The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, St. Jude Manor Nursing Home, is a skilled nursing facility within the meaning of Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In the past, and as recently as October 14, 1976, the Petitioner has received permission for a variance in its seven-bed ward which exceeds the number of beds per ward specified by Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The most recent permission for variance has been received from the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The terms and conditions of that variance may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. In particular, that variance was allowed with the proviso that as patients whose needs justified the type of occupancy in excess of the limit were discharged, the seven-bed ward would be reduced to four beds to achieve compliance with the terms of the Code of Federal Regulations. It was further indicated in the statement of permission that the Respondent expected the reduction to be completed by November 30, 1977. The variance of October 14, 1976, came about after an inspection had been performed by the Respondent at the Petitioner's facility. Following that inspection a statement of deficiencies and plan of correction was made and one of the items, which is the sole item in dispute at this time, dealt with the seven-bed-ward. Out of the August 16-18, 1977, inspection performed by the Respondent, a request for waiver was made by the Petitioner that led to the permission found in the October 14, 1976, letter by the Respondent. (The statement of deficiencies and plan of correction which indicates this request may be found as Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) One of the items in support of the request for variance was a letter from Richard J. Wilhelm, M.D., which spoke to the criteria found in Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and apparently this explanation and reason for requesting a variance was persuasive, due to the subsequent grant of the variance. (Dr. Wilhelm's letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence for limited purposes as set forth in the transcript of the hearing.) It is not abundantly clear what transpired beyond the suspension date of the variance; however, the action of the parties beyond that time has led to the current hearing. In essence what has occurred is the fact that the Respondent has taken the position that no further variance may be granted beyond the period of the normal attrition of the three extra patients in the seven-bed ward, which patients were in excess of the four patients allowed in any given room under the terms of the aforementioned Code of Federal Regulations. The Respondent has come the conclusion that no further variance may be granted, premised upon its understanding that it is required to operate within the dictates and requirements and interpretations of the Code of Federal Regulations which have been placed by employees within the United States, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Respondent has come to this conclusion after receiving a January 30, 1976 communication from John E. Pipes, Director of the Office of Long Term Care Standards Enforcement, Region IV, United States, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of this letter may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Within the body of that correspondence Mr. Pipes states that Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), will only allow a variance to last for as long as the needs of the affected patients justify. Subsequent to that correspondence, officials with the Respondent wrote to Mr. Pipes on March 4, 1976, to try to clarify the status of those nursing homes in the state of Florida which had wards with more than four beds per room, and to try to emphasize to Mr. Pipes the potential loss of beds if the opinion of Mr. Pipes was allowed to go forth on the question of not allowing variances after the first attrition of the patients who were housed in the excess beds. (The full details of the March 4, 1976 letter may be found in a copy of that letter which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. On April 1, 1976, Mr. Pipes responded to the March 4, 1976 letter and refused to change his position on the question of the variance letter. Henceforward, the Respondent has taken the position that Mr. Pipes' opinion of the meaning of Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is dispositive of that issue and the Respondent, as the agent for the State of Florida; in the Respondent's opinion, may not use its independent judgment in determining whether a variance may be granted to a facility with more than four beds in a ward. The position taken by the Respondent is contrary both to the language of Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the terms of the State Plan for Medical Assistance, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Revision MSA-PI-75-3 August 20, 1974. This conclusion is reached due to the unequivocal statement found within the referenced section of the Code and the written agreement by the State of Florida to take the responsibility for making determinations under the Code of Federal Regulations in matters pertaining to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, without the necessity of the permission of the United States, Department of Health, Education and Welfare or its officials. The efficacy of this conclusion may be seen by a reading of the portion of Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states: * * * "The Secretary (or in the case of a facility participating as a skilled nursing facility under Title XIX only, the survey agency - See Section 249.33(a)(1)(i) of this title) may permit variations in individual cases where the facility demonstrates in writing that such variations are in accordance with the particular needs of the patients and will not adversely affect their health and safety. Each room is equipped with or is conveniently located near, adequate toilet and bathing facilities. Each room has direct access to a corridor and outside exposure, with the floor at or above grade level. The Petitioner is a facility participating as a skilled nursing facility under Title XIX and the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, under the terms of its contract with the United States, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, is the surveying agency, within the meaning of the above referenced provision. Moreover, when this is considered in conjunction with the terms and conditions of that contract, the only reasonable interpretation to be given this matter is that the Respondent not only has the power but has the duty to make determinations on various requests make by those skilled nursing facilities operating under Title XIX only, which are found in the state of Florida. (The after-filed exhibit which is the State Plan for Medical Assistance, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Revision MSA-PI- 75-3 August 20, 1974, is hereby made Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.) Having resolved this issue in favor of the Petitioner, the question then becomes whether or not the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a right to a variance on the merits of his claim as tendered at the time of the hearing. The principle witness in behalf of the Petitioner who appeared at the hearing for purposes of speaking to the substance of the request was Richard Wilhelm, M.D. Dr. Wilhelm attends the patients in the seven-patient ward and feels that the care that those patients are receiving in the seven-patient ward is equal to the care received by others in the four-patient or less wards. He felt that psychologically the patients in the seven-patient ward are progressing as well as patients in the other rooms and some patients who have been in the seven- patient ward have progressed to the point of being sent to intermediate care or home care. Overall, he is extremely impressed with the care and to cutback the number of beds from seven to four would not help the quality of that care. At present, according to Dr. Wilhelm, none of the original patients who were in the seven-bed ward at the time of the variance being granted in October, 1976, are still in that ward. This is born out by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, which Is a list of admissions in the seven-patient ward, beginning in August, 1976. through January 11, 1978. C. M. Knight, the Petitioner's administrator, testified at the hearing to the effect that there is more staff participation in the seven-patient ward than in other patient rooms. He also indicated that the patients who were in semiprivate rooms and were subsequently moved to the seven-bed ward have improved. He further stated that patients who had been in the seven-bed ward and been moved to other wards had requested to return to the seven-bed ward. Mr. Knight also expressed some concern that removal of the three beds would hurt the ability of the city of Jacksonville, Florida to respond to the needs for skilled nursing care. He had no particular basis for this conclusion, but it does seem consistent with the fears expressed by Joseph C. Thompson, Acting Chief of the Bureau of Health Facilities, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in his March 4, 1976, correspondence to Mr. Pipes, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. As may be recalled, this letter indicated that at that time 144 beds were feared to be lost by a reduction of beds in the wards with more than four patients. After full consideration of the testimony offered by the Petitioner on the question of a variance, it must be concluded that the variance should be rejected at this time, due to the failure of the Petitioner to sufficiently address the issue of safety, adequate toilet and bathing facilities, and access to the corridor and outside exposure, with floors at or above grade level, as required by Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Should these areas of consideration be satisfactorily met, and should the excessive number of patients in the subject ward continue to be in accordance with the particular needs of the patients and not adversely affect their health; then the Respondent acting in its own discretion and not that of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, may grant a variance on the number of patients in the seven-patient ward. Notwithstanding any decision on the request for variance by the Petitioner that may be made in the future, the undersigned is absolutely convinced that the Respondent may not arbitrarily refuse to consider the merits of the variance request based upon its interpretation of the Pipes' correspondence which has been referred to in the course of this Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner's request for variance under Section 405.1134(e), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) be denied; however, future consideration of variance requests should be made when those requests are tendered and the request should be considered in keeping with the judgment of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1978, In Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: C. M. Knight, Administrator St. Jude Manor Nursing Home 2802 Parental Home Road Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Robert A. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS District IV Counsel Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Joseph Dowless, Jr., Director Leonard Schaeffer, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Suite 1300, 1845 Walnut Department of HRS Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
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 the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Humana of Florida, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc., is the owner of Women's Hospital in Tampa. Women's Hospital presently has 192 licensed beds, of which 96 are used for obstetrical patients and 96 are used for gynecological patients. It is dedicated to meeting the physical, psychological, educational, social and environmental needs of women and newborns and offers a total program of obstetrical, neonatal and gynecological care. Although not designated by the State as a Level III facility, Women's Hospital in Tampa has the personnel and equipment necessary to provide Level III care. It treats many high-risk obstetrical patients and their newborns, as well as premature infants. High-risk infants do not require transfer to another hospital with Level III capabilities. Every practicing obstetrical/gynecological physician in Tampa is on the staff of Women's Hospital. Petitioner submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add a fifth floor to its existing facility and to increase its licensed obstetrical bed complement from 96 beds to 130 beds. Of the 34 additional obstetrical beds requested, 12 are to be allocated to an antepartum unit. These 12 beds would be organized as a separate self-contained unit to care for obstetrical patients experiencing or likely to experience a complicated pregnancy and/or delivery. The types of obstetrical patients who would utilize a separate antepartum unit would include diabetics, patients who experience difficulties with blood pressure, kidney disorders and conditions associated with the heart and thyroid. In many instances, the antepartum patient is ambulatory or quasi-ambulatory and is thus able to meet many of her own needs. As a result, the intensity of nursing care in an antepartum unit is lower than that which would be expected in a postpartum obstetrical unit, resulting in a cost-savings to the antepartum patient. The total proposed capital expenditure for the addition of a fifth floor and 34 obstetrical beds is approximately $2.8 million. While petitioner is licensed for 96 obstetrical beds, only 62 of those beds were in operation at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. Based on the 62 beds in operation, the average obstetrical bed occupancy rate was 112 percent from September, 1982 through August, 1983. Due primarily to the temporary discontinuance of obstetrical services at St. Joseph's Hospital located across the street from petitioner, occupancy levels have reached 130 percent since January of 1983. Such occupancy levels create significant problems in terms of patient care and facility, physician and nursing efficiency. The difficulties associated with scheduling surgery and infection control are exacerbated with overcrowded conditions. Because newborns and postpartum mothers are more susceptible to infection, it is medically necessary to separate and segregate postpartum and gynecological patients. Petitioner had 4,600 deliveries last year and projects it will have 5,800 deliveries this year. If all 96 obstetrical beds were currently in operation, petitioner's occupancy levels would be approximately 70 percent. An indication of adequate utilization of obstetrical beds is an average annual occupancy level of 75 percent. Petitioner expects to reach the 75 percent occupancy level of its existing licensed 96 beds within the next year and a half to two years. Petitioner presently has no private obstetrical rooms at its facility. When a patient requires isolation from other patients, one of the beds in the semiprivate room is not available for use. Due to high occupancy levels, petitioner is unable to offer a private room to any of its obstetrical patients when it is not medically necessary to do so. Thus, even without the addition of 34 beds, petitioner desires to construct a fifth floor to allow it to reconfigure its units and convert a number of semiprivate rooms into private rooms by transferring existing licensed beds to the fifth floor. This would enhance the hospital's ability to utilize its bed complement in a more efficient manner. Even without additional beds, petitioner's Executive Director believes that by amortizing construction costs over a period of 20 to 25 years and reducing its operating margin, there would not be a significant impact upon patient charges as a result of the fifth floor addition. Should petitioner be granted a Certificate of Need allowing it to construct a fifth floor with no new beds, petitioner would be willing to accept conditions concerning the conversion of existing semiprivate rooms to private, such as capping over medical gas outlets, deactivating wall outlets and light fixtures for a second bed and furnishing the new rooms on the exclusive basis of a private room. The conversion of semiprivate rooms to private rooms could be a less costly alternative to the addition of new beds in some instances. To the extent that the addition of private beds provides a potentiality for greater utilization of existing services, additional patient revenues can be generated. It is not the policy if the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to grant approval for "shelled in" or "banking" space due to the potential competitive advantage it affords by allowing a future increase of beds without significant cost. Petitioner has the ability to adequately staff its proposed project with all necessary technical, nursing, and medical personnel, and will provide an acceptable level of patient care. Sufficient funds are available to construct and operate the project and the project has immediate and long-term financial feasibility. Its costs and methods for the proposed construction are reasonable, appropriate, and cost-efficient. The respondent HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code which establishes a uniform methodology for determining the number of acute care hospital beds needed five years into the future within the eleven HRS service districts throughout the State. The Rule addresses the need for general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical acute care services in hospitals and the Department will not normally approve applications for additional beds if the new beds would cause the number of beds in a particular district to exceed the number calculated to be needed under the Rule's methodology. Rule 10-5.11(23) calculates need through a series of formulas by considering the need for the various types of individual services and then adding these figures together to produce a figure indicating the total number of acute care beds which would be needed in a particular District within a five-year time frame. Then, after certain adjustments, all existing licensed and approved acute care beds are subtracted from the total bed need to determine the net bed need within the District. Subdistrict allocations by type of service are to be made by the individual Local Health Councils consistent with the District total acute care bed allocations, with certain adjustments permitted. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, the Sixth District's Local Health Council's plan for the allocation of beds on a service specific or subdistrict basis had not been adopted. The acute care bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(23) takes into account the population for the service area projected five years into the future, the historic utilization rate for particular types of service, average lengths of stay, optimal occupancy rates for the various types of services, and, with regard to obstetrical bed projections, the fertility rate of women between the ages of 15 and 44. The Rule sets forth the manner in which the figures for these various components are to be derived. Utilizing the methodology for determining acute care bed need as set forth in the Rule, District VI presently has 950 acute care beds in excess of the beds projected to be needed in the year 1988. By applying the subportion of the Rule relating to obstetrical beds to Hillsborough County, there are presently 47 obstetrical beds in excess of the number needed for 1988. While the petitioner agrees with the basic generic form of the methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), petitioner would substitute different data than that mandated under the Rule and perform certain adjustments. For example, petitioner would adjust the numbers used in the formula by increasing the statewide fertility rate for the years 1979-81 by 5 percent, by factoring in a number of 2 percent to 3 percent to represent the in-migration of obstetrical patients, by increasing the statewide average length of stay from 3.5 to 3.8 days so as to reflect the actual experience at petitioner's facility, by making an adjustment for hospital stays by an obstetrical patient which do not result in a delivery and by making a downward adjustment for those births which do not occur in a hospital setting. Petitioner would also subtract from the number of existing and/or approved beds the 15 obstetrical beds at St. Joseph's Hospital which were taken out of service on an interim basis as of December 31, 1982, pending the development of a comprehensive plan for the delivery of obstetrical services on a decentralized basis. The parties to this proceeding have stipulated that St. Joseph's Hospital contemplates that its future obstetrical service will be centered around birthing rooms, rather than actual labor, delivery and recovery rooms, and that it is reasonable to expect that, once the service is resumed, approximately 360 deliveries will occur with this number increasing over time. After making all these adjustments and utilizing different data in the formula for determining need, petitioner concludes there is a 1988 need in District VI for 26 or 27 additional obstetrical beds. Petitioner's analysis of bed need based both on an institution-specific analysis and a trend analysis resulted in a finding of from 32 to 36 additional beds needed at petitioner's facility by the year 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need in its entirety be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd of December, 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 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr., Esquire & James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Claire D. Dryfuss Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Bldg. 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue This case arises out of a petition filed by Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., challenging the validity of Respondent's Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule was promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to provide a uniform methodology for determining the need for acute care beds in the various IRS districts in Florida. Subsequent to the filing of the petition and the scheduling of this matter for hearing, the Intervenor, University Community Hospital, filed a petition to Intervene and was permitted to intervene upon the same issues raised by the original petition. At the formal hearing, the Petitioners Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., called as witnesses Brad Sexauer, David Petersen, Ira Korman, Richard Alan Baehr, Frank Sloan and James Bruce Ryan. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence nine exhibits. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, called as witnesses Warren Dacus and George Britton. The Intervenor offered and had admitted into evidence three exhibits. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, called as witnesses Stanley K. Smith, Stephen Williams and Phillip C. Rond. The Department offered and had admitted into evidence 36 exhibits. Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were not admitted for all purposes but were admitted as hearsay for the purpose of corroborating or explaining other admissible evidence in the record. Counsel for each of the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact STANDING The Petitioners and Intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating hospitals in the State of Florida. Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Humana, Inc. Humana, Inc., and its corporate subsidiaries presently have seven (7) pending applications for Certificates of Need for acute care hospital facilities. At least one of those applications for a facility in Jacksonville, Florida, was denied by HRS on the basis that no need existed under the challenged rule methodology. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, is located in HRS Service District 6A in northern Hillsborough County. On June 29, 1982, University Community Hospital applied for a Certificate of Need for additional medical surgical beds and on December 1, 1982, HRS denied that application. HRS has taken the position that the challenged rule is applicable to that application and under the rule, there is no need for additional medical-surgical beds in District 6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE As early as 1976, the Department began its effort to identify alternative approaches to acute care bed need determinations and at that time, the Department contracted with a consultant to review and assess various bed need approaches. An analysis was made of the then current methods or models used for projecting short-term bed requirements. This analysis was provided to a Bed Need Task Force which had been formed to consider appropriate bed-need methodologies. In early 1977, the Bed Need Task Force was appointed to review current bed-need methodologies and to recommend necessary changes to the methodologies in use. The Bed Need Task Force was formed for the primary purpose of recommending a general approach to be used in bed need determinations and to identify key policies to be followed in development of an acute care methodology for the State of Florida. This task force was composed of a variety of representatives from various groups including local planning agencies, hospital associations, the statewide health council, and the health industry itself. An outside consultant was used by the Task Force to aid them in their review. In February 1978, the Final Report of the Bed Need Task Force was issued. Subsequent to the Bed Need Task Force, the Task Force on Institutional Needs, (hereafter TFIN) was established. The purpose of the TFIN was to present a recommended methodology and policies related to that methodology for purposes of the initiation of implementation activities. The TFIN issued its final report in December 1978. This report contained a number of policies to be used in conjunction with the methodology. These policies stated that: The population composition should not include tourists but should include seasonal residents who reside in Florida greater than six months and these migrants who were in Florida on April 1, the date of each census. The methodology should deal with the differences in need for acute care services by age and sex. The use rates utilized should be based on a statewide normative standard. These standards should be based on statewide use rates for which data can be obtained and should be subject to periodic review. Methodology should eventually address need for various levels of care. Need determinations should be for specific geographical areas, the area of the Health Systems Agency (hereafter HSA). These areas are new the HRS districts. Patient flows should be taken into account but should not be binding on future determination in terms of expansion or addition of new facilities. The hospital service area concept should be rejected and a temporal accessibility criterion utilized. At the HSA level, a minimum volume standard should be developed for each service. The standards within the methodology should be applied uniformly all over the state in all HRS districts or service areas. The standards should not be applied to individual facilities. In terms of role and responsibility, the Department of HRS should be responsible for the need methodology with the local health agencies having responsibility for the facilities configuration model for its district. Having developed a recommended methodology and a set of policies to be used in conjunction with that methodology, the Department contracted with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to develop a sampling design to be used in the data collection activity so that the methodology could be operationalized. A second contract was let to implement the data collection necessary to the methodology and to develop statewide estimates based on the data collected. The 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 State Health Plans each discussed the objective of achieving a certain ratio of nonfederal licensed acute care beds per 1,000 population in Florida. The 1981 State Health Plan adopted a goal to ensure a supply of licensed nonfederal, short-stay beds (including psychiatric beds) in Florida equivalent to 4.24 beds per 1,000 residents. Also, in 1981, the State Health Council adopted a "normative" bed-to-population ratio of 4.24 beds per 1,000 population. "Normative" means a statement of what "ought to be" as opposed to some historical standard. In the Spring of 1982, HRS actually began drafting the rule and in the September 3, 1982, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(23) relating to acute care hospital beds. That notice also set a time, date and place for a public hearing on that proposed rule. Before a public hearing on that proposed rule was held, however, Petitioners Humana of Florida, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., and others, challenged it in D.O.A.H. Case 82-2561R. The intervenor in this proceeding was also an intervenor in that challenge. A public hearing on that initial rule was held September 20, 1982. Neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor made any statement at the public hearing in opposition to the rule or in opposition to the expected economic impact. No written comment was submitted by these two parties following the public hearing. At the public hearing, there were eight oral presentations made by interested parties and 14 written comments were received. From the time the initial rule was promulgated until the time it was finally adopted, there were numerous other comments that were received. Two sets of changes were subsequently made to the proposed rule which reflected discussion and input the Department received both from the public hearing process and from challenges to the rule. The first set of changes was published April 1, 1983 in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Several issues were raised which were dealt with by the Department. Psychiatric bed need was removed and placed in a separate rule, the methodology was incorporated into the rule, language regarding the use of the formula was clarified, data updating provisions were added, a provision was made to consider peak demand, the district utilization adjustment procedure was changed and subdistrict bed allocation procedures were changed. Although there was also objection to the use of statewide use rates, the Department because of strong policy considerations, made no change in the statewide use rates. These changes were made in response to the comments at the public hearing, written comments submitted, and other input from the health industry. After the Department published its first set of changes to the initial rule, but before the publication of the second set of changes, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed their rule challenge in D.O.A.H. Case No. 82-2561R. The second set of changes was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 13, 1983. At the time of their voluntary dismissal of their rule challenge and prior to the adoption of the challenged rule, Humana, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc. were aware of the economic impact the proposed rule would have on their operations in Florida. THE RULE Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, is founded on a basic methodological approach to projecting the need for health care services which is commonly accepted and utilized among health planners. In its most generic form, this methodological approach may be expressed as follows: The population of the geographic planning unit is projected for some point in the future (usually five years); i.e., how many people will live in the planning area at the end of five years. The projected population is multiplied by a utilization rate in order to project how many days of hospital care the projected population is likely to need during the target year. A utilization rate is the measure by which hospital services are consumed within a given geographic entity and is determined by dividing the total number of hospital patient days in a year in a given area by the total population of that area for that year. Restated, a utilization rate is equivalent to the ratio of the number of days of care received by the population to the population as a whole. As noted above, multiplying a projected population by a utilization rate produces the projected number of-patient days during the target year. This number is then divided by 365 to derive an average daily census i.e., the average number of patients which one would expect to be in area hospitals on any given day of the year. The average daily census is then converted into beds by dividing the average daily census by an optimal occupancy standard for a given service. The optimal occupancy standard contemplates that hospitals cannot and should not operate at 100 percent occupancy in that some reserve capacity is necessary to meet seasonal or even weekly fluctuations and variations in patient characteristics and mix. The product of this generic methodology is the total number of beds needed in the planning area at the end of the planning horizon. Application of the methodology set forth in the rule is basically a three-step process. The initial step is the forecast of the District Bed Allocation (DBA), which is accomplished as follows: The population of each Department service district is forecast by age cohort (a cohort is a given subgroup of the total population) five years into the future. The age cohorts utilized in the rule are: (1) under 65; (2) 65 and older; (3) under 15; and (4) females 15-44. Total patient days are then forecast for each age cohort. Patient days are forecast by applying statewide, service-specific discharge rates and average lengths of stay to the age cohort projections. The specific hospital services included in the Rule are medical/surgical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetrical and pediatric. Projected patient days for persons age 65 and older are adjusted to account for the migration flew of elderly patients both to and from Florida and to and from Department districts within Florida. This flew adjustment is based upon historical migration patterns derived from 1977 Medicare data. The service-specific patient days by age cohort is then converted to projected bed need by dividing each component by 365 to arrive at an average daily census and then by applying a service-specific occupancy standard to derive the total bed need for each given service and age cohort. The sum of the bed need forecasts for each service/cohort is the DBA. The second step is an adjustment to the DBA under certain circumstances based on the projected occupancy of the beds allocated to a given district. This is known as the Adjusted District Bed Allocation (ADBA), and it is composed of the following steps: A Projected Occupancy Rate (FOR) for each district is calculated by multiplying the entire forecast population of the district by a Historic Utilization Rate (HUR), which is derived over the most recent three year period. The product is then divided by 365 times the DBA. The product of this computation is the POR which would result if the district contained the number of beds projected by the DBA and the population continued to utilize hospital services in accordance with the HUR. If the POR is less than 75 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 90 percent occupancy standard in the formulation of DBA instead of the service-specific occupancy standards which would otherwise be applied (ranging from 65 percent for obstetrics to 80 percent for medical/surgical). If the POR is greater than 90 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 75 percent occupancy standard in the calculation of DBA instead of such service- specific standards. In other words, when the POR is less than 75 percent, a a downward bed need adjustment results. When POR is greater than 90 percent, an upward need adjustment results. This part of the methodology is used to make an adjustment for those districts which for whatever reason lie outside the range of-expected utilization. The 75 percent and 90 percent thresholds are based upon an ideal operating range of 80 to 85 percent. The actual standard utilized by HRS is 80 percent, at the low or conservative end of that range. The third step involves the calculation of a Peak Demand Adjustment (PDA) which is accomplished as fellows: The average daily census for a given district is calculated by dividing the total number of projected days by 365. Peak demand is calculated by adding the average daily census to the square root of tic average daily census multiplied by a given standard deviation (1.65 for low peak demand districts or 2.33 for high peak demand districts) referred to as a "Z" value in the methodology: Peak demands utilized as the projected district acute care bed need if it is greater than the bed need for the district reflected by DBA or ADBA as calculated in steps one and two above. The purpose of this peak demand adjustment is to ensure that each district will have sufficient bed capacity to meet service-specific peak demands. Each subdistrict is to be identified by the Local Health Council as having high or low peak demand. These designated as high peak demand utilize a "Z" value; of 2.33 in the methodology in order to assure sufficient capacity to meet 99 percent of their peak capacity. These subdistricts designated as low peak demand areas utilize a "Z" value in the methodology of 1.65 and this assures sufficient total bed capacity to meet 95 percent of the peak demand. The rule also includes an accessibility standard which provides that in each district acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible to 90 percent of the residents within 30 minutes driving time and 45 minutes driving time in urban and rural areas respectively. The rule provides for periodic updating of the statewide discharge rates, average lengths of stay and patient flow factors as data becomes available. The historical use rate used in arriving at the adjusted district bed allocation is updated annually through the use of the most recent three years. Although the rule provides that a Certificate of Need will not "normally" be granted unless need is shown to exist under the methodology in the rule, this need calculation is not determinative of the issue of whether a Certificate of Need should be granted. The rule also provides that even if no bed need is shown to exist under the methodology a Certificate of Need may still be granted if the criteria, other than bed need, under Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. Likewise, the rule states that a Certificate of Need may be denied, where bed need is shown to exist under the rule, but other criteria in Section 381.494(6) are not met. The rule also specifically permits the approval of additional beds in a subdistrict where the accessibility requirements of the rule are not being met. Additional beds may also be approved where there is a need in a subdistrict but a surplus in the district as a whole. The rule utilizes population projections by age cohort in determining the number of hospital patient days by service which will be needed five years in the future. These population projections are based upon the projections made by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (hereafter BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR makes three projections--low, midrange, and high-- for each year. The rule utilizes the midrange projection and the inherent margin of error in these projections is typically plus or minus 5 percent. Although these projections have systematically been low in the past, BEBR now uses a different method which utilizes six different techniques in arriving at ten projections which are then averaged. The flow adjustment used in arriving at the DBA is based upon 1977 MEDPAR data. This data was for Medicare recipients 65 years of age and elder and therefore the flow adjustment is only for that portion of the population over 65 years of age. No data was available from which flow factors could be determined for age cohorts or groups from o to 64 years of age. No data for either age group was available after 1977. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The EIS contains an estimate of the Department's printing and distribution cost. The EIS was-- prepared by Phillip Rond, an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the EIS, Mr. Rond did a comparison of the health system plans (HSP) with the results under the rule. This comparison was for projected need for the year 1987 and was done for each HRS District. The comparison generated the following results: HRS DISTRICT HSP RULE 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 87 9 0 137 10 0 0 11 0 0 3 224 The need calculations under the rule do not change substantially the short term projections under prior methodologies. The rule calculations for 1987 showed need for 221 more beds than was shown to exist under the methodologies used in the health systems plans. Mr. Rond also reviewed the background literature that led to the analysis contained in the state health plan as well as the reports from the Hospital Cost Containment Board. With regard to the rule's affect on competition and the open market the EIS notes that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess acute care bed capacity and in doing so will foster cost containment. Where need is indicated by the methodology or other criteria within the rule then competitive new beds will be allowed. In terms of economic benefit to persons directly affected the EIS points out that there will be a positive impact for some facilities and a negative impact for others. The rule will negatively impact facilities which wish to expand or add new beds if no need for those beds exists under the methodology of the rule. Existing facilities, however, will not be exposed to expansion of the bed supply in those districts where no need for additional beds exist. This benefit will be particularly positive for those facilities providing indigent care. It is a general estimate that operating costs for a health facility will be approximately 22 cents for each dollar of capital expenditure. The rule is intended to support a supply of beds to meet need while preventing excess or unused beds, thus reducing annual operating costs. The EIS notes that by reducing operating costs, the operating cost per bed will be lower and should result in a slower escalation of costs to consumers as well as third party payers such as insurers, taxpayers, and employers. Prior to adoption of the challenged rule, the Department considered and evaluated each of the factors listed in Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. There has been traditionally in Florida a surplus of acute care beds. The 1977 medical facilities plan indicated a surplus of beds ever need of 7,253 beds. Using the rule methodology and projecting to 1987, there is a surplus ? 5,562 beds and for 1988, a surplus of 4,044 beds. In both 1980 and 1982, there were significant numbers of licensed beds in the state which were not in use. In 1980, there were 4,923 beds out of the total bed stock in acute care hospitals not in use. This was about 10.7 percent of the total licensed in bed stock. In 1982, there were 5,093 or about 10.6 percent of such beds licensed and not in use. In 1976, the occupancy rate for acute care hospitals in Florida was 60.3 percent. In 1982, the occupancy rate in such facilities was 67 percent. The target occupancy rate under the challenged rule and its methodology is 80 percent.
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 9481 by St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc. ("St. Vincent's"), for a 10- bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") at the hospital proposed in CON Application No. 9484P should be approved?
Findings Of Fact The Acute Care Cases Pursuant to order rendered March 14, 2002, this case (the "NICU Case") was heard in the same final hearing with DOAH Case Nos. 02-0447CON, 02-0882CON, 02-0943CON, and 02-0971CON, (the "Acute Care Cases"). The Order acknowledged overlap between the Acute Care Cases and this case but did not consolidate the cases so that separate recommended orders are required for the Acute Care Case and for this case. The final hearing in the Acute Care Cases and the NICU Case commenced on May 13, 2002, and concluded on June 20, 2002. (The record was reopened in the Acute Care Cases and the hearing on reopening ended October 9, 2002. The proceeding on reopening did not concern the NICU Case.) A Recommended Order was rendered in the Acute Care Cases on February 5, 2003. To the extent relevant, its findings of fact are incorporated into this order. Obstetrics at St. Vincent's St. Vincent's has a significant obstetrical practice that includes neonatal intensive care services. It operates a 17-bed Labor-Delivery-Recovery-Postpartum ("LDRP") Unit that has an adjacent 23-bed unit for overflow postpartum and gynecology patients. In the same area of the hospital is its 10-bed Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ("NICU"). There are 2,300 to 2,400 births annually at St. Vincent's. The NICU has an average daily census of six. St. Vincent's participates in a family practice residency program in which residents rotate through the obstetrical department and "as far as the nurseries go" (tr. 912) the pediatric program. St. Vincent's operates a program unique to Jacksonville in which postpartum services are provided at no cost: the Seton Center. The center's services can be expanded to St. Luke's if acquired by St. Vincent's. St. Vincent's Level II NICU is staffed by the same neonatologists that staff the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. Obstetrics at St. Luke's St. Luke's has an existing 17-bed LDRP unit with 10 antipartum beds. The Obstetrics ("OB") Program is known as the Family Birth Place. Opened in March of 1998, it had approximately 500 deliveries that year. The number of births increased to 1,600 in 2000 and has remained in the range of 1,500 to 1,800. Not part of the original hospital construction but added later to accommodate the new obstetrical service, the Family Birth Place for security has a separate entrance at the hospital. It uses a strong LDRP concept, "meaning that the mothers are admitted to a room where they labor, they deliver and they usually stay there." (Tr. 971) There are two C-section rooms in the LDRP unit. If an obstetrical patient needs an extra day or two, she may be moved to the overflow unit. If not, as in the typical case of other obstetrical patients, the stay is spent in a "well decorated, [private] room that has the ability to take care of the baby, stabilize the baby and stabilize the mother during the birth process." (Tr. 972) There are both Mayo and community obstetricians on staff delivering babies at St. Luke's. In August of 2000, a 10-bed Level II NICU was opened as part of the Family Birth Place. The CON for the unit at St. Luke's was approved without opposition from Memorial. Obstetrics at Memorial Memorial provides OB and NICU level II services to the residents of District 4 at its Woman's Center. The center offers a complement of OB and Level II NICU services in an integrated, multi-floor, single patient tower on the Memorial Campus. The center includes an admitting area, a lactation consultant's office, multiple operative and post operative discharge areas, operating room suites for women's surgery, holding areas for meetings between candidates for surgery and anesthesiologists and other clinicians, labor and recovery beds, an overflow area, an anti-partum testing and triage area, an inpatient unit for C-section patients, and LDRP suites with a full spectrum of obstetrical and GYN services both inpatient and outpatient and the 10-bed Level II NICU. Memorial has invested in a number of improvements to the center. Rooms have been converted from semi-private to private. Hard wood floors and other improvements have been made to enhance the health care environment for OB and NICU patients. The quality of care at Memorial's Women Center is excellent. Relationship of the Proposed Project to Other Applications The 10-bed Level II NICU proposed by St. Vincent's to be located at St. Luke's is related and contingent upon the approval of two other CON applications. The first is St. Luke's CON No. 9483 for a 214-bed replacement hospital on the Mayo Clinic Campus. The second is St. Vincent's CON Application No. 9494P for establishment of a 135-bed facility to be operated at the existing St. Luke's facility. The two other applications are interdependent. Neither can be implemented unless both are approved. If both are not approved or if either is not approved, St. Luke's will continue to operate a Level II NICU at St. Luke's. The status quo will be unaffected vis-à-vis the Level II NICU at St. Luke's. If the two other applications are both approved and this application is approved the outcome vis-à-vis the number and type of NICU beds at St. Luke's will be no different than if the other two applications are not approved. There will continue to be a 10-bed Level II NICU at the St. Luke's facility. Approval of the all applications means that the operators of the NICU beds will be different (St. Vincent's instead of St. Luke's) but the number and type of beds will remain the same. The transfer in control of the NICU from St. Luke's to St. Vincent's, moreover, will be without interruption in the services rendered to the NICU patients. Only if the other two applications are both approved and this application is not approved will there be a change in the status quo vis-à-vis the number and type of the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility. In such a case, the Level II NICU beds at the St. Luke's facility will cease to exist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration dismiss the Petition of Memorial Healthcare Group Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kathryn F. Fenske, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 8355 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Sean M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0391 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Law Office of R. Terry Rigsby, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Brookwood Medical Center of Lake City, Inc., d/b/a Lake City Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as LCMC) is a 75-bed acute care hospital, which presently has 65 medical/surgical beds and 10 alcohol treatment beds. Plans are under way to convert 10 of the medical/surgical beds to a psychiatric unit with 10 beds. LCMC primarily serves Columbia County, a primarily rural community with a population of 34,625, and derives 74 percent of its patients therefrom. The remaining 261 of its admissions come from the surrounding counties of Hamilton, Lafayette and Suwannee. Approximately 60 percent of its patients are sixty years of age or older. The source of reimbursement for the year 1980 was 40 percent Medicare, 8 percent Medicaid, 8 percent indigent or bad debt, and the remaining portion from other third-party payors. The current occupancy rate at LCMC is approximately 502 or 37.5 patients per day. Seasonal trends cause this figure to vary between 32 and 37.5. The daily census is expected to increase over the next year due to the planned addition of four new programs. These include the ten-bed psychiatric unit for which a Certificate of Need application is pending, an industrial medical and occupational health program which would provide on-site care to employees and their family members, the recruitment of an internist/cardiologist and the recruitment of an ophthalmologist. It is projected that the proposed new psychiatric unit will add eight patients to LCMC's daily census, the industrial health program will add 2.5 patients per day as well as outpatients, and that the internist/cardiologist will generate five patients per day. Psychiatric beds are less likely to generate intensive care patients than medical/surgical beds. It is expected that LCMC's program of expansion will change the mix of the primary and secondary service areas and will increase the average daily census to 42.5 by the end of 1981. Petitioner presently has a nursing staff of 48 and a medical staff of Of its medical staff, 13 are listed as active, 4 as courtesy, 4 as consulting and one with temporary privileges. LCMC has one operating room, no emergency room, and no intensive care/cardiac care unit (also referred to as IC/CCU). On an average basis, it is estimated that from ten to twelve surgical procedures per week are performed at LCMC. In 1980, 468 surgical procedures were performed. For the first quarter of 1981, the busiest time of the year, 156 surgical procedures were performed. Petitioner does have a step-down unit or a progressive care unit (also referred to as PCU) with four beds. The current utilization of the PCU is 2.7 patients per day, with a 50 percent medical component and a 50 percent surgical component. If petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need were granted, LCMC's PCU would be converted to an IC/CCU with invasive monitoring capabilities and patients who currently receive treatment in the PCU would be treated in the new IC/CCU. The current patient charge for the PCU is $111.00 per day. LCMC proposes an IC/CCU charge of $250.00 per day. Petitioner estimates that 8 percent of its patients would need and use an IC/CCU, and that, for the first year of operation, the IC/CCU would have a daily census of 3.5 patients. For the second year of operation, a daily patient census of 4.5 is projected. The projected daily utilization of over 50 percent is not consistent with actual utilization achieved in the IC/CCUs of other hospitals in the area. The prime concept of an IC/CCU is to provide more intensive nursing care and monitoring capabilities for unstable medical and surgical patients. The majority of admissions to an IC/CCU come from the emergency room and the second largest source is from the operating room after surgery. While some physicians feel that no physician or acute care facility should be without an IC/CCU, that all post-operative patients should be monitored in an ICU and that it is not good practice to transport an unstable patient under any circumstances, others disagree. These physicians, while agreeing that all hospitals need some form of life support capability, feel that for general routine surgery, only a very small percentage of patients are in need of an intensive care unit. It is possible to reduce the need for an intensive care unit by screening patients prior to surgery. A recovery room and/or a progressive care unit can provide the routine noninvasive monitoring and more intensive nursing care and observation needed by many medical and surgical patients. The use of a recovery room for critical care patients does pose serious problems due to the exposure to additional commotion and the potential mixing of well surgical patients with septic unstable patients. It is better medical practice to have separate personnel for infectious and noninfectious patients. The transfer of an unstable patient to another facility can pose serious risk to the patient. The intervenor Lake Shore Hospital (also referred to as LSH) is located approximately 1.5 miles from the petitioner. Lake Shore Hospital is a full- service, acute care, public hospital with 128 beds, an emergency room and a 9- bed IC/CCU. LSH has had an IC/CCU since 1970 or 1971. More than 50 percent of its intensive care patients come from its emergency room. Approximately 1600 surgical operations per year are performed at LSH. The IC/CCU at LSH provides basic noninvasive monitoring equipment connected to the patient's bedside and the nurses' stations. It does not presently have Swans-Ganz monitoring equipment, an invasive device which measures a patient's hemodynamics. The wiring and other equipment for two such monitoring capabilities are in place and, with the addition of a module and transducer for each unit, two units can be installed for a cost of approximately $4,400.00. At the present time, no one in Lake City has the extensive training required to utilize the Swans-Ganz monitoring equipment. LSH is in the recruitment process and plans to purchase and install this equipment when a cardiologist or other trained specialist is recruited. The IC/CCU at LSH experiences an occupancy rate of 3.5 patients per day, or 35 percent of its capacity. It has only achieved full capacity on two occasions in the ten years of its existence. Lake Shore Hospital presently charges $275.00 per day for the use of its IC/CCU. If it were to lose one patient per day, LSH would lose approximately $100,000.00 per year in revenue. Such a loss could result in either increased taxes or increased patient charges. In spite of the fact that several major admittors to LCMC and LSH have their offices at LCMC, It was their testimony that were a Certificate of Need granted to LCMC for an IC/CCU, they would continue to admit and refer patients to both facilities. Lake Shore Hospital has a medical staff of 22 or 23 specialists and nonspecialists. Of this number, all but one are also on the staff of Lake City Medical Center. The PCU at LCMC and the IC/CCU at LSH are presently comparable. While the nursing staff at Lake Shore's IC/CCU is better trained, at least one physician who practices at both hospitals felt that the same level of care could presently be obtained at LCMC's PCU as at LSH's IC/CCU. This is due to the fact that LSH does not now have the invasive monitoring capabilities felt to be essential to an IC/CCU. The traditional difference between a PCU and an IC/CCU is the degree of training of the nursing staff and the sophistication of the equipment. Underutilization of an IC/CCU can have an adverse effect upon the quality of care provided. One of the most important aspects of an intensive care unit is superior trained personnel. A reduction in patient use obviously reduces the personnel's exposure to complications and skills become dull. Thus, a reduction in patients reduces the quality of care. There is presently a shortage of nurses in the Lake City area. Lake Shore Hospital presently has 8 nursing vacancies and has been actively recruiting to fill those vacancies. In order to operate its proposed IC/CCU, LCMC would have to employ two full-time equivalent nurses with training in that area. The petitioner projects the cost of its requested IC/CCU to be $240,000.00. In 1979, LCMC ran a deficit of $1 million, the sixth largest loss in the State. In 1980, the deficit was $390,000.00. LCMC is presently experiencing a positive cash flow for 1981. It appears that LCMC anticipates the proposed IC/CCU to be a profit-making venture and projects that, if its presumptions are true with respect to patient use, the project will be financially feasible. At the time of the hearing, negotiations were under way for the sale of petitioner to another entity. The reviewing Health Systems Agency, the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (NCFHPC), unanimously denied the petitioner's request for an IC/CCU at every level of the review process. The 1981-1985 Health Systems Plan for the NCFHPC contains certain criteria and standards for intensive and coronary care units which should he met within five years of operation. Two of the criteria are that an IC/CCU should have an average annual occupancy rate of 80 percent and that an IC/CCU should be available within one hour's (one-way) travel time of 95 percent of the region's residents. As noted above, LSH is approximately 1.5 miles away from LCMC. Lake City is 45 miles from Gainesville and 65 miles from Jacksonville with interstate highways connecting these cities. With an optimal utilization rate of 80 percent, it is projected that 8.5 IC/CCU beds are needed in the planning area in 1980, and, by 1985, there will be a need for 9 beds. There are presently 15 IC/CCU beds in the Level 2 planning area, which includes Lafayette, Suwannee, Hamilton and Columbia Counties. Of the licensed 212 acute care medical/surgical hospitals in Florida, 22 or 10 percent do not have intensive or coronary care units. The approximate bed size of most of these facilities is 50.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate an intensive care/coronary care unit at Lake City Medical Center be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of August, 1981, 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 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr. Messer, Rhodes and Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jon Moyle and Thomas Sheehan, III Moyle, Jones and Flannagan, P.A. 707 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Honorable Alvin J. Taylor Secretary, Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Forum is a national corporation which owns and operates 16 retirement projects in the United States. These projects generally consist of a complex, including apartments for retirement couples, an adult congregate living facility, a nursing home and accessory facilities to provide meals, laundry and other housekeeping requirements. The same type project is proposed in this application to be built in Lee County, Florida, with the 60 bed nursing home the essential ingredient of the complex requiring prior approval before construction. Such projects offer many advantages for elderly people. The proposed nursing facility would be open to the public as well as to members of retirement living. Pursuant to the bed need formula found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, the "fixed need pool" when calculated identifies a need for no new beds in the Lee County subdistrict of (District VIII) in the July 1990 planning horizon. Lee County is an appropriate subdistrict in District VIII and is so identified in the District VIII Health Plan. There were 1056 licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date used for determining bed need for the applications submitted in the batching cycle for development and operation in the July 1990 planning horizon. There were also 342 approved, but not licensed beds, in Lee County on August 1, 1987. Including these bed with the licensed beds and calculating bed need in Lee County for the July 1990 horizon shows no need for additional beds. To justify need for additional beds, Forum used a different number as approved beds than was used by DHRS in determining no additional beds are needed in the July 1990 planning horizon. Specifically, Forum challenged CON 4748 issued to Careage for 120 beds contending that zero beds should have been used because no CON for 120 beds was ever issued, and the CON for 60 beds was not published until September 4, 1987, after the August 1, 1987, cutoff date for this batch. The January 23, 1987, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly published the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage Southwest Healthcare Center for a new 120 bed skilled and intermediate care facility in Lee County. Due to changes in personnel at DHRS at this time, this CON was not processed promptly, and Forum Group, among others, filed a petition for hearing to challenge the CON (Exhibit No. 18). Prior to the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage, DHRS discovered that on initial processing of CON 4748, only 60 of the 120 beds requested had been approved, and 60 beds had been denied. This error was not corrected until the publication of Florida Administration Weekly on September 4, 1987, where CON 4748 was corrected to show 60 beds issued to Careage. However, prior to August 1, 1987, Careage was notified that DHRS intended to award it 60 nursing home, beds. A good argument can be made for Forum's position that the notice that 120 beds had been awarded to Careage was a clear error which would ultimately be corrected. If that premise is accepted, it must also be accepted that 60 beds were approved for Careage. Reducing the number of approved beds as of August 1, 1987, by 60 and using the calculations for determining the District Projected Bed Need (A) Table III, Exhibit No. 9, to calculate the SA (Subdistrict Allocation) shows the following: SA = A x LBD (Subdistrict Beds) x (OR (Subdistrict Occupancy Rate) LB (District Licensed Beds) .9 or SA = 5650.9 x 1056 x .9347 = 1286.57 4817 .9 Beds Available = LBD + (.9 x Subdistrict Approved Beds (282) = 1056 + 238 = 1308.8 Subtracting this from SA shows approximately 23 beds needed. Under the fixed pool rule, DHRS will not, for any reason, alter the published fixed pool inventory unless an error is brought to its attention during a grace period that will allow DHRS to notify interested parties through publication. Any errors not corrected in the grace period will be corrected in the next fixed pool batching cycle. The grace period is triggered by a letter of intent which extends the filing deadlines for competitive letters of Intent. Correcting fixed pool errors during the grace period allows other applicants to compete for the same pool of beds. Correcting errors after this grace period would not give prospective applicants adequate notice of the need, and they would be unable to timely compete in the batch. Because no errors were brought to the attention of DHRS that could have been corrected within the grace period, DHRS could not make any changes to its published fixed pool need for Lee County. Forum also reduced 30 beds from those approved for construction by Beverly Enterprises in Lee County in CONS 1991 and 1992. CONS 1991 and 1992 were issued December 5, 1986, to Beverly Enterprises and authorized the construction of a 90 bed nursing facility and a 60 bed nursing facility in Lee County. Both of the CONS were in effect on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date for counting approved beds for use in the bed need rule formula. Subsequent to August 1, 1987, Beverly completed construction on a 120 bed nursing facility, and a CON was issued for 120 beds, CON 1992 (for 60 beds) was rescinded and 30 beds were reallocated. On August 1, 1987, all 150 of these beds were approved beds. DHRS defines approved beds to include those applications that have received CON approval either by issuance of a CON, letter of intent to issue a CON, and where a written settlement agreement has been entered to grant a CON to a certain applicant or applicants. DHRS also considers publication of intent to grant or granting a CON as tantamount to issuing a CON or letter of intent to issue. But for the issue of need, Forum met all statutory requirements for the issuance of the requested CON. Absent a need for the requested beds, granting the 60 beds requested by Forum would adversely affect existing providers and would not be economically feasible. No evidence was submitted that special circumstances exist in Lee County which would justify the granting of a CON to Forum despite the lack of need under the appropriate bed need rule.
Findings Of Fact MCH was constructed circa 1973 as an acute care hospital and before 1980 had 126 medical-surgical beds authorized including eight intensive care beds. MCH is a for-profit hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America. It is financially able to fund the proposed addition. In 1980 it received a certificate of need (CON) to add 64 medical-surgical beds for a total bed capacity of 190 medical-surgical beds. These beds came on line in January 1982. MCH here proposes to add a 54-bed unit for oncology patients; to add six operating rooms to use primarily for eye, ear, nose and throat surgical procedures on an outpatient basis; and a new eight-bed surgical intensive care unit located on the first floor adjacent to the existing surgery department. Currently, the hospital has two oncologists on staff who use a 16-bed unit dedicated to the treatment of cancer. Space exists for the additional operating room so the net result is an application for an additional 62 beds. The application also included expansion of general stores and maintenance and the addition of a parking structure, which were granted, leaving only the issue of need for the 62 additional beds requested at a cost of $7 million. When constructed MCH had an eight-bed ICU primarily for coronary care patients located on the second floor of the hospital in the opposite wing from the surgery department on the first floor. It has added a four-bed ICU on the fourth floor by converting two semiprivate medical-surgical rooms. The ratio of ICU beds to total beds in 1973 was 8:126 which is nearly identical to the current ratio of 12:190. The evidence was unrebutted that the ICU at MCH is usually full, that on occasion patients have to wait in the emergency room until a less ill patient can be moved from a bed in ICU, and that the more ICU beds are available the more they will be used. This use was attributed to the doctors desiring their patients to be in an ICU and to testimony that current surgical procedures are more sophisticated than formerly and a greater need exists today for a surgery patient to go to an ICU than existed 15 years ago. In its application for a CON (Exhibit 18) MCH's estimated charge for a medical-surgical bed is $100-150 per day and its estimated charge for ICU beds and SICU beds is $350 per day. The primary service area for MCH is Marion County. Petitioner submitted evidence that nearly 20 percent of the cancer patients diagnosed in Marion County in 1981 came from the surrounding counties of Citrus, Lake, Sumter, and Levy. Accordingly, MCH contends that its primary service area for oncology patients should include these counties. Evidence was also submitted that MCH has been certified by medical associations as an approved cancer treatment hospital; that oncology service is a service generally provided in regional hospitals which provide Level III medical treatment; and, therefore, MCH should be considered on a different scale than Level II services. No evidence was presented that any health systems plan ever considered MCH as a regional cancer hospital or established any bed need for cancer patients at MCH. The evidence was also unrebutted that cancer patients at MCH are primarily treated by chemotherapy; that the drugs used in the treatment are extremely toxic, some have a short life span after being mixed and must be used almost immediately; that having a mini-pharmacy in the cancer ward is highly desirable; that special training of nurses is required to safely administer these drugs to patients; that patients develop nausea, ulcers in the mouth and throat, and present special feeding problems, and because of these special feeding problems it is advantageous to have some facilities in the cancer ward to prepare food at odd hours for patients; that cancer is a "personal" disease, patients desire more privacy, and should have private rooms; that an area away from the patient's room where the patient can visit with his or her family and the family can consult with the doctor in some privacy is desirable; that some newer drugs require hospitalization of the patient for treatment with these drugs, but the hospital stay is shorter and the drugs may be used over longer periods of time; and that the patient needs the security that comes from developing a feeling of trust by the patient of the nurses and doctors who are administering to his needs. MCH has no radiation treatment facilities in the hospital. However, the hospital staff has access to a Linear Accelerator which is located in a private physician's office on MCH's campus. Several witnesses testified to the need for additional beds for cancer patients at MCH; that patients have had to wait several days for a vacant bed; some oncology patients have had to be placed in other wards at MCH; and that special treatment and special training for nurses are required for oncology patients. Marion Regional Medical Center (MRMC) is a nonprofit hospital owned by the Marion County Hospital District, a public body established by statutes with taxing powers in Marion County. MRMC is currently expanding its facilities by 80 beds to the authorized 314-bed hospital pursuant to a CON approved in 1981. The $23 million for that project was financed by revenue bonds issued by Marion County Hospital District. Preliminary bids indicate the original project will be under the estimated cost resulting in a $2-3 million savings. If the additional beds here requested are approved and the construction associated therewith can be accomplished concurrently with the present construction, a saving of nearly $1 million can be obtained. MRMC is the only full service hospital in Marion County and provides medical, surgical, obstetrical, pediatric, psychiatric, intensive care, coronary care, and neurological/neurosurgical services. It has the third most active Emergency Room in the state and receives approximately 45 percent of its admissions through this service. MRMC's proposed project calls for the construction of a sixth floor on the hospital, construction of 66 inpatient beds, and the conversion of a 20-bed pediatric unit for use as a labor and delivery suite, a net gain of 46 beds. As initially proposed, this would provide for eight additional pediatric beds, four pediatric intensive care beds, and 34 medical-surgical beds to be used as a pulmonary medicine unit. Before the hearing the request for additional pediatric beds was withdrawn, leaving a request for 34 additional hospital beds and four pediatric intensive care beds, a total of 38 medical-surgical beds, at a cost of $2.8 million. It was stipulated that both MCH and MRMC provide an acceptable quality of care and operate efficiently. The application satisfied the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) with the possible exception of need, and need is the only issue in dispute in these proceedings. Both applicants submitted evidence that they accept all patients regardless of their ability to pay; however, MCH is a private for-profit hospital whose bad debt and charity care amounts to two percent of its gross revenues. MRMC's patient load is four percent indigent and bad debts, and charity care amounts to 12 percent of its gross revenues. Exhibit 18 shows MCH patient utilization to be 61 percent Medicare and one percent Medicaid, and MRMC patient utilization to be 51 percent Medicare and five percent Medicaid, in 1981. There is currently "applicable district plan" or "annual implementation" as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c)1, Florida Statutes (1982). The implementation of this statute has been stayed by rule challenges. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (NCFHPC), was the Health Systems Agency (HSA) for what was formerly known as Health Service Region II which included only Marion County as a district sub-area. Prior to the July 1, 1982, amendment of Florida's CON law, the HSA reviewed applications and made recommendations with written findings of fact to DHRS. The 1982 CON law eliminated HSA, accordingly the NCFHPC no longer exists. The former HSA recommended approval of the applications of both MCH and MRMC; however, the staff of the HSA recommended disapproval of both applications. For the determination of need in these proceedings, a planning horizon of five years is acceptable and was used by all parties. Thus, the need for the requested CON is assessed for the year 1988. At this time the population of Marion County is forecast to be 165,880. The percentage of persons 65 and older in Marion County is increasing in proportion to the remainder of Marion County's population, and this increase will continue through 1988. This "aging" of the population is occurring throughout the United States as people live longer and demographics change with differing birth rates at differing periods. No evidence was submitted that the percentage of people over 65 is greater in Marion County than in other parts of Florida. MCH has 190 authorized medical-surgical beds and MRMC has 244 authorized medical-surgical beds, for a total of 434 such beds authorized in Marion County in two hospitals across the street from each other in Ocala, Florida. With the 1982 amendment to the CON statute the HSA in Marion County ceased to exist and has been replaced by a local health council. Rule challenges have stayed the promulgation of a comprehensive state health plan and the only Health Systems Plan in being for Marion County is the revised 1983 Health Systems Plan (HSP). This plan was approved by the HSA for Marion County in June of 1982 and contains goals, objectives and standards for planning for the health services required in Marion County. Standard 1-1 provides the need for medical-surgical beds within each Level II planning area (Marion County) should be based on the actual 1980 medical-surgical bed need per 1,000 population in this area. Standard 2-1 provides no additional beds should be added to a community's total bed supply until the occupancy rate of medical- surgical beds in the community exceeds 85 percent if more than 200 such beds are available in the community. The generally accepted standard for occupancy rate above which more beds may be needed is 80 percent. However, where beds are concentrated in one area, which is the case in Marion County where 434 medical- surgical beds are authorized, 85 percent occupancy leaves a reasonable surplus of beds to cover most emergencies or unusual situations that would cause the bed availability to be exceeded. The need for medical-surgical beds per 1,000 population (use rate) in Marion County in 1980 was 2.41. The HSP has a goal of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and an objective of 4.0 beds per 1,000 population by 1987 in Region II. Applying the 1980 use rate to the 1988 forecast population of Marion County results in a need for 400 medical-surgical beds. The Health Systems Plan update for Marion County defines medical- surgical beds as all hospital beds which are not reserved solely for the use of pediatric, obstetrics, or psychiatric patients. At the time the revised Health Systems Plan for Marion County was promulgated, the two hospitals, MRMC and MCH, had been authorized an additional 80 and 65 beds, respectively, and these beds were being placed in service. By prescribing a use rate for 1980 as the standard to be used in considering applications for additional medical-surgical beds in 1983 and for a year or two thereafter, it would be reasonable to conclude the HSA expected the use rate for the years 1981 and 1982 to be influenced by the addition of the recently authorized 144 beds and to not accurately reflect a reliable use rate for planning purposes. MRMC and MCH presented expert witnesses who, by using different modalities, containing different assumptions, arrived at a need for additional beds in Marion County in 1988 ranging from 97 to 200. Most of these modalities used an occupancy rate of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and 80 percent utilization of beds. All assume increasing usage of medical-surgical beds by the increasing and aging population. In their application MRMC and MCH planned to finance these projects with rate increases of 11 percent per year (to keep even with inflation) and a continuing increase in the number of patients handled at these higher rates. While inflation may again be up to 11 percent or higher, it is generally accepted today that the current inflation rate is five percent or less. More than 50 percent of both MRMC and MCH patients are presently covered by Medicare, which pays 80 percent of the charges generated by these patients. To assume that this situation will not only continue in the face of current federal deficits, but grow to cover the increased use of these facilities predicted in the assumptions used to show increased bed need for 1988, is not necessarily a valid assumption. Evidence was presented that the number of doctors in Marion County has doubled in the last five years. The ratio of doctors to the population of Marion County for 1977-78 and 1982-83 was not presented nor was the percent increase in the number of doctors in the United States over the past five years. Without some basis for comparison, the fact that the number of doctors in a particular community doubled over a five-year period has no relevancy.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a new 84-bed acute care hospital in Viera should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Parties Holmes and the Health First System Holmes, the applicant for the CON at issue in this case, is a not-for-profit corporation that operates two acute care hospitals in Brevard County: Holmes Regional Medical Center (HRMC) in Melbourne and Palm Bay Community Hospital (PBCH) in Palm Bay. HRMC opened in 1962. It is a 514-bed acute care hospital, with 504 acute care beds and 10 Level II neonatal intensive care (NICU) beds. HRMC provides tertiary-level services, including adult open-heart surgery, and it is the designated trauma center for Brevard County. HRMC has been recognized as one of the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals in the country, and it has received other recognitions for the high quality of care that it provides. PBCH opened in 1992. It is a 60-bed acute care hospital. PBCH does not provide tertiary-level services, and it does not provide obstetrical (OB) services. Holmes’ parent company is Health First, Inc. (Health First), which is a not-for-profit corporation formed in 1995 upon the merger of Holmes and the organization that operated Cape Canaveral Hospital (Cape Hospital). Cape Hospital is a 150-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital in Cocoa Beach. The range of services that Cape Hospital provides is broader than range of services provided at PBCH, but not as broad as the range of services provided at HRMC. For example, Cape Hospital provides OB services, but it does not have any NICU beds. All of the Health First hospitals are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Health First provides a broad range of health care services in Brevard County in addition to the hospital services provided at HRMC, PBCH, and Cape Hospital. For example, it operates a hospice program, surgical center, outpatient facilities, and fitness centers. Health First also administers the Health First Health Plan (HFHP), which is the largest managed care plan in Brevard County. All of the Health First hospitals serve patients without regard to their ability to pay, and as more fully discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, Holmes provides a significant amount of care to Medicaid and charity patients at HRMC and PBCH. Holmes also provides health care services to the medically underserved through a program known as HOPE, which stands for Health, Outreach, Prevention, and Education. HOPE was established in the early 1990’s to provide free health care for at-risk children as well as free clinics (both fixed-site and mobile) for medically underserved patients throughout Brevard County. At the time of the final hearing, the free clinics operated by HOPE were being transitioned into a federally- qualified health center, the Brevard Health Alliance (BHA). After the transition, Holmes will no longer operate the clinics; however, Holmes is obligated to provide $1.3 million per year in funding to BHA and it will continue to provide services to at- risk children through the HOPE program. Health First administers a charitable foundation that raises money to support initiatives such as the cancer center at HRMC, the construction of a hospice house, and an Alzheimer’s support center. The foundation has raised approximately $7 million since its inception in October 2001. Wuesthoff Wuesthoff operates two not-for-profit acute care hospitals in Brevard County: Wuesthoff-Rockledge and Wuesthoff- Melbourne. Like Health First, Wuesthoff provides a broad range of health care services in Brevard County in addition to its acute care hospitals. The services include a nursing home, assisted living facility, clinical laboratory, hospice program, home health agency, diagnostic center, and fitness centers. Wuesthoff-Rockledge opened in 1941. It has 245 beds, including 218 acute care beds, 10 Level II NICU beds, and 17 adult inpatient psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff-Rockledge provides tertiary-level services, including adult open-heart surgery, and it is the only acute care hospital in Brevard County designated as a Baker Act receiving facility. Wuesthoff-Rockledge is in the process of adding 44 more beds, including a new 24-bed intensive care unit (ICU) that is projected to open in 2006 and 20 acute care beds. After those beds are added, Wuesthoff-Rockledge will have 289 beds. Currently, approximately 57 percent of Wuesthoff- Rockledge’s beds are in semi-private rooms and 43 percent of the beds are in private rooms. After the addition of the 44 new beds, the percentages will be 69 percent in semi-private rooms and 31 percent in private rooms. Wuesthoff-Melbourne opened in December 2002. It originally received CON approval for 50 beds in November 2000. Before it opened, it received CON approval for an additional 50 beds, which increased its licensed capacity to 100 beds. Wuesthoff-Melbourne opened with 65 beds, all of which are in private rooms. At the time of the hearing, Wuesthoff- Melbourne had that same number of beds and an occupancy rate of approximately 80 percent. In December 2004, Wuesthoff-Melbourne added an additional 50 beds. Wuesthoff was awaiting final licensure approval from the Agency for those beds at the time of the hearing. The approval will increase Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s licensed capacity to 115 beds, all of which are in private rooms. The additional 15 beds (beyond the 100 previously licensed) were added pursuant to the 2004 amendments to the CON law, which permit bed expansions at existing hospitals without CON approval. Wuesthoff-Melbourne was designed and engineered for approximately 200 beds, and it expects to have 134 beds in service in the near future. The space for the additional 19 beds (to expand from 115 to 134) has been shelled-in, and the bed expansion will likely be completed in late-2005 or early- 2006. All of those beds will be in private rooms. The expansion of Wuesthoff-Melbourne to 134 beds will occur notwithstanding the outcome of this proceeding, but the expansion of the facility to 200 beds depends in large part on the outcome of this proceeding. Wuesthoff-Melbourne provides all of the basic acute care services, including OB services. It does not provide tertiary-level services. The Wuesthoff hospitals are accredited by JCAHO. Wuesthoff has been recognized as one of the “100 Most Wired” hospitals by Hospitals & Health Networks magazine for the comprehensive information technology (IT) systems in place at its hospitals. The Wuesthoff hospitals serve all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and as discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, the Wuesthoff hospitals provide a significant amount of care to Medicaid and charity patients. Wuesthoff also provides health care services to the medically underserved through a free health clinic in Cocoa and a mobile unit that serves patients throughout Brevard County. Like Health First, Wuesthoff administers a charitable foundation that funds initiatives at the Wuesthoff hospitals and in the community. (3) Agency The Agency is the state agency that administers the CON program and is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on CON applications. Application Submittal and Preliminary Agency Action Holmes filed a letter of intent and a CON application in the first batching cycle of 2004 for hospital beds and facilities. Holmes’ letter of intent and CON application were timely and properly filed. Holmes application, CON 9759, proposes the establishment of a new 84-bed acute care hospital in the Viera area of Brevard County. The proposed hospital will be known as Viera Medical Center (VMC). The fixed need pool published by the Agency for the applicable batching cycle identified a need for zero new acute care beds in Subdistrict 7-1, which is Brevard County. There were no challenges to the published fixed need pool. The Agency comparatively reviewed Holmes’ application with the CON applications filed by Wuesthoff to add 34 beds at Wuesthoff-Melbourne (CON 9760) and to add 44 beds at Wuesthoff- Rockledge (CON 9761). On June 10, 2004, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), which summarized the Agency’s findings and conclusions based upon its comparative review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of Holmes’ application and both of Wuesthoff's applications. After the Agency published notice of its intent to deny the applications in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Holmes timely petitioned the Agency for an administrative hearing on the denial of its application. Wuesthoff did not pursue an administrative hearing on the denial of its applications as a result of the 2004 amendments to the CON law, which became effective July 1, 2004. Under the new law, a CON is not needed to add acute care beds at an existing hospital and, as indicated above, the Wuesthoff hospitals are already in the process of adding the beds that they were seeking through CON 9760 and CON 9761. The Agency reaffirmed its opposition to Holmes’ application at the hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the Bureau Chief for the Agency’s CON program. Acute Care Subdistrict 7-1 / Brevard County The Agency uses a five-year planning horizon in determining the need for new acute care beds, and it calculates the inventory of acute care beds and considers CON applications for new acute care beds on a subdistrict basis. Brevard County is in Subdistrict 7-1. There are no other counties in the subdistrict. There are six existing acute care hospitals in Brevard County, all of which are not-for-profit hospitals: Parrish Medical Center (Parrish) in Titusville, Cape Hosptial, Wuesthoff-Rockledge, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, HRMC, and PBCH. Brevard County is a long, narrow county. It stretches approximately 70 miles north to south, but averages only 20 miles east to west. The county is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by the St. Johns River and Osceola County, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The major north-south arterial roads in the county are Interstate 95 (I-95) and U.S. Highway 1 (US 1). The Intracoastal Waterway also runs north and south through the eastern portion of the county. Other arterial roads in the south/central portion of the county are Murrell Road, Eau Gallie Boulevard and Wickham Road. Because of the county’s long and narrow geography, three recognized market areas for hospital services have developed in the county, i.e., northern, central, and southern. The northern area of the county, which includes the Titusville area, had approximately 63,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by one hospital: Parrish. The central area of the county, which includes the Rockledge and Cocoa areas, had approximately 163,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by two hospitals: Wuesthoff- Rockledge and Cape Hospital. The southern area of the county, which includes the Melbourne and Palm Bay areas, had approximately 276,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by three hospitals: HRMC, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, and Palm Bay. The Viera area, discussed below, overlaps the central and southern market areas and is primarily served by Wuesthoff- Rockledge, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, and HRMC. According to the data in Table 28 of the CON application, those hospitals together accounted for 90 percent of the patients from zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code. The evidence was not persuasive that the three market areas in Brevard County equate to “antitrust markets” from an economist’s standpoint, but it was clear that the hospitals and physicians in the county recognize the existence of the market areas. For example, there is very little overlap in the medical staffs of the hospitals in different market areas, but there is significant overlap in the medical staffs of the hospitals in the same market area, and the opening of Wuesthoff-Melbourne in south Brevard County impacted HRMC and PBCH, but had little impact on the hospitals in central Brevard County. Additionally, there is very little out-migration of patients from one area of the county to hospitals in another area. The data in Tables 18 and 19 of the CON application shows that in 2003, for example, 83.6 percent of south Brevard County adult medical/surgical patients were admitted to one of the three south Brevard County hospitals, and 79.5 percent adult medical/surgical patients in central Brevard County were admitted to one of the two hospitals in that area of the county. Viera Viera is an unincorporated area in south/central Brevard County that is being developed by The Viera Company (TVC). TVC is a for-profit land development company owned by A. Duda & Sons, Inc. (Duda). The Viera DRI Viera is being developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order that was first adopted by Brevard County in 1990. The original DRI included 3,000 acres east of I-95, which was developed primarily as residential subdivisions. In 1995, an additional 6,000 acres were added to the DRI west of I- 95, which is being developed as a mixed-use community. The portion of the DRI east of I-95 has effectively been built-out. The build-out date for the remainder of the DRI is 2020. The master plan for the DRI includes approximately 19,000 residential units, 3.7 million square feet (SF) of office space, 2.9 million SF of commercial space, a governmental center, six schools, parks, open space, and a 7,500-seat baseball stadium and practice facility used by the Florida Marlins. As of October 2004, over 5,800 homes and approximately 2 million SF of commercial and office space have been developed west of I-95 in addition to the governmental center, several schools, and the Florida Marlins’ facilities. There are approximately 12,000 acres of undeveloped, agricultural property adjacent to and to the west of the DRI that are owned by Duda and that, according to the chief operating officer of TVC, will likely be added to the DRI in the near future. The record does not reflect what type of uses will be developed on that property or when that development will begin. The DRI development order includes authorization for up to 470 hospital beds, with vested traffic concurrency for 150 beds. The master site plan for the DRI designates an area west of I-95 on the southwest corner of the Wickham Road/Lake Andrew Drive intersection as the “Proposed Viera Medical Park.” VMC is proposed for that location. The DRI development order provides all of the local government land use approvals, including traffic concurrency, that are necessary for VMC. TVC is developing Viera for and marketing it to retirees and younger persons, including families with children. The DRI includes age-restricted subdivisions, but it also includes amenities such as three elementary schools and a large regional park with ball fields and playgrounds. (2) Negotiations for a Hospital in Viera TVC has long wanted a hospital in Viera. Wuesthoff identified the Viera area as future growth area in the 1990’s and began establishing health care facilities in the area at that time. Wuesthoff has a diagnostic center, a lab facility, and a rehabilitation facility in the Suntree area, which is just to the east of the Viera DRI. Wuesthoff expressed interest in building a hospital in Viera in 1993 and, more recently, in 2003. In August 1993, Wuesthoff and TVC entered into an agreement that gave Wuesthoff a 10-year exclusive right to develop a hospital in Viera if certain conditions were met. However, Wuesthoff ultimately built Wuesthoff-Melborune in Melbourne (rather than in Viera), and the exclusivity provision in the August 1993 contract never went into effect. In July 2003, Wuesthoff sent a letter to TVC expressing its interest in obtaining an option to purchase 25 to acres within the Viera DRI to construct a hospital. In the letter, Wuesthoff stated that it would construct the hospital “within 10 years or when the population of Viera exceeds 40,000, whichever first occurs”; that the hospital would be “constructed similar to Wuesthoff Medical Center-Melbourne which currently encompasses 65 licensed beds in a 150,000 sq. ft. facility”; that it wanted the “sole right to build a hospital or hospital like facility in Viera . . . until 5 years after the opening of the hospital” and that it wanted TVC to “consider selling the desired land to Wuesthoff at a reduced price.” Wuesthoff’s July 2003 offer was not seriously considered by TVC because, by that time, TVC was in the process of finalizing its agreement for the sale of 50 acres to Health First for VMC. Additionally, the Health First agreement was more appealing to TVC because Health First was offering to purchase more property at a higher price than was Wuesthoff, and Health First was committed to building a hospital sooner than was Wuestoff. The contract between Health First and TVC was executed on August 5, 2003, and Health First has since closed on the purchase of the 50 acres at a cost of approximately $9 million. The Health First/TVC contract includes an exclusivity provision that prohibits the development of another hospital within the Viera DRI or on any of the lands owned by Duda until 2029 if Holmes constructs at least 70 percent of Phase I of the Viera Medical Park by August 31, 2006, and begins construction on a hospital with at least 80 beds by August 31, 2010. The contract also includes exclusivity provisions relating to the other uses being developed as part of the Viera Medical Park, but the exclusivity on those uses expires in 2010, at the latest. The exclusivity provision will be included in restrictive covenants that are recorded in the public records of Brevard County. The restrictive covenants will run with the land and will bind future purchasers of property from TVC and Duda. Exclusivity provisions are not uncommon in land- purchase contracts for large commercial projects or new hospitals. The August 1993 agreement between Wuesthoff and TVC included such a provision as did Wuestoff’s July 2003 offer. However, the length of the hospital exclusivity provision in the Health First/TVC contract and the fact that it applies to the land owned by Duda outside of the Viera DRI goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to allow the new hospital to become stabilized and has the potential to stifle competition for acute care hospital services in the Viera area for the next 25 years. Viera Medical Center (1) Generally Holmes conditioned the approval of its CON application on VMC being located at the "[i]ntersection of Lake Andrew Drive and Wickham Road, Viera, Florida." VMC was projected to open in 2008 as part of the Viera Medical Park that Health First is building on the 50 acres that it purchased from TVC at that location. VMC will be located in zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code. VMC will be built on 20 of the 50 acres purchased by Health First. The remaining 30 acres will be developed with the other health care facilities that will make up the Viera Medical Park. The development of the Viera Medical Park will be done in three phases. Phase I will include a fitness center; a medical office building; and outpatient facilities such as an urgent care center, an ambulatory surgical center, and a diagnostic imaging and rehabilitation center. Phase II will include VMC. Phase III may include a nursing home and/or assisted living facility as well as “multi-family retirement units.” VMC will be a 213,000 SF facility with 84 licensed beds, 16 “observation” beds, and a full emergency room (ER). The 84 licensed beds will consist of 72 acute care beds and a 12-bed critical care unit/ICU. All of the beds will be in private rooms. The total project cost for VMC is approximately $106 million, which will be funded primarily by tax-free bonds issued by Holmes. VMC will have a cardiac catheterization lab, but it will not provide interventional cardiology services such as angioplasty. VMC will not provide any tertiary-level services or OB services, and it will not have a dedicated pediatric unit. VMC will share management and administrative support services with HRMC so as to minimize duplication of those services and to reduce overhead costs. VMC will have an integrated IT system that will utilize electronic medical records and a computerized physician order entry system, as well as an electronic ICU (e-ICU). The e-ICU is an innovative critical care management system based upon a telemedicine platform that is in use at the existing Health First hospitals in Brevard County. Except for the e-ICU, which the Wuesthoff hospitals do not have, the IT systems at VMC will be materially the same as Wuesthoff’s award-winning IT systems. VMC will have a helipad without any weight restrictions and, as discussed in Part F(1)(a)(iv) below, VMC has been designed with hurricanes and other “contingency events” (e.g., bioterrorism) in mind. Demographics of VMC’s Proposed Service Area The primary service area (PSA) for VMC consists of zip codes 32934, 32935/36, 32940, and 32955/56; the secondary service area (SSA) consists of zip codes 32901/02/41, 32904, 32922/23/24, 32926/59, and 32927. Neither Wuesthoff nor the Agency contested the reasonableness of the PSA or the SSA. All of the zip codes targeted by VMC are within the primary service area of one or more of the existing hospitals, and there are three hospitals physically located within those zip codes. Wuesthoff-Melbourne and Wuestoff-Rockledge are located in VMC’s PSA, and HRMC is in VMC’s SSA. The 2003 population of the PSA was 108,436. In 2010, which would be VMC’s third year of operation, the PSA’s population is projected to be 128,498. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group that most heavily utilizes hospital services, is projected to make up 21.5 percent of the PSA’s population in 2010. That is a lower percentage than the projected populations of the 18-44 age cohort (29.1 percent) and the 45-65 age cohort (29.7 percent) in the PSA. VMC’s PSA has a more favorable payor-mix than the county as a whole. It has a lower percentage of Medicaid patients and a higher percentage of insured patients --i.e., commercial, HMO, PPO, workers comp, and Champus/VA patients -- than the county as a whole. Except for zip code 32935/36, each of the zip codes in VMC’s PSA has a higher median household income than Brevard County as a whole. Zip code 32935/36 is the zip code in which Wuesthoff-Melbourne is located. The zip code in which VMC will be located, 32940, has the highest median household income in Brevard County. The median household income in that zip code for 2004 was $67,000 as compared to the county-wide average of $44,000. Utilization Projections VMC was projected to open in January 2008, and Holmes' CON application contains utilization and financial projections for VMC's first three years of operation, i.e., 2008, 2009, and 2010. The utilization projections are based upon an average length of stay (ALOS) of 3.69 days, which is reasonable. The utilization projections are also based upon the assumption that by VMC’s third year of operation, it will have 26.9 percent market share in its PSA and a 7.4 percent market share in its SSA. VMC's projected market share in zip code 32940, which is its “home” zip code and the “main” Viera zip code, is projected to be 35 percent. The market share assumptions are reasonable and attainable. The utilization projections include a “ramp-up” period for VMC. Its annual occupancy rate in its first year of operation is projected to be 45.6 percent; its annual occupancy rate in its second year of operation is projected to be 65.7 percent; and in its third year of operation (2010), VMC is expected to have an annual occupancy rate of 76 percent with 6,313 discharges and 23,298 patient days. The occupancy rates, and the discharges and patient days upon which they are based, are reasonable and attainable.2 The application projects that VMC will redirect or “cannibalize” a significant percentage of its patients from the other Health First hospitals. The percentage of patients that VMC will cannibalize from the other Health First hospitals in each zip code varies from 75 percent to 45 percent, depending upon the proximity of the zip code to VMC. Overall, approximately 69.4 percent of VMC’s patients will be cannibalized patients, i.e., patients that would have otherwise gone to HRMC (66.2 percent), Cape Hosptial (3.2 percent), or PBCH (less than 0.1 percent). The remaining 30.6 percent of VMC’s patients will be patients that would have otherwise gone to Wuesthoff-Rockledge (15.8 percent) or Wuesthoff-Melbourne (14.8 percent). The record does not reflect the outpatient volume projected for VMC, but Holmes’ health planner conceded at the hearing that the projected outpatient revenues for VMC did not take into account the outpatient services that will be included in Phase I of the Viera Medical Park. As a result, the volume on which the outpatient revenues were based is overstated to some degree, but there was no credible evidence regarding the extent of the overstatement. VMC is projected to treat 15,851 patients in its ER in its first year of operation (2008), and by its third year of operation (2010), VMC is expected to treat 27,780 patients in its ER. The record does not reflect how those figures were calculated, nor does it reflect what percentage of those patients would have otherwise been treated in the ERs at HRMC, PBCH, or the Wuesthoff hospitals. However, the reasonableness of those figures was not contested by Wuesthoff or the Agency. Statutory and Rule Criteria Statutory Criteria -- Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2004)3 Subsections (1), (2) and (5) -– Need for Proposed Services; Accessibility of Existing Services; and Enhancing Access According to the CON application (page 14), the need for VMC is justified based upon: The large population base and significant population growth projected for the [Viera] area. The need to improve access and reduce travel times for this significant population for both critical care and inpatient services. The projected need for additional acute care beds at HRMC and the benefits of delivering non-tertiary services away from [HRMC’s] campus. Additionally, the CON application (page 15) asserts that the approval of VMC will: Significantly enhance the area’s Homeland Security and disaster planning and preparedness. Enhance the quality of care delivered to area residents as a result of key design and information technology innovations planned for [VMC]. Provide access to cost-effective, quality of care for all residents of the service area, including the uninsured. In its PRO (page 19), Holmes identifies those same six issues as the “not normal” circumstances that justify approval of VMC. Holmes’ health planner conceded at the hearing that the VMC project is not intended to address any cultural, programmatic, or financial access problems, and that those potential “not normal” circumstances were not advanced in the CON application as bases for approval of VMC. Population of and Growth in the Viera Area There has been considerable growth in Viera over the past 15 years, and the demand for new homes in the Viera DRI remains strong. The projected population of the Viera DRI is expected to exceed 40,000 when the DRI is built-out in 2020, and that figure does not include the population of the Suntree area, which is outside of the Viera DRI and has a number of large residential subdivisions. Zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code, had a population of 22,940 in 2003. By 2010, that zip code is projected to have a population of 31,862. That is an increase of 38.9 percent, but only 9,000 persons. As stated above, the population of VMC's PSA is projected to increase from 108,436 (in 2003) to 128,489 (in 2010). That is an increase of 18.5 percent, but only 20,000 persons. The population of VMC’s PSA is projected to grow at a faster rate than Brevard County as a whole. Over the seven-year period used in the application (2003 to 2010), the annual growth rate for VMC’s PSA is projected to be 2.64 percent while the annual growth rate of Brevard County as a whole is projected to be 1.74 percent.4 Population growth in Florida is normal and, indeed, is expected. There is nothing extraordinary about the growth projected for zip code 32940 and/or VMC’s PSA. Accordingly, the population growth projected in the Viera area does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of VMC. Enhanced Access There are two main components to Holmes’ argument that VMC will enhance access. First, Holmes contends that VMC will reduce travel times for Viera residents and thereby enhance their access to hospital services. Second, Holmes contends that the approval of VMC will relieve pressure on the overcrowded ERs at the existing hospitals in Brevard County thereby enhancing access to ER services countywide. For Viera Residents VMC will provide more convenient access to hospital services for Viera residents (at least those in need of the basic, non-OB services that will be offered at VMC), and to that extent, VMC will enhance access for Viera residents. VMC will also provide more convenient ER access for Viera residents. Quicker access to an ER is generally beneficial to the patient, although certain heart-attack patients may benefit more by going to the ER of a hospital that can do an immediate angioplasty, such as Wuesthoff-Rockledge or HRMC. VMC will not necessarily enhance access for other residents of the PSA and SSA targeted by VMC (e.g., those outside of the Viera area) because many of those residents are closer to an existing hospital. Indeed, some of those residents would have to pass an existing hospital to get to VMC, which seems particularly unlikely for emergency patients. VMC will also not enhance access for patients in need of OB services or tertiary services that will not be offered at VMC. Convenience alone is not a basis for approving a new hospital, particularly where (as here) the evidence establishes that the residents of the area to be served by the new hospital currently have reasonable access to hospital services. VMC will be located approximately 10 miles south of Wuesthoff-Rockledge, and approximately 11 miles north of Wuesthoff-Melbourne. VMC will be approximately 15 miles northwest of HRMC. There are multiple routes from the Viera area to the Wuesthoff hospitals and HRMC. The routes are along major arterial roads, including I-95, US 1, Wickham Road, Murrell Road, Fiske Boulevard, and Eau Gallie Boulevard. All of those roads are at least four lanes wide. The travel-time studies presented by Wuesthoff show that it takes less than 15 minutes to drive from either of the Wuesthoff hospitals to the VMC site. There was anecdotal testimony suggesting longer travel times, particularly from the VMC site to Wuesthoff-Melbourne,5 but that testimony was not as persuasive as Wuesthoff’s travel-time studies. The travel-time studies presented by Wuesthoff were not without flaws. For example, the travel times were calculated by driving away from the Wuesthoff hospitals, rather than driving towards the hospitals as a potential patient from Viera would be doing. Holmes did not present its own travel- time studies, and notwithstanding the directional issue and the other unpersuasive criticisms of the study by Holmes’ traffic engineer, Wuesthoff’s studies are found to be credible and persuasive. Indeed, Holmes’ traffic engineer estimated that it would take 15 to 20 minutes to get from VMC to Wuesthoff- Melbourne using the most direct route (Transcript, at 668), which is consistent with Wuesthoff’s travel-time studies. It takes longer to drive from Viera to HRMC than it does to drive from Viera to either of the Wuesthoff hospitals. The travel-time studies did not directly address the issue, but the anecdotal testimony suggests that the travel times from Viera to HRMC are between 25 and 45 minutes depending upon the time of day and traffic conditions.6 There are several road segments on the routes between Viera and the Wuesthoff hospitals whose “v/c ratios”7 currently exceeds 1.0, which is an indication of an over-capacity road. However, there are roadway improvements planned or underway that will expand the capacity of those road segments by 2010. Indeed, a comparison of the 2003 (Exhibit H-23) and 2010 (Exhibit W-50) v/c ratios for the road segments on the routes between Viera and the Wuesthoff hospitals shows only marginal increases in the ratios, with many of the 2010 ratios projected to be lower than 0.8, which according to Holmes’ traffic engineer, indicates that the “roadway that is probably operating well within its ability to carry that traffic volume.” Holmes’ traffic engineer did not attempt to quantify the extent to which travel times would increase due to the marginal increases in the v/c ratios. Thus, his opinion that travel times would “increase significantly” and be “significantly greater” in the future is not persuasive. TVC is required to mitigate for the off-site traffic impacts generated by the development of the Viera DRI. In this regard, road improvements (e.g., additional lanes, traffic signals, etc.) will be made in the future as necessary to accommodate the additional population in the Viera DRI. In fact, there are significant road improvements currently underway that are being funded, at least in part, by TVC pursuant to the Viera DRI development order, including the six-laning of I-95 through the Viera area. In sum, the evidence establishes that persons in the PSA and SSA targeted by VMC, including residents of the Viera area, currently have reasonable access to acute care services, and the evidence was not persuasive that there will be access problems over the applicable five-year planning horizon such that a new hospital in Viera is necessary to enhance access. For ER Services in Central and South Brevard County The Brevard County government is the emergency medical services (EMS) provider for the county. Brevard County EMS responds to emergency calls throughout the county and its ambulances transport emergency patients to hospital ERs. Overcrowded ERs can adversely affect the EMS system in several ways. First, if the ER is overcrowded it can take longer for ambulances to off-load patients to the ER staff, which results a longer period of time that the ambulance is “out of service.” Second, if the closest hospital is on “diversion status” because of an overcrowded ER, ambulances will have to transport patients to a more distant hospital, which also results in the ambulance being out of service for a longer period of time. Longer out-of-service periods can, on a cumulative basis, strain the EMS system because an out-of-service ambulance is not able to respond to emergency calls in its service area and the EMS provider may have to shift other ambulances to cover the area at the risk of increasing response times for emergency calls. Brevard County EMS protocol requires ambulances to take patients to the closest hospital, unless the patient is a trauma patient or the closest hospital is on diversion status. Trauma patients are taken to HRMC, which is the designated trauma center for the county. A hospital requests diversion status from EMS when it is unable to accept additional emergency patients because its ER is overcrowded. The most common reasons that an ER is overcrowded is that it had a large number of emergency patients arrive at the same time or that there is a “bottleneck” in the ER caused by a lack of inpatient beds to move patients from the ER that need to be admitted to the hospital. If diversion status is granted, EMS will take emergency patients to another hospital, even if it is further away than the hospital on diversion. As noted above, this strains the EMS system and can result in longer response times for emergency calls, which in turn, can negatively impact patient care. If diversion status is denied, the hospital is required to continue to accept emergency patients. This can create a less than optimal setting for patient care because the hospital may not have adequate space or resources to treat the patient in a timely manner. Until recently, Brevard County EMS would not grant diversion status to a hospital in south Brevard County if either of the other two hospitals in that area of the county informed EMS that they could not take the patients. That policy recently changed, and EMS will now grant diversion status to a hospital in south Brevard County if either of the other two hospitals in that area of the county informs EMS that it can take the patients. The new EMS policy change makes it easier for hospitals in south Brevard County to be placed in diversion status. For example, under the old policy, diversion status would not be granted to HRMC if either Wuestoff-Melbourne or PBCH informed EMS that they could not take HRMC’s emergency patients, but under the new policy, diversion status will be denied to HRMC only if Wuesthoff-Melbourne and PBCH both inform EMS that they cannot take HRMC’s emergency patients. In Brevard County, having a hospital on diversion was “pretty rare” until 2002. Diversion requests have become more frequent since then, and they are no longer a seasonal phenomenon caused by the influx of “snowbirds” into the county. Diversion is a more frequent problem in south Brevard County than it is in central Brevard County, and in south Brevard County, the diversion requests have come primarily from HRMC. The evidence was not persuasive that ER overcrowding is a significant problem for the Wuesthoff hospitals or PBCH. Wuesthoff-Melbourne has not requested to go on diversion, and only one occasion was identified where HRMC’s diversion request was denied because Wuesthoff-Melbourne was unable to handle HRMC's diverted patients. That occasion occurred when Wuesthoff-Melbourne had only 65 beds and, hence, less ability than it currently has to move patients out of the ER to accommodate additional emergency patients. According to Holmes, VMC will enhance access to ER services in central and south Brevard County because it will increase the area-wide ER capacity and reduce the frequency of diversion requests, which in turn, will reduce strains on the EMS system and benefit patients. The "North Expansion" underway at HRMC (discussed below) will include a new ER that is expected to help address the overcrowding issues that have required HRMC to request diversion in the past. The new ER is designed with shelled-in space to facilitate future ER expansions as needed. In any event, the evidence was not persuasive that VMC will materially reduce the ER volume at HRMC. The record does not reflect what percentage of VMC’s projected ER patients would have otherwise been served at HRMC as compared to the Wuesthoff hospitals. Moreover, it is not likely that non-trauma emergency patients from the Viera area are contributing to the overcrowding in the ER at HRMC because, under EMS protocol, those patients currently are being taken to Wuesthoff-Melbourne or Wuesthoff-Rockledge, which are closer to Viera than is HRMC. Need to “Decompress” HRMC Holmes contends that VMC will help to “decompress” HRMC and that it is the only viable option for doing so. HRMC is a well-utilized facility. According to the SAAR, its annual occupancy rate for the 12-month period ending June 2003 was 81.22 percent. HRMC's occupancy rate tends to stay above 80 percent, and at times it is as high as 115 percent. If VMC is not approved, HRMC’s annual occupancy rate for 2008 is projected to be 83.9 percent, and by 2010, its occupancy rate is projected to increase to 90 percent. Even if VMC is approved, HRMC’s annual occupancy rate is projected to be 81.7 percent in 2010. Those figures assume that HRMC will maintain its current bed capacity and they do not take into account the impact of the expansion of the Wuesthoff hospitals. HRMC currently includes approximately 612,000 SF. It is located on 18 acres of property that is bounded by streets and developed properties. Holmes owns several parcels of land adjacent to HRMC, and it is continuing to acquire parcels as they come available. Much of the adjacent land owned by Holmes is used for parking, and notwithstanding a 500-space parking garage on the south side of HRMC, there is still a shortage of parking at HRMC. Some of its staff parks at a nearby shopping center and take a shuttle to the hospital. There is an area on the north side of HRMC identified as the site of a "future parking garage," but there are no current plans to construct that structure. The original portion of the hospital, which is referred to as the “core” area, was built in the 1960’s. The remainder of the hospital has been added over the years, which has resulted in a less than ideal facility layout and has created operating inefficiencies. Some of the hospital’s support functions and administrative offices are located off- site. HRMC has undertaken a series of construction projects in recent years to reduce inefficiencies and congestion at the hospital and to increase the percentage of private rooms at the hospital. Those projects include the construction of a new OB unit and, most significantly, the $100 million “North Expansion.” The North Expansion is an eight-story, 337,000 SF addition to the hospital that is expected to be completed by the end of 2006. It will include 144 patient rooms, a new ER with a number of new observation beds, and it will allow all of the hospital’s cardiology services to be located in contiguous space. The 144 patient rooms will include 14 cardiovascular ICU beds, 22 ICU beds, and 108 acute care beds. All of the beds will be in private rooms. The 144 beds added as part of the North Expansion will not increase the bed capacity at Holmes. The same number of existing licensed beds will be eliminated, either through the conversion of existing semi-private rooms to private rooms or because the rooms are located in space that will be demolished to construct the North Expansion. The North Expansion has been designed and engineered to withstand 200-mile per hour winds, which exceeds the applicable building code requirements for hurricane protection. The North Expansion has also been designed and engineered to accommodate future expansion at HRMC in several respects. First, it includes shelled-in space on the eighth floor for an additional 36 private patient rooms. Second, it is engineered (but not shelled-in) to allow the fourth through eighth floors to be further expanded to include up to 180 additional private patient rooms in what was referred to at the hearing as a “mirror image” of the tower being built as part of the North Expansion. Third, the ER includes shelled-in space for future expansions as well as adjacent open space into which the ER could be further expanded in the future. There is no current plan to finish the shelled-in space on the eighth floor, but Holmes’ facility manger testified that he expected that to occur as soon as funding is available, and perhaps prior to the completion of the North Expansion. The beds added on the eighth floor will not increase the licensed capacity at Holmes, but rather they will come from the conversion of 36 additional existing semi-private rooms to private rooms. There is also no current plan to construct the “mirror image” side of the fourth through eighth floors of the North Expansion. That construction will be done in conjunction with the renovation of the core area of the hospital and will initially be used to locate the services from the core area that are displaced by the renovation. After the renovation of the core area, however, the "mirror image" will be used for patient rooms. In conjunction with the construction of the North Expansion, HRMC expects to relocate some of its ancillary and support services from the core area into the space where the existing ER is located, which in turn will open up space in the core area for other purposes. The space created by the construction of the new OB unit will also be available for other uses after it is no longer needed as "swing space" during the construction of the North Expansion. Additionally, Holmes recently purchased a building directly behind HRMC into which it will likely locate other ancillary and support services. Currently, less than 40 percent of HRMC’s general acute care beds are in private rooms. After the North Expansion, almost 80 percent of those beds will be in private rooms. Ultimately, Holmes wants all of the beds at HRMC to be in private rooms. Private rooms are beneficial because they offer the patients and their families more privacy and a more restful environment, and they can also help reduce the spread of infections. However, private rooms can also create operational inefficiencies for nurses who have to visit more rooms (often on longer hallways) than they would to serve the same number of patients in semi-private rooms. High quality care can be provided in semi-private rooms, and HRMC and Wuesthoff-Rockledge each do so. Although patients may prefer private rooms and most new hospitals are being designed with only private rooms, private rooms are still best characterized as an amenity, not a necessity. As a result, and Holmes’ desire to convert all of HRMC’s semi-private rooms to private rooms does not justify the building a new hospital based upon alleged capacity constraints at HRMC. Indeed, if Holmes chose to do so, it could increase the bed capacity at HRMC with little or no additional cost by adding the 36 beds in the shelled-in eighth floor of the North Expansion and/or by not converting as many semi-private rooms into private rooms. Moreover, after the North Expansion, HRMC will have approximately 50 observation beds (as compared to 20 currently) in private rooms that can be used for inpatients as needed. Indeed, as a result of the 2004 amendments to the CON law, some of those beds could be converted to licensed acute care beds at any time without CON review. Even if the beds are not converted to licensed beds, they will still help to decompress HRMC because observation patients will not need to be placed in inpatient rooms while they are being observed and evaluated for possible admission to the hospital. Several Holmes’ witnesses testified that even if Holmes wanted to add bed capacity to HRMC by converting fewer semi-private rooms to private rooms or other means, it could not do so because of limitations on the space available to provide the support services necessary for those additional rooms. That testimony was not persuasive because the witnesses conceded that Holmes has not undertaken a thorough analysis of what it intends to do with the space created in the existing building by the relocation of services as part of the North Expansion, which as noted above, will free up additional space for support services in the core area. The evidence was also not persuasive that the alternative presented in the CON application for adding 84 beds to HRMC is realistic. That alternative, the cost of which is presented in Table 23 of the CON application, was prepared after the decision was made to seek approval of a CON for VMC; it was not an alternative actually considered by Holmes and, indeed, it was characterized by the Holmes’ witness who prepared the cost estimate as a “theoretical solution” and not a viable solution to adding beds. The cost estimate in Table 23 is based upon a plan that would require the acquisition of additional land across the street from HRMC and the construction of a new bed tower on that land and an adjacent parcel on which Holmes currently owns a medical office building. The bed tower would be connected to HRMC by a two-story bridge over the street. The plan also includes the construction of a new parking garage and an office building to replace the existing medical office building. The land and building costs of the plan were approximately $86.2 million, which is approximately $18.3 million more than the land and building costs of VMC. When the equipment costs are added, the total cost of the plan is approximately $120 million. Not only was the plan not a viable solution, its cost was clearly overstated. For example, the $450/SF cost of the new bed tower was irreconcilably higher than the $278/SF cost of VMC and the $2.5 million that Holmes represented to the Agency in October 2003 that it would cost to add 50 beds to HRMC. In sum, the evidence fails to support Holmes’ claim that the only way to add bed capacity to HRMC is through the $120 million plan presented in Table 23 of the CON application. The evidence also fails to support Holmes’ claim that VMC is the only viable option to decompress HRMC. Indeed, the evidence establishes that HRMC could be decompressed if PBCH was better utilized. Holmes contends that PBCH is too far away from Viera to be a viable alternative to HRMC for patients from the Viera area. The evidence supports that claim, but that claim ignores the fact that better utilization of PBCH by Palm Bay patients will help to decompress HRMC. PBCH is currently an underutilized facility, and it has been ever since it opened in 1992. According to the SAAR, PBCH's annual occupancy rate for the 12-month period ending June 2003 was only 51.5 percent. Its annual occupancy rate is projected to be only 60.1 percent in 2008 and 65.4 percent in 2010, which are well below the 75 to 80 percent optimum utilization level. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of HRMC’s patient volume comes from the Palm Bay zip codes. If those patients were redirected to PBCH, the utilization rate at HRMC would go down and the utilization rate at PBCH would go up. Redirecting Palm Bay patients to PBCH has the potential to decompress HRMC more than redirecting Viera patients to VMC because HRMC has approximately 7,000 admissions from the Palm Bay area, as compared to approximately 6,000 admissions from the Viera area. Holmes did not present any persuasive evidence as to why patients from the Palm Bay zip codes could not be redirected to PBCH as a means of decompressing HRMC. On this issue, there was credible evidence presented by Wuesthoff that virtually no elective cases are being done at PBCH and that PBCH is essentially being used as a triage facility for HRMC. Finally, the expansion of the Wuesthoff hospitals (particularly Wuesthoff-Melbourne) will help to decompress HRMC because the Wuesthoff hospitals will be able to serve more patients. As the Wuestoff hospitals' market share grows, HRMC’s market share (and patient volume) will decline.8 Enhanced Homeland Security and Disaster Planning Brevard County is susceptible to hurricanes because of its location on the east coast of Florida and the length of its coastline. The evidence was not persuasive that Brevard County is more susceptible to hurricanes than are the other counties on the east coast. The three major storms that affected the county in the summer of 2004 were not the norm. Brevard County has a comprehensive emergency management plan to prepare for and respond to hurricanes, as do all of the existing hospitals in the county. Those plans were tested in the summer of 2004 when the county was directly impacted by three of the four major storms that hit the state Florida. The hospitals’ hurricane plans include securing the building, discharging as many patients as possible prior to the arrival of the storm, and canceling elective surgeries scheduled around the time the storm is expected to hit the area. The plans also provide for the evacuation of some of the hospitals during particularly strong storms, i.e., Category 3 or above. Cape Hospital is particularly prone to evacuation when a strong hurricane threatens the area because it is located close to the ocean on a peninsula in the middle of the Intracoastal Waterway. Cape Hospital was evacuated twice during the summer of 2004. None of the hospitals in Brevard County were evacuated during the first storm, Hurricane Charley. Cape Hospital and Wuesthoff-Rockledge were evacuated prior to the second storm, Hurricane Francis. That was the first time that Wuesthoff-Rockledge was evacuated since it opened in 1941, and its ER remained open and staffed even though the remainder of the hospital was evacuated. Cape Hosptial’s patients were taken to HRMC, and Wuesthoff-Rockledge patients were taken to Wuesthoff-Melbourne. The evacuated patients were accompanied by physicians and nurses and were transported to the receiving hospitals by ambulance. The evacuation of Cape Hospital and Wuesthoff- Rockledge placed strains on the receiving hospitals and their staffs. At one point during the evacuation, HRMC had more than 700 patients in its 514-bed facility and Wuesthoff-Rockledge had 156 patients in its 65-bed facility. By all accounts, despite the strains placed on the receiving hospitals, the evacuations went smoothly and there were no adverse patient outcomes attributable to the evacuation. Indeed, the director of Brevard County’s Health Department testified that all of the hospitals in the county responded and performed “great” during the hurricanes, and that sentiment was echoed by physicians and administrators affiliated with both of the hospital systems involved in this case. Cape Hospital was evacuated again prior to the third storm, Hurricane Jeanne. Wuesthoff-Rockledge was not evacuated during that storm, and approximately 15 of Cape Hospital’s patients were taken to Wuesthoff-Rockledge. None of the Health First or Wuesthoff hospitals suffered any significant damage from the hurricanes. The approval of VMC will not eliminate the possibility that Cape Hospital, Wuesthoff-Rockledge, or some other hospital in Brevard County may have to evacuate during a future hurricane. VMC may provide a more convenient (or at least an additional) place to evacuate some of the patients from Cape Hospital during a future hurricane because VMC is closer to Cape Hospital than is HRMC. VMC will also be more inland than HRMC and it will be designed to withstand 165 mile per hour winds. Holmes conditioned the approval of its CON application on the inclusion of a "suitable parcel, fully equipped and designed to support temporary staging of Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMAT)" at VMC. A DMAT is essentially a mobile emergency room set up by the federal government after a natural disaster to help serve the medical needs of those affected by the disaster. The DMAT staging area at VMC will be an open field adjacent to the hospital that is “pre-plumbed” with water, electricity, and communication lines. In some situations, it is beneficial for a DMAT to be set up proximate to a hospital, and in that regard, VMC’s inland location and proximity to I-95 may make it an attractive location to set up a DMAT in the future. It is not necessary, however, for a DMAT to be set up proximate to a hospital. DMATs are fully self-sustaining and they can be set up anywhere, including a Wal-Mart parking lot. Indeed, in some situations, it is more beneficial for the DMAT to be located closer to the persons in need of its services than to a hospital. For example, after Hurricane Jeanne, a DMAT was set up near the Barefoot Bay community in southern Brevard County, which is miles from the closest hospital. VMC’s central-county location and proximity to I-95 would also make it a good point-of-dispensing (POD) for vaccines and medicines in the case of a severe biological emergency. However, like DMATs, PODs can be set up anywhere and it is not critical for a POD to be proximate to a hospital even though proximity might allow for greater medical oversight of the dispensing process. There are high-profile, “Tier 1” terrorist targets located in Brevard County, including Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air Force Base, and Port Canaveral. There is also a nuclear power plant in Indian River County, just south of the Brevard County line. The nature of these targets is somewhat unique because they involve the country's space program, but the presence of multiple “Tier 1” terrorist targets is not unique to Brevard County and is not, in and of itself, a special circumstance that justifies approval of a new hospital. Brevard County has developed emergency management plans in conjunction with the state and federal governments to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks on those targets. Those plans have been in place for many years, but they have been significantly strengthened since September 11, 2001. VMC will include decontamination areas and other design features to facilitate the treatment of victims of bio- terrorism. The existing hospitals in Brevard County have similar design features as well as comprehensive plans for dealing with bio-terrorism. The evidence was not persuasive that VMC, as an 84- bed, non-tertiary satellite hospital, will materially enhance County’s ability to deal with a large-scale terrorist attack, whether biological or otherwise. Similarly, the evidence was not persuasive that Brevard County’s emergency management plans for hurricanes and/or terrorism are deficient in any way or that the approval of VMC would result in material enhancements to those plans. Any enhancements attributable to VMC would be marginal, at best. The DMAT staging area and other design elements included at VMC to facilitate the hospital’s participation in the Brevard County’s response to hurricanes, terrorist attacks, or other contingencies are positive attributes. Inclusion of those features in VMC (or any new hospital for that matter) is reasonable despite the infrequency of those contingencies, but it does not follow that VMC should be approved simply because it will include those features. IT Innovations and Design Features The evidence was not persuasive that VMC will provide a higher quality of care than is currently being provided at the existing hospitals serving central and south Brevard County as a result of the “innovative” IT systems and the other design features that will be incorporated into VMC. See Part F(1)(b) below. Accordingly, the approval of VMC is not justified on that basis. Enhanced Access to Care for the Uninsured Holmes’ contention that VMC will enhance access for the uninsured implicates the issue of “financial access.” Financial access concerns arise when there is evidence that necessary services are being denied to patients based upon their inability to pay or their uninsured status. Holmes’ health planner acknowledged at the hearing that VMC was not intended to address any financial access concerns for patients in the Viera area and, indeed, there was no credible evidence of any financial access concerns in PSA and SSA targeted by VMC. As discussed in Part E(2) above, VMC’s PSA include a higher percentage of insured patients than Brevard County as a whole, and as discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, the existing hospitals are adequately serving the medically indigent patients in central and south Brevard County, both at the hospital and through outreach efforts such as the Holmes’ HOPE program and Wuesthoff’s free clinics. Accordingly, the evidence failed to establish that VMC will enhance access to care for the uninsured, and approval of VMC is not justified on that basis. Subsection (3) -- Applicant’s Quality of Care Holmes, the applicant, provides a high quality of care at HRMC and PBCH, and it is reasonable to expect that it will provide the same high quality of care at VMC. The Wuesthoff hospitals also provide a high quality of care, and Holmes' witnesses acknowledged that VMC was not proposed to address any problem with quality of care in central or south Brevard County. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care at VMC will be materially better (or worse) than that provided at Wuesthoff-Melbourne, which has a similar range of services that will be provided at VMC. The award-winning IT systems in place at the Wuesthoff hospitals are materially the same as those proposed for VMC except for e-ICU at VMC. The evidence was not persuasive that the e-ICU significantly enhances quality of care, and because the e-ICU is being used at the existing Health First hospitals in Brevard County, VMC will not be providing any new technology or service that is not already available to physicians and patients in the county. Thus, the "innovative" IT systems proposed for VMC do not provide an independent basis for approving the CON application. The evidence was not persuasive that VMC would exacerbate nursing or physician shortages in Brevard County thereby negatively affecting quality of care in the county. See Part F(1)(c) below. Subsection (4) -- Availability of Personnel and Resources for Operations Holmes and Health First have the management resources necessary to establish and operate VMC. Holmes’ CON application projects that VMC will have 241.4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in its first year of operation, and that by its third year of operation, it will have 355.7 FTEs. Nursing positions -- registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, and nursing directors -- account for 123.1 of the FTEs in the first year of operation, and 189.2 of the FTEs in the third year of operation. According to the CON application, a significant number of the initial FTEs at VMC are expected to be filled by persons who transfer from Holmes’ existing campuses, HRMC and PBCH. The parties stipulated that the projected number of FTEs needed by position and the projected salaries contained in Holmes’ CON application are reasonable for the census projected at VMC. However, Wuesthoff disputed whether Holmes will be able to adequately staff VMC due to nurse and physician shortages in Brevard County and/or that VMC will exacerbate those shortages and make it more difficult to staff the existing hospitals in the county. There is a nursing shortage in Brevard County, as there is around Florida and across the nation, but the situation in Brevard County is improving. Wuesthoff was able to fully staff Wuesthoff-Melbourne prior to its opening in December 2002, even though the nursing shortage was more severe at that time. Additionally, Wuesthoff is currently in the process of adding beds at Wuestoff-Melbourne and Wuesthoff-Rockledge, and it expects to be able to recruit and retain the nurses necessary to staff those additional beds despite the current state of the nursing shortage. Holmes received “magnet designation” from the American Nurses Credentialing Center, which is a recognition of its excellence in nursing. No other hospital in Brevard County has magnet designation, and that designation helps Holmes attract and retain nurses. The evidence establishes that Holmes will be able to recruit and retain the nursing and other staff needed for VMC, and the evidence was not persuasive that the staffing of VMC will exacerbate the nursing shortage or otherwise significantly impact Wuesthoff. There is a shortage of physicians in Brevard County with certain specialties, including neurosurgery, neurology, orthopedics, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Like the nursing shortage, this problem is not unique to Brevard County and it is not as severe in Brevard County as it is elsewhere in the state. The shortage of physician specialists in Brevard County is to some extent hospital-specific. For example, there is only one neurosurgeon covering Wuesthoff-Rockledge and Cape Hospital, and Wuesthoff-Melbourne only has part-time coverage neurosurgical coverage, but Holmes has several neurosurgeons. Holmes has recently had success in recruiting new physicians to Brevard County, including specialists. One of the largest multi-specialty physician groups in Brevard County, whose physicians are on staff at Holmes’ and Wuestoff's hospitals, has also been successful recently in recruiting new physicians to the area. That group, Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, will be adding more physicians whether or not VMC is approved. The evidence establishes that Holmes will be able to attract the necessary physician staff for VMC, just as Wuesthoff-Melbourne was able to do when it opened. Indeed there are a number of physicians who have offices in the Viera area that are closer to VMC than the existing hospitals where they have privileges. Holmes and Wuesthoff require physicians with privileges at their hospitals to provide coverage for ER calls on a rotational basis. Physicians with privileges at more than one of the hospitals are required to provide ER call coverage at multiple hospitals, which can create a problem if the physician is on-call at two (or more) hospitals at the same time. Physicians who choose obtain privileges at VMC will be required to provide ER call coverage at VMC. ER call coverage is a problem in Brevard County, but the evidence was not persuasive that the problem is as significant in Brevard County as it is elsewhere in the state or that VMC would seriously exacerbate the problem. More specifically, the evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent to which VMC would cause physicians to be on call at more than one hospital at the same time. Nor was the evidence persuasive regarding the likelihood that physicians would relinquish privileges at other hospitals in Brevard County to obtain privileges at VMC in such numbers that ER call coverage problems would be created for the other hospitals. Subsection (6) -- Financial Feasibility The parties stipulated that VMC is financially feasible in the short-term and that Holmes has sufficient availability of funds for VMC's capital and operating expenses. The long-term financial feasibility of VMC is in dispute. Generally, if a CON project will at least break even in the second year of operation, it is financially feasible in the long-term. If, however, the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operation it is not financially feasible in the long-term unless it is nearing break-even and it is demonstrated that the hospital will break even within a reasonable period of time. Agency precedent (e.g., Wellington, supra, at 73-74) and the evidence in this case (e.g., Exhibit W-57, at 22) establish that in the context of a satellite hospital project that is expected to “cannibalize” patients from the applicant’s existing hospital, it is important to consider the impact of the project on the entire hospital system in evaluating the long- term financial feasibility of the project. The net operating revenue projected on Schedule 7A of the CON application, which is the starting point for the net income/loss projected on Schedule 8A, is reasonable.9 On Schedule 8A of the CON application, in the column titled “VMC only,” Holmes projects that VMC will generate a net loss of $5.71 million in its first year of operation, but that it will generate net profits of $1.48 million and $5.11 million in its second and third years of operation. Thus, as a stand-alone entity, VMC is financially feasible in the long-term. However, the “VMC only” figures do not provide the complete picture of the financial feasibility of the VMC project because of the significant percentage of its patients that will be cannibalized from HRMC and PBCH. In evaluating the long-term financial feasibility of the VMC project, it is also important to consider the “incremental difference” column in Schedule 8A. That column reflects VMC’s net financial benefit (or burden) to Holmes after taking into account the patients that VMC is cannibalizing from HRMC and PBCH. The “incremental difference” column in Schedule 8A shows a net loss of $695,000 in the VMC’s first year of operation, and net profits of $605,000 and $983,000 in the second and third years of VMC’s operation. The incremental figures presented in the CON application identify the profit/loss that will be generated by the patients treated at VMC that are new to the Holmes’ system, but they do not take into account the fact that the patients treated at VMC that were cannibalized from the other Holmes’ hospitals would have generated a different profit/loss for the Holmes’ system if they were treated at one of the other Holmes’ hospitals. When incremental profit/loss associated with treating the cannibalized patients at VMC rather than HRMC or PBCH is factored in, the “incremental difference” generated by VMC will be net profits of $498,000 (year one); $720,000 (year two); and $252,000 (year three). Included in the “incremental difference” column on Schedule 8A (and embedded in the revised figures in the preceding paragraph) are negative figures on the “depreciation and amortization” line and the “interest” line. Those figures are intended to reflect the depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses that Holmes will “save” by building VMC rather than by adding 84 beds at HRMC. A critical assumption underlying the “savings” shown on those lines is that it would cost $120 million to add 84 beds to HRMC. To the extent that cost is overstated, then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense “savings” on Schedule 8A are also overstated, as is the incremental net profit of the VMC project. The extent to which the net profit is overstated depends upon the extent to which the $120 million cost is overstated. For example, if the cost of adding 84 beds to HRMC is the same as the cost of VMC (i.e., $106 million rather than $120 million), then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown in the “incremental difference” column on Schedule 8A would be $0 (rather than a negative number) because the depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses in the “with this project” and “without this project” columns would be the same. If, on the other hand, there was no cost associated with the addition of 84 beds at HRMC, then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown in the “without this project” column would be $10.662 million lower in 2010 (see Endnote 10) and that amount would appear as a positive number -- i.e., expense -- rather than a negative number -- i.e., “savings” -- in the “incremental difference” column. The evidence was not persuasive that it will cost $120 million to add beds to HRMC, which is the amount underlying the projected “savings” in depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown on Schedule 8A. Indeed, as discussed in Part F(1)(a)(iii) above, the evidence establishes that the alternative that gave rise to the $120 million cost estimate was not a viable option and that Holmes could add 84 beds at HRMC with little or no cost if it chose to do so by reducing the number of semi-private rooms that it converts to private rooms as part of the North Expansion and/or by finishing the shelled- in space on the eighth floor of the North Expansion. Accordingly, the “savings” embedded in Schedule 8A are grossly overstated as is the incremental net profit shown in that schedule. Specifically, in the third year of operation, when VMC is at a near-optimal occupancy level of 76 percent, the incremental net profit generated by VMC will be no more than $234,000 and, more likely, will be a net loss between $497,000 and $10.41 million.10 A net profit of $234,000 is a very marginal return on the $106 million cost of VMC, and is well below the three percent return that Holmes' seeks to achieve for its capital projects. However, according to Holmes' chief financial officer, the return generated by a project is not Holmes' paramount concern as a not-for profit organization, and at that level, the project would be considered financially feasible in the long-term. A $497,000 to $10.41 million incremental net loss would mean that the project is not financially feasible in the long-term. The “including this project” column on Schedule 8A projects that Holmes will have net income of approximately $31.1 million in 2010. Thus, even if VMC actually generated an incremental net loss in the range of $497,000 to $10.41 million in 2010, the Holmes' system would still be profitable. Subsection (7) -- Fostering Competition that Promotes Cost-Effectiveness Generally, competition for hospital services benefits consumers because it leads to lower prices and it creates incentives for hospitals to lower costs. It is not necessary for hospitals to be equal in size to compete, but the beneficial effects of competition will be greater if the hospitals are more equal. As explained by Dr. David Eisenstadt, Wuesthoff’s expert economist, “competitive constraints are a matter of degree” and “while it is true that a small hospital can pose some competitive constraint, it’s not correct that a small hospital can impose the same competitive constraint . . . as a large hospital could.” (Transcript at 1571-72). Holmes is, and historically has been, the dominant provider of hospital services in south Brevard County, with market shares exceeding 80 percent prior to the opening of Wuesthoff-Melbourne. Holmes still has a market share in excess of 70 percent in south Brevard County. A dominant hospital has the ability to set prices above competitive levels by commanding higher prices in negotiations with commercial payors. Holmes has done so in the past and, based upon the comparison of the commercial average net inpatient revenues reported by the Health First hospitals and the Wuesthoff hospitals in 2003 and 2004, it continues to do so. Holmes ability to set prices above competitive levels is enhanced by the fact that the largest managed care plan in Brevard County, HFHP, is operated by Health First. The original approval of the CON for Wuesthoff- Melbourne was based upon the Agency’s determinations that there was at that time a “compelling” need for competition for hospital services in south Brevard County; that the entry of a new, non-Health First provider into the market would give commercial payors and, ultimately, patients an alternative to Holmes, which because of its relationship with HFHP, had no incentive to negotiate competitive rates with other providers; and that competition would have the effect of reducing prices paid by the commercial payors to the hospitals and, ultimately, the premiums paid by patients. Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s entry into the market in December 2002 has not yet resulted in any material price reductions. Indeed, notwithstanding Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s presence in the market, HRMC increased its charges by 15 percent in 2003-04 and by an additional five percent in 2004-05. A hospital’s charges do not necessarily correspond to the prices that the hospital negotiates with commercial payors. However, in this case, there appears to be a correlation because Holmes had an 11.6 percent increase in net revenue per admission between 2003 and 2004 and it also had significant increases in the commercial average inpatient revenues per admission at HRMC and PBCH between 2003 and 2004. Moreover, the significant increase in charges at Holmes over the past two years is a strong indication that Holmes is not feeling any significant competitive pressure as a result of Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s presence in the market. Wuesthoff-Melbourne will be able to exert more competitive pressure on Holmes as its market share increases, particularly if Holmes’ market share continues to decline at the same time as is projected. As a result, Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s ability to expand and increase (or at least maintain) its market share in the growing Viera market is particularly significant to achieving price reductions (and/or minimizing price increases) in Brevard County.11 Holmes contends that even if VMC is approved, there will be sufficient competition in Viera because, according to Table 33 in the CON application, in 2010 the Health First hospitals will have a 50.5 percent market share of the PSA targeted by VMC and the Wuesthoff hospitals will have a 44.3 percent market share of the PSA. However, the approval of the VMC will have the effect of dramatically slowing the upward trend in Wuesthoff’s market share and corresponding downward trend of Health First’s market share in the PSA targeted by VMC because according to Tables 28 and 33 of the CON application, without VMC, the market share of the Wuesthoff hospitals in the PSA is projected to increase from 43.3 percent (in 2003) to 52.3 percent (in 2010), and the market share of the Health First Hospitals in the PSA is expected to decline from 51.2 percent (in 2003) to 42.5 percent (in 2010). Moreover, if VMC is approved, it is less likely that there will be sufficient need for additional acute care beds in the area to justify expanding Wuesthoff-Melbourne beyond 134 beds. That, in turn, will limit the competitive pressure that Wuesthoff-Melbourne will be able to exert on Holmes in the future. The evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent of the competitive pressure and/or price reductions that would result from the expansion of Wuesthoff-Melbourne rather than the approval of VMC.12 However, the fact remains that VMC will strengthen Holmes’ market position in central and south Brevard County, which will not foster competition that promotes cost effectiveness. Not only will the approval of VMC negatively affect the evolution of competition in south Brevard County, but it will effectively preclude the construction of another hospital in the Viera area until 2029 when the exclusivity provisions and restrictive covenants discussed in Part D(2) above expire. The evidence was not persuasive that there was an anticompetitive motivation underlying Holmes’ decision to propose VMC, but the evidence does establish that the approval of VMC will have anticompetitive effects. As a result, the criteria in Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, strongly weigh against the approval of Holmes’ CON application. Subsection (8) -- Costs and Methods of Construction The parties stipulated that the costs (including equipment costs), methods of construction, and energy provision for VMC are reasonable; that the architectural drawings for the VMC satisfy the applicable code requirements; and that the construction schedule for VMC is reasonable. Thus, VMC satisfies the criteria in Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes. Subsection (9) -- Medicaid and Charity Care Holmes conditioned the approval of its application on VMC providing the following levels of Medicaid and charity care: At least 3.0 percent of inpatients at [VMC] will be covered by Medicaid and/or Medicaid HMOs. At least 2.3 percent of the gross revenues of [VMC] will be attributable to patients who meet the guidelines for charity care. The Medicaid and charity commitments are lower than the averages for Brevard County, but they are reasonable and attainable in light of the demographics of the area that will be served by VMC. Holmes has a history of providing considerable services to Medicaid and charity patients, both at its existing facilities and through community programs such as HOPE. Wuesthoff also has a history of providing considerable services to Medicaid and charity patients at its existing facilities and through community programs such as its free clinic in Cocoa. Wuesthoff-Rockledge is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider, which entitles it to a higher Medicaid reimbursement rate from the State as a “reward” for serving more than its fair share of Medicaid patients. Holmes' hospitals and Wuesthoff-Melbourne are not Medicaid disproportionate share providers. Wuesthoff-Melbourne has not been open long enough to qualify. The Wuesthoff hospitals have a contract with Well Care, which is the only Medicaid HMO in Brevard County. Holmes' hospitals do not have a contract with Well Care. On a dollar-amount basis, Holmes provides considerably more Medicaid and charity care than any other hospital in Brevard County, including the Wuesthoff hospitals. In fiscal year 2003, for example, Holmes’ Medicaid gross revenues were $53.7 million (as compared to $39.7 million for the Wuesthoff hospitals) and its charity care gross revenues were $27.8 million (as compared to $10.9 million for the Wuesthoff hospitals). The larger dollar-amount of Medicaid and charity care provided by Holmes is due, at least in part, to Holmes being almost twice the size of the Wuesthoff hospitals. On a percentage basis, Holmes provides approximately the same level of charity care as Wuesthoff-Rockledge, but it provides less Medicaid care than Wuesthoff-Rockledge. In fiscal year 2003, for example, 2.8 percent of Holmes’ gross revenue was charity care (as compared to 2.5 percent for Wuesthoff- Rockledge) and seven percent of Holmes’ patient days were attributable to Medicaid patients (as compared to 10.9 percent for Wuesthoff-Rockledge). According to Mr. Gregg, the Agency gives more weight to the percentage of Medicaid and charity care provided by a hospital than it does to the dollar amount of such services. However, Mr. Gregg acknowledged that Holmes satisfies the criteria in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, based upon its history of providing services to the medically indigent and its Medicaid and charity commitments at VMC. Holmes' satisfaction of the criteria in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, is not given great weight in this proceeding because the medically indigent in central and south Brevard County are currently being adequately served by the existing facilities and, more significantly, zip code 32940, in which VMC will be located and from which it is projected to draw the largest percentage of its patients, has a lower percentage of Medicaid/charity patients and a higher median household income than Brevard County as a whole. Subsection (10) -- Designation as a Gold Seal Nursing Homes The parties stipulated that Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, is not applicable because Holmes is not proposing the addition of any nursing home beds. Rule Criteria The Agency rules implicated in this case -- Florida Administrative Code Rules 59C-1.030(2) and 59C-1.038 -- do not contain any review criteria that are distinct from the statutory criteria discussed above. The “health care access criteria” and “priority considerations” in those rules focus primarily on the impact of the proposed facility on the medically indigent and other underserved population groups, as well as the applicant’s history of and/or commitment to serving those groups. Holmes satisfies those rule criteria, but they are not given great weight for the reasons discussed in Part F(1)(g) above. Impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff Hospitals As discussed above, VMC is projected to take patients that are currently being served by, or would otherwise be served by one of the existing hospitals in central or south Brevard County. Approximately 30 percent of VMC’s patient volume will come at the expense of the Wuesthoff hospitals. As a result of the projected population growth in central and south Brevard County over the planning horizon, the Wuesthoff hospitals are projected to have more admissions in 2010 than they currently have, whether or not VMC is approved. However, if VMC is approved, the Wuesthoff hospitals will have fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC. The health planners who testified at the hearing agreed that in determining the impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff hospitals it is appropriate to focus on the number of admissions that the Wuesthoff hospitals would have received but for the approval of VMC. The Agency’s precedent is in accord. See Wellington, supra, at 54, 109 n.13. Holmes’ health planner projected in the CON application that the approval of VMC will result in the Wuesthoff hospitals having 1,932 fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC, 998 at Wuesthoff-Rockledge and 934 at Wuesthoff-Melborune. Wuesthoff’s health planner projected that the approval of VMC will result in the Wuesthoff hospitals having 2,399 fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC, 1,541 at Wuestoff-Rockledge and 858 at Wuesthoff-Melborune. The projections of Wuesthoff’s health planner are more reasonable because they are based upon more current market share data and, as to Wuesthoff-Melbourne, the projections may even be understated because its market share is still growing in the areas targeted by VMC. On a contribution-margin basis, the lost admissions projected by Wuesthoff’s health planner translate into a loss of approximately $3.9 million of income at Wuesthoff-Rocklege and a loss of approximately $2 million of income at Wuesthoff- Melbourne. Using the lost admissions projected by Holmes’ health planner, the lost income at Wuesthoff-Rockledge would be $2.51 million and the lost income at Wuesthoff-Melbourne would be $2.15 million. Thus, impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff system would be a lost income of at least $4.66 million and, more likely, $5.9 million. A loss of income in that range would be significant and adverse to the Wuesthoff hospitals, both individually and collectively. Even though the Wuesthoff system has a net worth of approximately $70.95 million, its net income (i.e., “excess of revenues over expenses”) was only $971,000 in 2003 and $1.1 million in 2004. The system is still recovering from a “devastating” financial year in 1999 when it reported a loss of almost $12 million. Wuesthoff-Melbourne reported a $4.1 million net loss in 2003, and as of June 2004, it had yet to show a profit. The significance of the projected lost income at the Wuesthoff hospitals is tempered somewhat by the increased patient volume that the hospitals are projected to have in 2010 even if VMC is approved. However, the evidence was not persuasive that the increased patient volumes will necessarily result in greater profits at the Wuesthoff hospitals in 2010.13 The approval of VMC will also likely result in a loss of outpatient volume at the Wuesthoff hospitals. However, there is no credible evidence regarding the amount of outpatient volume that would be lost or the financial impact of the lost outpatient volume on Wuesthoff.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order denying Holmes’ application, CON 9759. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2005.
