found. Regency Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle and Thomas 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahasee, FL 32314-6507 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire F. Phillip Blank, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire F. Philip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire 711 North 23rd Avenue, Suite 4 Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, FL 32602 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Dempsey and Goldsmith, P.A. 307 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) used the correct nursing home bed capacity in calculating the Medicaid per diem rate for Apollo Health and Rehabilitation Center (Petitioner) for the rate period beginning July 1, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid (Medicaid) program. The Petitioner operates a Florida-licensed nursing home and participates as an institutional provider in the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program pays nursing home operators based on a prospective per diem rate which is calculated using cost reports submitted to the Respondent by the nursing home providers. The cost reports are filed pursuant to the "Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan" (the Plan), which the Respondent has adopted by rule. The Plan incorporates guidelines and policies regarding reimbursement and accounting principles set forth by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in "CMS Publication 15-1." The Plan establishes the manner in which cost reports are submitted to the Respondent, provides an explanation of allowable costs, and sets forth the methodology by which cost reports are used to establish nursing home per diem rates. The rates are effective for a period of time referred to as the "rate semester." The Respondent's Division of Health Quality Assurance (HQA) is responsible for Certificate of Need (CON) programs, related regulations and procedures, licensure determinations, and identification of licensed bed capacity. Bed capacity is one of the factors used to determine per diem rates. The calculation of the per diem rate is affected by various cost limitations, including a ceiling based, in part, on the classification of the facility by bed capacity. Neither the Plan nor the cost report instructions identify how to calculate the quantity of nursing home beds to be stated in a cost report. The Respondent has historically utilized the number of beds listed on a Medicaid provider's license at the start and the close of the cost reporting period to establish the bed count applicable to calculation of the per diem reimbursement rates. The cost reporting period relevant to this proceeding was calendar year 2008. At all times during calendar year 2008, the Petitioner's licensed bed capacity was 120 beds. In May 2008, Lexington Health and Rehabilitation Center (Lexington), an existing nursing home operator affiliated with the Petitioner, applied through the CON process to expand its facility by 21 beds, from 134 beds to 155 beds. Lexington is not a party to this proceeding. A statutorily-adopted moratorium in effect at all times material to this case prohibited the licensure of new nursing home beds. Because of the moratorium on new beds, Lexington was required to procure the transfer of 21 licensed beds from an existing nursing home operator in order to proceed with the proposed expansion. The Petitioner agreed to transfer 21 beds to Lexington. The Lexington CON application was approved on August 22, 2008. The approval was unchallenged and became final on September 26, 2008. On September 20, 2008, the Respondent issued a renewal license to the Petitioner for a 120-bed facility, valid through September 19, 2010. Based on the approval of the Lexington CON application, the Petitioner began to reduce capacity by removing beds from service. The beds that were removed from service were no longer ready for immediate occupancy and could not be made so within a 48-hour period. The Petitioner initiated alterations to the physical plant to reflect the reduced number of beds, and such alterations precluded meeting minimum space requirements for the 21 beds. The Petitioner's patient census began to decline as the beds were decommissioned to that which would be anticipated given the reduction in available beds. As included in the CON application, the Lexington plans were "approved for construction" by letter dated October 23, 2008, from the Respondent's Office of Plans and Construction (OPC). The OPC had the responsibility to review, and approve or deny, construction plans. The OPC also had final authority to determine, post-construction, whether the facility met applicable requirements and was ready for occupancy. The OPC's October 23, 2008, letter required that all local permits and approvals be obtained prior to commencement of construction and stated that the project would be considered abandoned and the approval terminated if construction had not commenced within one year. On October 27, 2008, both the Petitioner and Lexington applied to amend their respective licenses to the post-transfer bed capacities, 155 beds at Lexington and 99 beds at the Petitioner. Both applications identified the effective date of the amendments as "[u]pon final approval by Plans and Construction," referencing the Respondent's OPC. The Respondent's "approval for construction" on October 23, 2008, of the plans included in the Lexington CON was not sufficient to constitute the "final approval by Plans and Construction" referenced in the applications filed October 27, 2008. Through the removal of beds from service, the Petitioner's actual nursing home bed capacity on December 31, 2008, was 99 beds. According to a Licensed Bed Service Memorandum ("Bed Memo") dated January 22, 2009, the Lexington project was essentially complete and ready for occupancy on that date. On February 10, 2009, the Respondent issued an amended license to the Petitioner to decrease the bed capacity to 99 beds and an amended license to Lexington to increase the bed capacity to 155 beds. By letter dated February 24, 2009, the Respondent advised Lexington that based on the January 22, 2009, inspection, the Lexington project was "approved for its intended purpose." On August 17, 2009, the Petitioner filed an amended cost report for the year ending December 31, 2008, wherein the Petitioner stated a "Total Bed Capacity" of 120 beds at the beginning of the period and 99 beds at the end of the period. The Respondent initially calculated the per diem rate based on the Petitioner's representation of a 99-bed capacity; however, on August 19, 2009, the Respondent issued an amended notice of per diem rates, indicating that the Petitioner's reimbursement rate had been calculated to reflect a capacity of 120 licensed beds at the end of the 2008 calendar year. The impact of reducing the Petitioner's licensed bed capacity from 120 to 99 beds is to reduce the prospective per diem reimbursement rate by $4.34 due to the impact of a cost limitation based on capacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order identifying the Petitioner's nursing home bed capacity on December 31, 2008, as 99 beds and making the appropriate adjustment to the per diem rate calculations for the relevant rate semester. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly Ann Bennett, Esquire Sheryl Rosen, Legal Intern Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Peter A. Lewis, Esquire Law Offices of Peter A. Lewis, P.L. 3023 North Shannon Lakes Drive, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas W. Arnold, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Health Quest filed an application for a Certificate of Need (CON) to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, Florida. The application was dated June 24, 1983, was filed on June 27, 1983, and projected the project cost to be $5,557,000. The application was denied by DHRS by letter dated December 19, 1983. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the application met all of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, except for Rule 10-5.11(21), hereinafter referred to as "the bed need methodology." The relevant service area for determination of need is the Lee County subdistrict of DHRS District B. The district poverty ratio is .68; the bed need ratio is 18.3 beds per 1000 for District B. For District 8, the projected 1987 elderly population is 213,561, and for Lee County it is 69,649. By applying the bed need ratio to the projected elderly population, a raw numeric need is established of 3,910 beds for District 8 and 1,275 beds for Lee County. In District 8 there are 3,671 beds licensed and 1,053 beds approved, for a total bed inventory of 4,724 beds. This exceeds the numeric need of 3,910 and results in no need showing. In Lee County there are 808 beds licensed and 332 beds approved, for a total bed inventory of 1,140 beds. This is less than the numeric need of 1,275 and results in a need showing for Lee County. Where there is no need in the District and need in the subdistrict, subsection 10-5.11(21)(e)(1) becomes operative and the situation is denoted as "c2". For category c2, the current utilization threshold is 90 percent occupancy in the subdistrict. Lee County, with a current utilization of 95.5 percent meets this threshold. By applying the occupancy rate of 95.5 percent to the 808 licensed beds, it is determined that the patient census for Lee County is 772. For a c2 subdistrict the prospective base rate of utilization is 80 percent. The limit for projected need for the subdistrict is the maximum number of beds for which the census would produce an occupancy rate of 80 percent. Here, patient census of 772 divided by 80 percent produces a limit of 965. The inventory of 1,140 beds in the subdistrict is greater than the limit for projected need. Approval of additional beds would be inconsistent with these calculations of need under Rule 10-5.11(21). Lee County has a low supply of nursing home beds in comparison with the remainder of District 8. District 8 has a low supply of nursing home beds in comparison with the remainder of the State of Florida. The beds currently in operation in Lee County are being fully utilized. Nursing home facilities do not operate at 100 percent capacity. For all practical purposes, a 95.5 percent occupancy rate indicates full utilization. There are currently four approved nursing home facilities in Lee County. DHRS has received no correspondence from residents of Lee County or other interested persons indicating the presence of waiting lists at existing nursing home or claiming the unavailability of accessible nursing home facilities in the service area.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, DIANE K. KIESLING, held a formal hearing in this case on September 11, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
