The Issue The broad issue for resolution is whether FHFC's application meets the criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. FHFC contends that its application meets all the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S., and when (1)(k) of Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. is properly applied, a net need for at least 93 beds results. DHRS contends that a need for only 17 beds exists when the numerical need methodology is applied consistent with its current policy. DHRS did not present any evidence on any criteria other than need. The more specific issue to be determined in this proceeding is focused on the data for current and future population used to calculate numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. FHFC contends that the most recently released population estimates and projections should be used; DHRS asserts that the data available at the time of the application should be used. The parties' differing results in the net bed need (93 beds, as opposed to 17 beds) are based upon those separate theories for application of the rule.
Findings Of Fact FHFC currently operates a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County, on the northeastern outskirts of the City of Lakeland. Its application for an additional 60 beds was submitted in July 1985, in time for the July 1985 batching cycle. The application was deemed complete and was later denied in December 1985. The cover letter from HRS dated December 9, 1985, accompanying the State Agency Action Report, "SAAR", states the basis for denial: "There is insufficient need for the project proposed for this subdistrict at this time." Comments within the SAAR explain that the application of the methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. results in insufficient need for the project proposed by the applicant. "...Further, nursing home utilization within Polk County does not warrant the addition of nursing home beds at this time." (SAAR, P. 9, Petitioner's exhibit No. 2) Walter Eugene Nelson is a health planning consultant and former administrator of the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, the office responsible for administering the certificate of need program. He was tendered by Petitioner and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in health care planning and nursing home CON reviews. Mr. Nelson prepared a break-out of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. With one significant exception, his application of the methodology conforms to that of Herbert Straughn, HRS' expert witness. For the factors related to current and projected population (POPA, POPB, POSC and POSD), Mr. Nelson used data released from the Office of the Governor in January 1987. Mr. Straughn used data available as of the date of the application, that is, data released on July 1, 1985. Both parties agree that "current population" is that population at the time of application, July 1985. The projected horizon year population is three years later, or July 1988. Both parties agree that the source of the data is the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. Actual population census counts are made every ten years. During the decennium, population figures are extrapolated and updated through current data on utility hook-ups, building permits, employment, school enrollment and similar sources. When the data is applied to population in a future date, the resultant population count is called a "projection"; when the data is applied to population for a current or past date, the population count is called an "estimate". The Office of the Governor revises and updates its population estimates and projections every six months. Sometimes the figures are adjusted upward, sometimes downward. In the opinion of Eugene Nelson, the later-released figures are more accurate. In this instance, as to the figures released in July 1985, for the current (July 1985) population, the "estimates" were really projections since the data was collected in Spring 1985, before the relevant period. By January 1987, the estimates for the July 1985 population had the advantage of hindsight and the projections for the population in July 1988 had the advantage of data collected between July 1985 and January 1987. Herbert Straughn contends that the estimates and projections released in July 1985 are more appropriate. His explanation is best expressed in his own words: * * * [direct examination by Mr. Powell] Q What set of population figures did you use in your calculations? [response by Mr. Straughn] A I used the populations that were current at the time of the submission of the application, that being of July, 1985, and then the proper planning horizon of July, 1988. Q Why did you use those figures? A Because it more truly reflects the entire set of data that the Department sees fit to use on calculating bed need during or prior to, an administrative hearing. Q Why do you-all consider that to be more appropriate? A Because, well, because it more truly reflects the entire set of data by which to derive the methodology, that, you know, including the population, the occupancy, the number of licensed beds, and the number of approved beds. Q Well, just referring to the population, which Mr. Nelson has used a different set of figures, which set is the better set of figures to use, current as of the date of the application? A Well, I know it could be the current, or the date of the application, because then it truly reflects the input of the other set of data to derive the methodology to come up to the number of beds either needed, or not needed. Q Which figures do you consider more accurate, so far as population figures? A I would consider these that were current at the time that we did the analysis. Q Why? A Well, contrary, I think, to what Mr. Nelson says, that the closer that you can get to the population at the time you do the review, based on the ten-year span of when the population, or census, is taken, because it's taken every ten years, the further you get away from the base year, I think that the calculations that get further away from the base year, therefore, become less accurate. Q Would you say less reliable? A And less reliable. * * * (transcript, pgs. 89-90) As recently as September 1986, HRS used the most current available population data in its bed need methodology. Even now HRS still uses the approved bed figures available at the time the SAAR is signed, rather than at the time the application is submitted. Herbert Staughn's break-out of the methodology, Respondent's exhibit No. 1, reflects on its face the updated adjustment of another variable: "licensed beds" ("LBD" in the rule formula). His break-out initially included 1685 licensed beds, but shortly before the hearing this figure was adjusted downward to 1655 licensed beds after it was determined that Johnson Health Center's 30 beds were sheltered nursing home beds which are not applied in computing net need for community nursing home beds. Both parties apply an occupancy rate in the Polk County subdistrict of 84.9 percent. Herbert Straughn contends that this rate indicates lack of need, as it is less than an alleged minimum standard of 90 percent occupancy. This "minimum standard" is not described by rule or statute, nor was it adequately explained by the HRS expert. The CON review criteria listed in the SAAR correspond, in substance, to the review criteria in Section 381.494(b)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. The SAAR is used by the agency as a convenient check list to inform an applicant of the extent to which the criteria are satisfied. There are criteria, other than need, identified in the checklist. In its case FHFC presented affirmative testimony that each criteria was met by the applicant. The only evidence presented by HRS related to need as addressed in paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10, above. FHFC presented no evidence of special circumstances pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j. F.A.C. This provision applies in the event that the net bed allocation is zero. FHFC's break out of the bed need methodology yielded a net bed allocation of 93 beds for the planning horizon year 1988. HRS' break out yielded an allocation of 17 beds.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On or before July 15, 1985 Petitioner timely filed an application for a certificate of need (CON No. 4179) to add 42 beds to an existing nursing home in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner's application was denied by Respondent, subject to the right to a hearing, by letter dated December 6, 1985 for the sole stated reason that: Application of Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to Lee County shows no need for additional beds in the County through 1988. The letter further states that the "basis of the above decision" is contained in the State Agency Action Report. Petitioner timely sought a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing concerning Respondent's notice of its intention to deny this application. The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation on December 3, 1986 which states that the only statutory criteria at issue in this proceeding are those contained in Sections 381.494(6)(c)1, 2 and 12, as well as the criterion at Section 381.494(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, insofar as it relates to the need for the proposed additional nursing home beds. Further, the parties stipulated that the only rule criteria at issue are found at Rules 10-5.11(1), (3) and (6), as well as the criterion at Rule 10-5.11(5), Florida Administrative Code, insofar as the long-term financial feasibility of the project is related to the need for the services being proposed. It is readily apparent that the parties have stipulated to issues in this proceeding which may be beyond the scope of the sole reason for denial of this CON application set forth in Respondent's letter of December 6, 1985. The parties' stipulation has been accepted, however, and will therefore define the issues to be determined in this case. Petitioner has an existing 78 bed nursing home in the vicinity of Ft. Myers, Florida. This is located in Respondent's District 8, Subdistrict Lee- County. Previously, Petitioner received approval to construct 120 beds at this facility but was only licensed to use 78 beds. In fact, Petitioner has already constructed, equipped and furnished the additional 42 beds, and now seeks approval to use these beds. No additional capital expenditures would be necessary to place these beds in service. The methodology for calculating need for community nursing home beds is set forth in Rule 10-5.l1(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code. As more particularly set forth in Findings of Fact 7 through 23, this methodology can be summarized as follows: Determine the planning horizon to which an application is directed. Determine the district's age adjusted number of beds in the horizon year by applying the current bed rates for population age groups 65-74 and 75 + to the district's horizon year population. Determine the gross allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by multiplying the district's age adjusted number of beds by the ratio of licensed beds in the subdistrict to licensed beds in the district, and also by the ratio of the average occupancy rate in the subdistrict to .90. For purposes of this calculation in this case, licensed beds are determined as of June 1, 1985 and occupancy rates are those that existed from October, 1984 to March, 1985. Determine the net allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by subtracting the total number of licensed beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing plus 90 percent of approved beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing from the subdistrict gross allocation. The first step in calculating need pursuant to Respondent's methodology set forth in Rule l0-5.11(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code, is to establish a planning horizon. Subparagraph (b) of the rule states: the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds three years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10. (Emphasis supplied.) The Respondent interprets this to mean that the planning horizon is established by counting three years into the future from the filing deadline, established by rule, for a particular application. This is a reasonable interpretation and is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule. Thus, in this case the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is addressed is July 15, 1988. The next step in applying the need methodology is to determine what is meant by "current population" as that term is used in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)2. The Respondent interprets this to mean the population current on the application filing deadline which in this case was July 15, 1985. This is also a reasonable construction of the rule, and is therefore accepted. However, the Respondent further contends that the "current population" estimates to be used in applying the rule methodology are those that were available from the Office of the Governor when this application was submitted, and that more recent updates of those estimates should not be considered. Since all population estimates and projections are only approximations, rather than actual counts, it is more reasonable to use updated revisions of "current population" which may be available at the time of hearing. These are still estimates of the population current as of the date an application is filed (in this case July, 1985), but they can reasonably be expected to be more accurate than the prior estimate. In the same manner, estimates of the planning horizon year population (July, 1988) available at the time of hearing should also be used rather than July, 1985 estimates of that population. Respondent's interpretation which is hereby rejected and which would require the use of population estimates available when the application was submitted, excluding all revisions and updates, is not set forth by rule. Additionally, Respondent offered only the testimony of its consultant, Joyce Farr, to explicate this "incipient policy" but she was neither involved in, nor part of, the decision making process which lead to this announced policy. Further, the position advocated by Farr is at variance with Respondent's prior application and interpretation of its rule, and is contrary to the interpretation used when Petitioner submitted this application. At the time of hearing, Farr did not know of any Final Order of Respondent, nor was any policy memoranda introduced, which set forth and adopted the interpretation she espoused as Respondent's policy. The only explanation offered for her interpretation was that she had been told by her supervisor that Respondent would take this position in all cases as a result of the Recommended Order in Case Number 86-0051, dated October 10, 1986, but not yet acted upon by Respondent at the time of hearing. No other evidence was presented by Respondent in support of Farr's interpretation, or to otherwise explicate this non-rule policy. Before applying the need methodology rule, a determination must also be made as to how "occupancy rates" will be measured, as used in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)4. As recently as May 8, 1986, Respondent's Administrator of Community Medical Facilities concurred in an interpretive memo prepared by Reid Jaffe, consultant supervisor, which indicated that at the time of hearing the latest available six months occupancy rates would be used. Yet, at hearing Joyce Farr again announced a change of policy to freeze everything, including occupancy rates, to the time of the original application. Under this interpretation, "occupancy rate" in this case would be based on the six months' data for October, 1984 through March, 1985. Petitioners urge the use of "occupancy rate" data from April, 1986 to September, 1986, the latest six months' occupancy data available at the time of hearing. The interpretation announced by Farr at hearing is reasonable, and although in apparent conflict with the interpretive memo dated May 8, 1986, it is consistent with the plain meaning of Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 which requires the review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle (in this case July, 1985) to "be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle" (October, 1984 through March, 1985). Petitioner's position regarding the data to be used in determining "occupancy rate" is therefore rejected as contrary to, and inconsistent with, the plain meaning of the applicable rule. Next, the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation must be determined. The district licensed bed figure is explained by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and- LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Petitioner urges that licensed beds be based on June, 1986 data and Respondent urges data from June 1, 1985. Petitioner's position is again contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, and is therefore rejected. For purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4, LB and LBD are determined as of June 1, 1985. Petitioner contends that its 78 community nursing home beds previously authorized by CON 1616 were licensed on May 31, 1985, and should therefore be counted as "licensed beds." Respondent's witness testified that these beds were actually licensed on June 3, 1985, and therefore should not be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of applying subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation in this case. Petitioner has the burden of proof, but has not offered competent substantial evidence to support its position. It has not established that these 78 beds should be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 since it has not been established that they were actually licensed on or before June 1, 1985. The provisions of Rule l0-5.1l(21)(b)1-4 and 7 can therefore be applied to calculate gross bed need for Lee County using July 15, 1988 as the applicable planning horizon, updated estimates of "current population" for July 15, 1985 and for the planning horizon which were introduced by Petitioner, the "occupancy rate" as determined by data from October, 1984 through March, 1985 which was introduced through exhibit by Respondent, and the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 and the Lee County subdistrict on June l, 1985, as also introduced through exhibit by Respondent. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive BA, the current bed rate for the age group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph (b)2 of Rule 10-5.11(21) as follows: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The district licensed bed figure (LB) is then defined by subparagraph (b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications - for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)2 to this case produces the following calculation: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + (6 x 79,661) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + 477,966) BA = 4,005 / 609,608 BA = .0065698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the current bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)3, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0065698 BB = .0394188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)1 as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future . . . Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)1 to this case produces the following calculation: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) A = (142,791 x .0065698 + (90,467 x .0394188) A = 938.10831 + 3,566.1006 A = 4504 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community home beds" (gross bed need in this case). This calculation is defined by subparagraph (b)4 as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle . . . . The subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is defined, consistently with LB, by subparagraph (b)7, supra. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)4 to this case produces a gross need in July 1988 of beds, as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA = 4504 x (808/4005) x (.9689/.90) SA = 4504 x .20174 x 1.0766 SA = 978. The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph (b)9, this need is derived as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant depart- mental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under sub- paragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8). . . (Emphasis added.) In order to apply subparagraph (b)9 and thereby determine "net" need, it is necessary to decide on what date the licensed bed inventory should be calculated. Respondent asserts that "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraph (b)9 is the same as LB and LBD used in subparagraph (b)2 and 4, as defined in (b)7. The rule, however, is silent as to how licensed bed inventory should be calculated for purposes of subparagraph (b)8. Respondent did not explicate the reasons for its interpretation. Respondent's position that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory for subparagraph (b)9 ignores not only the clear link between (b)7 and the gross need methodology, but also the plain language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9 which is to derive a realistic estimate of net (or actual) need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles will serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it is only reasonable to include these beds when calculating net need. It would be unreasonable not to count any beds licensed or approved after June 1, 1985 in the calculation of net need. In fact, subparagraph (b)9 itself addresses "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not just beds that existed on June 1 1985. Petitioner's 78 beds should therefore be counted as "licensed" for purposes of applying the net need methodology calculation in subparagraph (b)9 of Rule 10-5.11(21), and the 143 beds reserved pursuant to the decision in-Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) should be counted as "approved beds". Net need is then calculated under subparagraph (b)8 as follows: Subdistrict allocation for Lee County = 978 Less Licensed beds = 996 Less 90 percent of 143 approved beds = 129 Surplus in Lee County = 148 Therefore, according to Respondent's need methodology as established in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) there is a surplus of beds in Lee County for the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is directed. Petitioner has not established that there is a need for the beds sought in CON 4179 under review in this case. The source in the record of the data used in the above calculations is as follows: LB, LBD, OR - Respondent's Exhibits 1,2 POPC, POPD, POPA, POPS - Petitioner's Exhibit 4 It has not been established that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but are unable to access services currently available. The need for services which have been denied has not been documented by attending physicians' plans of care or orders, or assessments by either Respondent or attending physicians, as required by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10. Petitioner has not established that a geographic or economic accessibility problem exists in Lee County which would warrant approval of this application notwithstanding the lack of need under the methodology of Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4179. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0047 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate Finding of Fact. 4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 6-23. Rejected as simply a quote from an exhibit and not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-11 Rejected in Findings of Fact 6-23. 12-19 Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 20 Rejected in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 21-22 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate finding of fact. 25-32 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 33-36 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and statement of position rather than a finding of fact; otherwise cumulative and unnecessary. 37-38 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 39-44 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 45-47 Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, but rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Fl 32314-6507 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 28, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating nursing home administrators licensed by the Board of Nursing Home Administrators to practice in Florida. Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes (1997). AHCA is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (1997). Among its duties, AHCA is required to inspect nursing homes every 15 months "to determine compliance by the licensee with statutes, and with rules promulgated under the provisions of those statutes, governing minimum standards of construction, quality and adequacy of care, and rights of residents." Section 400.19(2), Florida Statutes (1997). Recertification surveys are conducted each 9-to-15 months, are unannounced, and are conducted for both federal certification and Florida nursing home rating and licensure purposes. The surveys are conducted by a team of surveyors each of whom must pass an examination entitled the Surveyor's Minimum Qualification Test before being allowed to participate as an independent member of a survey team. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. DePonte was a Florida-licensed nursing home administrator, having been licensed in Florida for a period in excess of 28 years. Ms. DePonte's license has never been suspended, revoked, or otherwise sanctioned. Ms. DePonte was employed as the Executive Director/Administrator of Darcy Hall of Life Care ("Darcy Hall") in West Palm Beach, Florida, from July 1989 until September 4, 1998. Darcy Hall is a 220-bed nursing home that was built in 1960 as a 160-bed nursing home; 60 beds were added in 1972, making Darcy Hall one of the oldest and largest nursing homes in Palm Beach County, Florida. Darcy Hall received superior ratings from AHCA for six of the nine years Ms. DePonte was the Executive Director/Administrator, and Darcy Hall received a deficiency-free recertification survey in 1996, during Ms. DePonte's tenure. From July 20 through 24, 1998, an unannounced recertification survey was conducted at Darcy Hall. The survey team identified a number of deficiencies, which deficiencies were itemized in the survey report, commonly referred to as a "Form 2567."4 In an action unrelated to the present proceeding, Darcy Hall challenged the results of the survey, and that challenge was resolved through a settlement agreement.5 The following were observed by the surveyors who inspected Darcy Hall during the July 1998 recertification survey: Call lights were "out of reach" of several residents when the rooms in one wing of the facility were inspected in the pre-dawn hours of July 23, 1998. A totally dependent middle-aged person with multiple schlerosis could not use the pneumatic call light she had been given, because it was not in her hand but was close to her arm, where she was unable to reach it. The nurses' station was located too far away from the resident's room for the resident to be heard at the station if she needed help. An elderly female resident was sitting in a wheelchair outside the facility, about one-half hour after lunch. The resident was in the garden area, close to the nurse's station. The resident, who could understand but not express herself, had lost control of her bladder. A totally dependent resident whose nose was draining was sitting in a wheelchair, with the call light, tissues, and water out of reach. An elderly resident was wearing clothing with what appeared to be burn marks from a cigarette on the front. Dust had accumulated on the filter of an oxygen concentrator. Ceiling tiles were missing from several areas in the facility; some of the rooms contained chipped furniture; a baseboard under an air conditioner was loose; a ceiling tile in a bathroom had a brownish stain; and dust had accumulated in the corners of a bathroom. A geri-chair6 had peeling tape and a black-brown stain on the seat, which the surveyor attributed to a resident becoming incontinent at some point. Approximately 50 ants were found in and around an empty juice cup sitting on a bedside table. Two treatment carts were stained with dried liquid and had an accumulation of debris in the crevices. Hand cranks were protruding from the foot of several beds. Prescription medications were found in the bedside table of one resident; zinc oxide was found on the top of the bedside table of another resident; and a bottle of Caladryl was found on top of the bedside table of a third resident. No physician's orders for these medications were found in the residents' clinical records. A cup left sitting on a bedside table in a room whose residents were cognitively impaired contained a white, thick, creamy ointment. A supply room containing pump sets with pins, syringes, tubing, catheter tips, and special nutritional supplements was found unlocked at approximately 9:00 a.m. on July 22, 1998. During a two-hour period one morning, a nurse dispensed medications to residents by opening the medication and putting the medicine in her bare hands before placing it into a cup and handing it to the resident. The temperature in the medication storage refrigerator was six degrees below the minimum acceptable temperature. The staff member washing pots in the facility's three pot sink obtained from the chemical storeroom a gallon jug of what he thought was dish sanitizer; the chemical was actually Sysco Fry and Grill Cleaner. The fry and grill cleaner was used in the sink in place of sanitizer from 9:00 a.m. on July 22, 1998, until approximately 1:00 p.m. that day, when the error was discovered by a surveyor. All of the pots, pans, and cooking and storage wares were re-washed and sanitized. The residents were monitored for 24 hours, and only one resident had intestinal distress, the source of which was undetermined. During the time that all of the pots and pans were being re-washed and sanitized, a cook washed a pot so that she could begin cooking the soup for the evening meal. She failed to sanitize the pot. Cold food on the tray line in the dining room was not maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below; applesauce was at 51 degrees, pear halves were at 66.2 degrees, whole milk was at 55.5 degrees, chocolate milk was at 42.8 degrees, and cranberry juice was at 55.2 degrees. All of the items noted in paragraph 7 were identified in the Form 2567 as Class III deficiencies, except for the deficiencies cited regarding the incontinent resident who was sitting outside in the garden area after lunch and the resident who was wearing clothing with cigarette burns on the front, which were designated Class II deficiencies. A Class II deficiency is one that the agency determines has "a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents." Section 400.23(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). A Class III deficiency is one that the agency determines has "an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents." Section 400.23(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). As the Executive Director/Administrator of Darcy Hall, Ms. DePonte was responsible for overseeing all operations of the facility, for hiring and firing employees, and for ensuring compliance with all government regulations. At the time of the survey, Darcy Hall employed a dietician, a dietary technician, and a certified dietary manager on staff, who were responsible for running the dietary department. A trained head of maintenance and environmental services, who supervised several full-time employees, and a head of housekeeping services were on staff. Darcy Hall employed two social workers, who were supervised by a director of social services. Darcy Hall was also staffed with a full complement of trained registered nurses, licensed nurses, and certified nurse assistants, who were supervised by a Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing. It was Ms. DePonte's practice at Darcy Hall not to use nurses provided on a temporary basis by a registry, and all of the nurses employed at Darcy Hall during her time there were employees of the facility. Darcy Hall had written policies and procedures governing the operation of the facility, which were kept both in Ms. DePonte's office and at each unit on the floor. Darcy Hall employed a full-time in-service training coordinator, and Ms. DePonte arranged for outside consultants to conduct in-service training seminars for the staff. Ms. DePonte also made sure that the staff was apprised of any changes in state law and regulations. In-service training was also scheduled whenever Ms. DePonte became aware of an on-going problem. Ms. DePonte personally monitored the facility regularly. Each morning, the first thing she did was visit each nurses' station to determine the staffing levels for the day. She stopped and spoke with residents and family members in the hall, and she entered some of the residents' rooms. She spoke daily with the professional staff of the dietary department and checked with housekeeping and maintenance to make sure there was adequate staff. She also would let the maintenance department know of any problems she found during her morning rounds and would follow up each day to make sure the problems had been corrected. Each afternoon, around 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m., after the change of shift, Ms. DePonte would again visit each nurses' station to follow-up on any issues that had arisen during the day. In addition to personally monitoring the floor twice each day, Ms. DePonte assigned responsibility for monitoring a particular area of the facility to each department head. The department heads were expected to go through their assigned areas at least twice a day to make sure, among other things, that the residents' needs were being met, that call bells were answered timely, that call bells were within reach of residents, and that bed cranks were underneath the beds. Any maintenance problems were also noted. Any problems observed by the department heads were to be reported. Ms. DePonte's policy was to see that problems were addressed within 24 hours. It was the policy at Darcy Hall to discipline staff members who were observed violating an established policy or procedure in accordance with the three-point disciplinary program in place at Darcy Hall. Ms. DePonte had in place at Darcy Hall policies and procedures implementing the requirement that call lights be accessible to residents. The policy required that call lights be positioned within reach of the residents when they were in bed, and the staff was trained to place the call light in accordance with the policy. In addition, Ms. DePonte had every wheelchair equipped with a bell so that the resident could ring the bell if the resident needed help and the call light was out of reach, and there were call lights in all of the residents' bathrooms. As Ms. DePonte made her rounds, she would check the rooms of certain residents to make sure their call lights were accessible. It is not, however, possible to ensure that call lights are within arm's reach of each resident at all times. Ms. DePonte had in place policies and procedures at Darcy Hall regarding the need for staff to recognize and respect the dignity of its residents. Staff training was on-going, and the staff were continually made aware of the residents' rights. Darcy Hall had in place policies and procedures regarding the placement of hand cranks for the residents' beds that required that the staff put away any bed crank they saw sticking out from a bed. Protruding hand cranks were on-going problems because often residents and/or family members would adjust the beds and fail to remove the cranks and place them under the beds. A cleaning schedule was in place for oxygen concentrators and other equipment used in the facility, and cleaning was to be done on a routine basis. Darcy Hall had an on-going program to replace old and worn materials and equipment. Some of the equipment was stained but this did not mean the equipment was not clean. Pursuant to the policy and procedure in place at Darcy Hall during Ms. DePonte's tenure as administrator, nurses were not allowed to dispense medications by placing the pills into their bare hands prior to giving them to residents. Much of the chipped furniture noted in the Form 2567 was furniture belonging to the residents and not furniture owned by Darcy Hall. Because Darcy Hall is an older facility, much needed to be done to maintain the facility. The number of ceiling tiles that were stained constituted a very small percentage of the total number of ceiling tiles in the facility, and ceiling tiles were missing in some places because a new roof was being installed. The baseboard that was coming apart from the wall was located behind an air conditioning unit that was being repaired at the time of the survey. Replacement of ceiling tiles and baseboards was on-going at Darcy Hall. Darcy Hall had a regular extermination service and, if insects were found in the facility, the exterminator would be called immediately and would take care of the problem. The deficiencies identified in the Form 2567 prepared after the July 1998 recertification survey were corrected by September 1, 1998, the time specified by AHCA in the Form 2567. Ms. DePonte left Darcy Hall on September 4, 1998, to take a job as administrator at another nursing home. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the "deficiencies" at Darcy Hall identified by its witnesses in this proceeding were attributable to the negligence, incompetence, or misconduct of Ms. DePonte.7 The position reiterated by the Department's witnesses is that a nursing home administrator is strictly liable for all deficiencies cited on a Form 2567 and that her license is subject to discipline simply because deficiencies were found. The Department has failed to present evidence to establish with the requisite degree of certainty any lack of competence, misconduct, or act or omission on Ms. DePonte's part that caused the deficiencies. Indeed, the Department did not controvert the evidence presented by Ms. DePonte that there were policies and procedures governing the day-to-day operation of Darcy Hall in place, that in-service training was provided to the staff with respect to the policies and procedures on a regular and an as- needed basis, or that Ms. DePonte and her department heads regularly monitored the performance of the staff and their adherence to the policies and procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Eugenia DePonte. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 30th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 14, 1983, seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida. /1 The proposed project carries an estimated cost of $3,530,000. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action on February 21, 1984, in the form of a state agency action report in which it advised petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The report stated in part that "(e)xisting and approved bed capacity in Manatee County... is sufficient to satisfy projected need for 1986," that 240 nursing home beds had just been approved for the county, and when added to the existing nursing home supply, would "maintain a reasonable subdistrict occupancy level through 1986 and satisfy the need for additional beds in Manatee County." The service area in which FCC proposes to construct its new facility is the Manatee County subdistrict of HRS District 6. That district contains five counties, including Manatee. In order to determine need, HRS has adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, which contains a formula (or methodology) for determining need at both the district and subdistrict level. Under that formula, HRS is required to utilize the "most recent 6 month nursing home utilization in the subdistrict." In this regard, HRS prepares on an on- going basis an internal document entitled "Quarterly Report" which contains the latest available data over a six-month period. In this proceeding, HRS used a report containing data for the period October, 1983, through March, 1984. This was the most current and complete available data at the time of hearing. According to the methodology in Rule 10-5.11(21), there is a gross need in District 6 for 7,336 nursing home beds. At the same time, there are presently 4,910 licensed and 960 approved beds in the District. Therefore, this results in a district-wide shortage of 1,466 nursing home beds through the year 1987, which is the three year planning horizon used by HRS in determining need. Evidenced introduced by HRS indicated there are presently 765 licensed and 240 approved beds in Manatee County. Under the rule, the methodology reflects a need for 1,518 beds, or a subdistrict deficiency of 513 beds through the year 1987. But even if beds are mathematically required under the formula at the subdistrict level, the rule requires that the current utilization of existing facilities be at least 85 percent, and the prospective utilization rate exceed 80 percent. If they do not, no additional beds may be authorized. The current utilization rate in Manatee County is 91.7 percent which meets the 85 percent threshold. However, the prospective utilization rate for the existing and approved operating nursing homes within the county is 69.8 percent, or substantially less than the minimum threshold of 80 percent called for by the rule. If petitioner's proposed beds are added to the calculation, the prospective utilization rate drops to 62.9 percent, or far below the requisite minimum rate. Therefore, there is no need for additional beds in Manatee County. FCC points out that special circumstances are present which justify a deviation from the rule. These include the allocation under the rule of only 15 percent of the district beds to Manatee County even though 21 percent of the elderly population (over 65 years) resides within the county, and the fact that Manatee has the highest percentage of people over 75 years of age of any county within the district. FCC also contends that the county has more persons in poverty than the statewide average, and that it will dedicate some 50 percent of its beds to Medicaid patients if the application is approved. However, these factors are taken into account in the formula devised by HRS, and do not constitute special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the need calculation encompassed in the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 28th day of January, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation which essentially sets forth the following facts contained in paragraphs 1 through 9: The Intervenors Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "Beverly"), and Provincial House of Florida (hereafter "Provincial House"), filed their applications for certificates of need on March 18, 1981, and January 28, 1981, respectively. At the time Beverly and Provincial House filed their applications for 120-bed nursing home facilities, they were batched together with Health Care Management, Inc. (hereafter "Health Care"). Shortly thereafter, Health Care was granted a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility and Beverly's and Provincial House's applications were denied on July 8, 1981, and June 3, 1981, respectively. Beverly and Provincial House timely filed petitions with the Division of Administrative Hearings contesting the denial of their respective applications. By Stipulation dated December 29, 1981, Beverly and Provincial House were granted certificates of need which gave each the right to construct a 96- bed nursing home facility. This Stipulation was later amended on February 21, 1982, to authorize construction of two 72-bed nursing homes in Lee County, Florida. Based upon the new 1982 Health Systems Plan for Lee County, an additional 143 beds were determined to be needed for Lee County for the year 1985. Neither Beverly nor Provincial House resubmitted their applications when the new bed need was established. Rather, as part of the settlement in Provincial House, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 81-1793, and Beverly Enterprises v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 81-2037, the certificates of need were granted based upon receipt of ". . . updated population figures which demonstrated additional need for nursing home beds in the County." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. At the time the Department entered into the Stipulation with Beverly and Provincial House, it did not consider Gulf Court's then pending application. The sole reason the certificate of need was denied to Gulf Court Nursing Center on March 30, 1982, was that there were no longer beds available and there was no need as a direct result of granting the two certificates of need to Beverly and Provincial House. Since Gulf Court's application was never simultaneously reviewed or considered by the Department with either Beverly or Provincial House's applications, a comparative hearing was not held in this case. Gulf Court, Beverly and Provincial House all meet the criteria for issuance of a certificate as set forth in Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent Department routinely awards certificates of need on a first-come, first-serve basis to applicants denied certificates due to a lack of need in a previous cycle, who file Chapter 120 appeals, without reviewing pending applications filed in the current cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that, under the circumstances presented in this case, Gulf Court is entitled to a comparative and competitive review with Provincial House and Beverly Enterprises, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Dent, Jr., Esquire DENT PFLUGNER ROSIER AND HENDRICKS 2 North Tuttle Avenue Sarasota, Florida 33577 Steven Huss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 G. Boone, Esquire Susan Lee Stockham, Esquire 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 32484 Alicia Jacobs, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The general issue is whether Health Quest is entitled to a Certificate of Need for nursing home beds in Seminole County for the July 1985 batching cycle. The more limited issues on which this case focused are whether July 1985, or July 1987, is the appropriate release date for population data; whether the base period for "current population" is January 1985, or July 1985; and whether the applicant could, at the final hearing, scale down its request for beds to a number substantially less than the 120 beds requested in its July 1985 application.
Findings Of Fact Health Quest Corporation maintains its home office in South Bend, Indiana. As described by its Vice-President for Planning, the company is a moderately-sized, long-term care and assisted living company. Health Quest has been in existence since 1969, under its President and CEO, Larry Garratoni. The Company has approximately twelve facilities, including three Florida facilities: a 120-bed freestanding nursing home, a 107- bed nursing home with 80 attached assisted living units, and a facility in Sarasota with 300 retirement units. In July 1985, Health Quest filed its application for a new 120-bed nursing home in Seminole County, HRS District VII. After an exchange of correspondence and information relating to omissions to the application, the application was deemed complete effective September 30, 1985, and the application was denied on December 17, 1985. At the final hearing, Health Quest presented two exhibits with updated information to support its original 120-bed application, and updated information to support a scaled-down 60-bed Certificate of Need. These two exhibits, Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11, were admitted over HRS objection that they constituted amendments to the completed application, prohibited by HRS Rule 10- 5.008(3), Florida Administrative Code. Health Quest argued that the updates were intended to present a more current description of the cost structure and operating structure that Health Quest would be using, and to support partial approval of the original application. The relevance of these documents is addressed in my conclusions of law, below. The basis for HRS' denial of the Health Quest original application is, "... insufficient need for an additional 120 bed nursing home in the subdistrict." (Petitioner's No. 7) A determination of need in this case depends largely upon the proper application of the methodology described in HRS Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, which provides, in pertinent part: Community Nursing Home Beds. A community nursing home bed is a nursing home bed not located within a life care facility certified under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in sub- paragraphs (k)2., 3., and 4., of this rule. Need Methodology. In addition to other relevant statutory and rule criteria to be used in considering the allocation of new or additional community nursing home beds, the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years in the future according to the methodology specified under Sub-subparagraphs through j. This methodology provides for adjustments to current community nursing home bed rates based upon expected changes in the proportion of district residents age 75+ and the current utilization of community nursing home beds in the subdistricts designated by local health councils. In districts with a high proportion of elderly residents living in poverty, the methodology specifies a minimum bed rate. A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: A is the district's age- adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made. POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. BA is the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district. BB is the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district. BA = LB/(POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. BB 6 x BA SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: SA is the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds. LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of appli- cations submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March pre- ceeding that cycle; appli- cations submitted for the January batching cycle shall be based upon occu- pancy rate data for the months of April through September proceeding the cycle. For the purposes of this rule, the occupancy data to be considered shall be that collected by the Department's Office of Health Planning and Development or a contractor assigned to collect the data. * * * For purposes of applying the methodology, the parties have agreed to the following factors: Occupancy rate (OR) is .9366. Licensed beds in the subdistrict (LBD) is 725. The number of approved beds in the subdistrict is 179 Licensed beds in the district (LB) is 4425. July 1988 is the planning horizon. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, Prehearing Stipulation filed 11/13/87). While the parties have not agreed which figures are applicable, they have stipulated to the population figures for the following periods: (1) January 1, 1988, as of July 1, 1985: Pop A: 93,987 Pop B: 56,612 (2) July 1, 1985, as of July 1, 1985: Pop C: 96,295 Pop D: 58,307 (3) July 1, 1988, as of July 1, 1985: Pop A: 110,788 Pop B: 69,020 (4) January 1, 1985, as of August 1987: Pop C: 96,741 Pop D: 57,545 (5) July 1, 1985, as of August 1987: Pop C: 100, 276 Pop D: 60,133 (6) July 1, 1988, as of August 1987: Pop A: 119, 915 Pop B: 75,704 (Prehearing Stipulation filed 11/13/87) The source of the population figures are the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. These are prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida and are released periodically. Because better data is available, the July 1987 releases of estimates and projections is more accurate than the July 1985 releases of estimates and projections. The rule does not specify which version must be used. HRS relied on the July 1985 releases that were available at the time the application was first received. HRS did not present evidence to support that policy in this proceeding. HRS does include updated data for other factors in the methodology, for example, occupancy rate and number of licensed beds. Health Quest advocates the use of the July 1987 releases that were available at the time of hearing and presented competent expert testimony from a demographer to support its position. The parties also disagree on the base period for current population, ages 65-74 and 75+ (POPC and POPD). With the exception of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' Certificate of Need review staff have consistently applied a three year planning horizon; that is, the base period is considered the date of the batching cycle (here, July 1985). It appears that in its state agency action report, HRS originally used January 1985 as the current population base period. HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, a separate office within the agency, uses a base period six months prior to the application date in its published semiannual bed need reports. Health Quest advocates use of the earlier base period and argues that it is consistent with good health planning because the earlier period is the midpoint of the six-month occupancy period prescribed by the rule. The rule does not explicitly state that current population is determined as of the batching cycle, but the context strongly supports that interpretation, as discussed in the conclusions of law. Health Quest submitted four iterations of the methodology, including one utilizing the July 1985 base population, a July 1987 release date, and the other values stipulated by the parties. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12). This is adopted as follows, with a resulting bed need of 53.58: NET BED ALLOCATION: SEMINOLE COUNTY, 7/88 PLANNING HORIZON (Using 7/85 base population and the 7/87 population set) 1. BA = LB + 4425 POPC + (6 X POPD) 100,276 + (6 x 60,133) = 4,425 = 9.597 Per 1000 461,074 2. BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 9.597 = 57.582 Per 1000 3. A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (119,915 x 9.597/K) + (75,704 x 57.582/K) = 1,150.82 + 4,359.19 = 5,510.01 4. SA = A x LBD X OR = 5,510.01 x 725 LB .90 4,425 x 0.9366 x 939.48 .90 5. Net Bed Allocation SA - (LBD + (AB x .90) = 939.48 - [725 + (179 x .90)] = 939.48 - 886.10 53.38 The Local Health Council of East Central Florida (District VII,) has adopted a standard that the minimum size of new nursing homes should be 120 beds in all counties, except Osceola, where the minimum size should be 60 beds. (Petitioner's Exhibit 26). Health Quest's expert conceded that a 120-bed home is more efficient to operate. (Transcript, p. 77) It is a generally accepted standard that nursing home units should be organized in groups of 60 beds. Health Quest's expert urged that if a need for 54 beds is found, the approved number should be rounded up to 60 beds. With the exception of need and the above-mentioned policy of the District Health Council, Health Quest's proposed facility (both 120-bed and 60- bed version) meets the applicable criteria for Certificate of Need approval, including quality of care and financial feasibility. In advance of hearing, the parties stipulated that most non-need related criteria were met. (Prehearing stipulations filed 11/13/87 and 11/16/87). In addition, .Health Quest presented perfunctory, unrebutted testimony with regard to the facility's compliance with statutory and rule criteria. Approval of either a 60-bed or 120-bed new nursing home in Seminole County would result in a surplus of beds for the July 1988 planning horizon. Health Quest did not present evidence of special circumstances to justify approval of additional beds, as provided in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that Health Quest's application for Certification of Need for nursing home beds in Seminole County be denied. that the applications by R. H. Little and Gulf South be dismissed, in accordance with those parties' earlier notices of voluntary dismissal. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-0136, 86-0355, 86-0638 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Addressed in paragraph's 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. 13-14. Rejected as unnecessary 15-16. Adopted in paragraph 4. 17-72. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraph 7 and 8. 75-76. Adopted in paragraph 10. 78-80. Adopted in paragraph 7. 81-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and contrary to the rule. Adopted in paragraph 11, except for the conclusion relating to "rounding-up." Rejected as unnecessary. 86-93. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 94. Rejected as argument. 95-96. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the rule. Rejected as irrelevant. Further, while HRS has used the 3-1/2 year horizon in a single batching cycle, that horizon in CON review has not been accepted by HRS. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as contrary to the rule. However, the sentence regarding need calculation in the SAAR is adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as cumulative and irrelevant. 105-170. Rejected as unnecessary. That Health Quest meets the criteria except those related to need is adopted in summary, in paragraph 14. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and contrary to the rule. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant, except as addressed in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether a certificate of need for an additional 60 nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida, in July, 1990, should be granted to any of the four competing certificate of need applicants in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact Procedural. Arbor, Health Quest, HCR, Trecor and fourteen other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Sarasota County. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need application within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department completed its State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle on February 19, 1988. The State Agency Action Report relevant to these cases was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. The Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by Trecor and to deny all other applications. Eleven of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioner's except the three Petitioners in these cases withdrew their Petitions. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for or nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida. Arbor. Arbor is a nursing home company that designs, develops, constructs and operates nursing homes. Arbor's corporate headquarters are located in Lima, Ohio. Arbor owns and operates eighteen nursing home and adult congregate living facilities comprising approximately 2,218 beds. In Florida, Arbor owns Lake Highlands Nursing and Retirement Center in Clermont, The Village at Brandon, and The Village at Countryside. In Florida, Arbor is currently developing certificate of need approved facilities in Clay, Orange, Polk, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. Arbor formed Sarasota Health Center, Inc., to hold the certificate of need it is seeking in this proceeding. Although this corporation is in form the applicant, Arbor is in substance the applicant in these proceedings. Health Quest. Health Quest is an Indiana corporation which has been in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes and retirement housing facilities for approximately twenty years. Health Quest currently operates eleven nursing centers and three retirement housing developments. In Florida, Health Quest operates three nursing centers and two retirement housing developments. The nursing centers are located in Sarasota, Jacksonville and Boca Raton, Florida. The Jacksonville center is located adjacent to, and is operated in conjunction with, a retirement facility. The facility located in Sarasota is Regents Park of Sarasota (hereinafter referred to as "Regents Park"), a 53-bed sheltered nursing center. Regents Park is located at Lake Pointe Woods, a Health Quest retirement community, which includes 212 independent living apartments and 110 assisted living apartments. The assisted living apartments qualify as an adult congregate living facility. The 53 sheltered nursing home beds are authorized as part of a living care complex pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Health Quest has received approval from the Department to locate 60 nursing home beds, which Health Quest has received as part of a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds, at Regents Park. The other 120 approved nursing home beds will be located at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County by Health Quest. Health Quest also has two other projects under construction in Florida: a new facility in Winter Park, Florida, and a new facility in Sunrise, Florida. HCR. HCR is a corporation engaging in the business of designing, developing, constructing and operating nursing homes and related facilities. HCR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Owens Illinois Corporation. HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. 24 HCR owns and operates ten nursing homes in Florida, including Kensington Manor, a 147-bed nursing center located in Sarasota County, Florida. HCR also has ten other projects being developed in Florida. Trecor. Trecor is a Florida corporation formed to engage in the business of developing and operating facilities within the full spectrum of the health care industry. Trecor was founded in 1985 when it acquired Burzenski Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Burzenski"). Trecor does not own or operate any other health care facility. Burzenski is an existing nursing home with 60 dually certified beds located in the City of Sarasota. The facility was built in 1955 as a private residence. An addition to the facility was constructed in 1962. The Proposals. Arbor's Proposal. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Department dated September 9, 1987, Arbor received certificate of need 4182. Certificate of need 4182 authorizes Arbor to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. 20. Arbor's approved 60-bed nursing home facility will consist of 18,000 gross square feet. Costs of $2,200,000.00 have been approved by the Department in the certificate of need issued for the facility. Arbor intends to develop certificate of need 4182 by building a facility large enough for 120 beds. This facility will house the approved 60 nursing home beds and, if Arbor's application in this case is not approved, an additional 60 beds, licensed as adult congregate living facility beds. In this proceeding Arbor is requesting approval of a proposed conversion of the 60 adult congregate living facility beds to 60 nursing home beds. Arbor has proposed the construction of an additional 18,000 gross square feet to house the additional 60 nursing home beds sought in this proceeding. The proposed cost of the proposal is $2,380,000.00. The total cost of 120 bed facility will be $4,580,000.00. Health Quest's Proposal. Health Quest is seeking approval to convert its 53 sheltered nursing center beds at Regents Park to nursing home beds and to add 7 nursing home beds. The 60 nursing home beds are to be housed in the new community nursing home facility at Regents Park. The beds will be housed in 30,945 square foot of the Regents Park facility. Health Quest also intends to add 60 nursing home beds, which have already been approved by the Department, to Regents Park. The certificate of need application filed by Health Quest indicates that its proposal involves no capital costs. This is incorrect. There will be minimal costs associated with the addition of the 7 additional nursing home beds being sought by Health Quest which it has failed to include in its proposal. Health Quest did not present evidence concerning the total cost of the facility it plans to use to house the proposed 60 beds or the cost of the 60 beds already approved by the Department which it plans to add to Regents Park. HCR's Proposal. HCR is seeking approval to construct a new, freestanding 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. HCR's proposal also includes a 31-bed adult congregate living facility. The nursing home component will consist of 25,600 gross square feet (including 2,300 square feet to be used for adult day care). The total facility will consist of 43,000 gross square feet. Total capital cost for the nursing home component is estimated to be $2,519,000.00. The total cost, including the costs attributable to proposed adult day care services, is $2,657,000.00. The cost of the 31-bed adult congregate living portion of the project will be $1,800,000.00. The total cost of HCR's planned facility is $4,457,000.00. Trecor's Proposal. Trecor is seeking approval to construct a 60-bed addition to the Burzenski 60-bed nursing home. Burzenski is located at 4450 Eighth Street, Sarasota, Florida. The building in which the existing 60 nursing home beds are housed will be replaced by Trecor with a new building. The existing Burzenski building has out-lived its useful life and contains several structural deficiencies. Operations are severely restricted and inefficient. Existing three and four bed wards limit the placement of residents. The existing building does not comply with all current licensure requirements. The noncompliance, however, was "grandfathered" in. In order to replace its existing building with a modern building which meets all current licensure requirements, Trecor applied for a certificate of need in 1985 to build a replacement facility on an adjoining parcel of real estate for which Trecor held an option to purchase at the time. This application was approved on December 4, 1985. After an error by Trecor caused the time established for exercising the certificate of need to pass and a requested six-month extension of the certificate of need was denied by the Department, the certificate of need to construct the replacement facility lapsed. Another application for a replacement facility was filed in January, 1987. This application was approved by the Department in May, 1987. The replacement facility was not, however, constructed. Subsequently, in April and May, 1988, the Department determined that replacement of the existing building was exempt from certificate of need review. Trecor now proposes to add 60 nursing home beds at the same time that it builds its replacement facility for its existing 60 nursing home beds. The new nursing home beds will be housed on a second floor to be built on the replacement facility. In Trecor's application for (30 additional nursing home beds, Trecor has proposed the addition of 12,061 gross square feet to its replacement facility and a project cost of $885,210.00. The cost of Trecor's replacement facility will be $1,303,424.00 plus a $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building. The total cost of Trecor's 120 bed facility will be $3,588,634.00. Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Pursuant to the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code, there is a need for an additional 75 community nursing home beds for Sarasota County for July, 1990, the planning horizon applicable in these cases. All of the applicants have agreed with the Department's determination of the need for additional nursing home beds for Sarasota County. All of the applicants are seeking to provide 60 of the needed nursing home beds. The District Health Plan. The district health plan for the Department's District 8, which includes Sarasota County, provides certain standards and criteria to be considered in determining community nursing home care need. The policy guidelines and their application, if applicable to the applicants in this proceeding, are as follows: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. Sarasota County is a separate planning subdistrict for community nursing home beds. Therefore, this guideline should be applied to Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase the availability of nursing home services to the residents of Sarasota County. Community nursing home beds should be geographically distributed throughout the counties of District Eight to promote optimal availability and accessibility. The 2,264 existing licensed and 283 approved community nursing home beds located, or to be located in Sarasota County, are already geographically distributed throughout Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase geographic distribution of beds throughout Sarasota County, regardless of where they may be located. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy g. occupational therapy laboratory h. physical therapy x-ray i. speech therapy dental care j. mental health counseling visual care k. social services diet therapy l. medical services All of the applicants will meet thin guideline. New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. The applicants have proposed to provide the following percentage of care to Medicaid patients: Arbor: 45% Health Quest: 16.7% HCR: 42% Burzenski: 59% 1st Year; 60% 2d Year. All of the applicants except Health Quest comply with this guideline. Community nursing home facilities in District Eight should expand their financial base to include as many reimbursement mechanisms as are available to them including Medicare, Medicaid, Champus, VA, and other third-party payers, and private pay. This guideline applies to existing facilities. None of the applicants are proposing to "expand their financial bases" in the manner suggested in this guideline. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. This guideline has been filled. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable services areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. Existing facilities cannot reasonably meet the need for the 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County for July, 1990. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. All of the applicants meets this guideline. Expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given priority over construction of new facilities in the health service area. The proposals of Arbor, Health Quest and Trecor meet this guideline. The proposal of HCR does not meet this guideline. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. All of the applicants meet, or will meet, this guideline. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up service with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Nursing home services should be within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District Eight. This guideline is not applicable. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest meets this guideline less than the other applicants because of its minimal Medicaid commitment. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest has not, however, provided Medicaid care at Regents Park. Health Quest does provide Medicaid at all its other nursing centers and will obtain Medicaid certification at Regents Park if its application for a certificate of need in this case is approved. Medicare is not provided at Burzenski at this time. Burzenski will, however, provide Medicare at its proposed facility. Failure of a holder of a certificate of need to substantially comply with statements of intent made in the application and relied upon the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as set forth in the Certificate shall be cause for the Department to initiate an action for specific performance, fines as specified in s. 381.495(3), or injunctive relief. This guideline is not applicable. Need for Services. HCR conducted a "non-numeric community need survey" in Sarasota County. Based upon this survey, HCR has suggested that there is an unmet need for 1,600 nursing home beds for Sarasota County for Alzheimer patients and other dementia patients. HCR's conclusions concerning unmet need for services for Sarasota County are unrealistic. HCR failed to prove that any need in Sarasota County for services for Alzheimer patients and others is not being met adequately. Services for Alzheimer patients are currently being provided by Trecor and Health Quest. HCR and Trecor have proposed to dedicate 30 of their proposed nursing home beds to the care of Alzheimer patients and patients with other forms of dementia. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. Other Considerations. Health Quest's avowed purpose for the proposed conversion of its 53 sheltered beds is to insure that Regents Park remains available for use by the general public. Florida law allows sheltered nursing home beds to be used by persons other than residents of an adult congregate living facility for five years from the issuance of a license for the sheltered nursing home beds. Regents Park received its license in November, 1986. Therefore, its sheltered nursing home beds can remain available for use by the general public until November, 1991. Health Quest has received a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds for Sarasota. Health Quest intends on placing 60 of those beds at Regents Park. The other 120 beds will be placed at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County. Health Quest may be able to use some of its 180 approved nursing home beds to avoid the closing of Regents Park to the general public. Health Quest has not, however, explored this alternative. Health Quest's decision not to pursue this course of action is based in part on its decision that the 43% Medicaid care required for its certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds is not acceptable at Regents Park. Health Quest has failed to prove that its proposal is needed because of its desire to convert its sheltered beds to community nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Sarasota County are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Two of Arbor's three licensed facilities in Florida are currently rated superior. The other facility is rated standard. Arbor's proposal may qualify it for a superior rating at its proposed facility. Arbor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Arbor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Health Quest. Health Quest has a corporate policy of emphasizing quality of care. It attempts to obtain the highest quality rating in every community it serves. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton have been rated superior. Health Quest's Sarasota facility has not been in operation long enough to qualify for a superior rating. Health Quest's Sarasota facility offers a high level of staffing, including a Human Resources Director, who is responsible for personnel administration and training, a full time social activities director and an activities coordinator. It also has a high nursing ratio. Health Quest is proposing the highest level of staffing of the applicants in this proceeding. Extensive training and development of staff at Health Quest's Sarasota facility is provided. Orientation training and in-service training on an on- going basis will be provided. Health Quest proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Health Quest should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. HCR. HCR's existing Sarasota nursing home has received a license with a standard rating. Other HCR facilities have received standard ratings, including some facilities which were acquired by HCR with superior ratings. HCR also has facilities which have been rated superior. HCR will enhance the quality of care available by providing a full range of services, from the least intensive level (adult day care) to the most intensive levels (i.e., sub- acute care). HCR's proposal to provide adult day care, a dedicated Alzheimer's unit, sub-acute care and respite care, and its adult congregate living facility will enhance quality of care in Sarasota County. HCR adheres to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. HCR provides adequate training, exceeding state minimum requirements, for its staff. HCR proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HCR should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Trecor. Trecor has contracted with Central Care, Inc., a Florida corporation providing a full spectrum of health care and retirement living services, to manage its facility. Trecor provides education and training for its staff on an ongoing basis. Even though Trecor is operating in an inadequate building, Trecor received a superior rating in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. Trecor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Trecor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants provided sufficient proof to conclude that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources sufficient to provide them with an advantage over the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that there is any need in the service district for special equipment or services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Health Quest will, however, provide less access to Medicaid residents than the other applicants. Trecor will attempt to initiate internship and training programs for area nursing and allied health programs, and provide clinical placements. Health Quest participates in training programs for nurses from Sarasota Vocational/Technical school. A certified nursing aide program is also offered by Health Quest through Sarasota Vocational/Technical School. All of the applicants will be able to attract and maintain the staff necessary to operate their proposed facilities. HCR is proposing to provide the highest salaries and benefits for staff. Health Quest already has staff for its existing 53 beds. Health Quest is adding, however, 60 nursing home beds to Regents Park. HCR failed to prove that all of the existing staff will be used to staff the proposed 60 nursing home beds and not the already approved 60 nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to finance a project. Arbor. The total projected cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00. The total cost for its 120-bed facility is $4,580,000.00. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor is proposing to contribute 10% of the cost of its proposal and finance the remaining 90%. Arbor has $39,000,000.00 in bank lines of credit, of which $34,000,000.00 remain available for development of Arbor's proposed project. Arbor also has sufficient money market funds to meet its projected equity contribution of 10%. Arbor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Health Quest. Health Quest indicated in its application that there were no capital costs associated with its proposal. This is not correct. It will have some minor costs for the addition of the seven new nursing home beds it is seeking. Health Quest's proposal is the lowest in terms of additional capital costs which must be incurred. Most of the capital costs associated with the 53 nursing home beds it is seeking were already incurred when it built Regents Park. Health Quest did not provide proof of the cost of Regents Park. The unaudited financial statements of Health Quest indicate that it experienced a loss of $3,200,000.00 in 1986 and a loss of $5,000,000.00 in 1987. Health Quest has net worth and equity of $300,000.00 on over $200,000,000.00 in assets. The losses Health Quest has been experiencing have been the result of Health Quest's development activities. Health Quest can finance its project with internal funds. The evidence failed to prove that Health Quest must liquidate assets to generate operating funds. Health Quest demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. HCR. HCR's total estimated project costs for its 60-bed facility is $2,657,000.00. This amount includes the cost of the portion of the project to be used for adult day care ($138,000.00). The costs to be incurred for the adult congregate living facility is $1,800,000.00. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. HCR intends to contribute 25% of the total project costs and finance the remaining 75%. HCR has sufficient funds on hand to fund 25% of its project costs. In fact, HCR has the ability to contribute 100% of the total project costs. HCR has lines of credit with banks and other sources of obtaining financing for the project, including a loan from its parent corporation. HCR has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Trecor. The total cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed nursing home addition is $885,210.00. The total cost of replacing the existing Burzenski building is projected as $3,588,634.00 ($885,210.00 for the proposed addition; $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building; and $1,303,424.00 for the replacement of the existing building). Trecor is proposing to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs, or $88,521.00, and to finance the remaining 90%. To finance the entire project will require an equity contribution of over $300,000.00. Trecor has experienced operating losses in 1986 and 1987 and has a negative net worth of $259,000.00. Trecor has a positive cash flow, however. Trecor does not have sufficient equity to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs. The Board of Directors of Trecor has, however, adopted a resolution indicating Trecor's intent to provide the necessary contribution. Trecor can obtain the necessary funds from its owners if necessary. NCNB has expressed an interest in financing the rest of the project. Although NCNB has not legally committed to such an arrangement, it is reasonable to conclude that a satisfactory loan agreement can be reached with NCNB or Barnett Bank. Trecor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Long-Term Financial Feasibility. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to operate a project at a profit, generally measured at the end of the second year of operation. Arbor. At the formal hearing Arbor presented an updated pro forma. Arbor suggested that the purpose of the updated pro forma was to reflect increased personnel costs and reduced utilization from 97% to 95%. According to Arbor, the changes reflect changes caused by inflation and "actual experience." The updated pro forma submitted by Arbor includes substantial increases in salary expense ranging from 10% to 30% (and one increase of 50%). The updated pro forma also includes at least one position not included in the original pro forma filed with Arbor's application. Arbor's original pro forma understated salary expenses. The updated salary expenses were foreseeable, and should have been foreseen, when Arbor filed its application. The updated pro forma was accepted into evidence over objection. In the updated pro forma, Arbor has projected a loss of $347,043.00 from revenue of $2,034,837.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $41,833.00 from revenue of $3,016,512.00 for the second year of operation. Arbor has projected a payor mix of 45% Medicaid, 5% Medicare and 50% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Arbor's projected fill-up rate is reasonable. Arbor's projected charges are reasonable. The evidence failed to prove that Arbor's projected revenue and expenses as contained in its original application are reasonable. The evidence also failed to prove that Arbor's projected expenses as contained in its updated pro forma are reasonable either. Arbor has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. Health Quest. Health Quest is operating at close to capacity at Regents Park and is already charging close to its projected patient charges. The facility has been operating at a loss. The facility experienced a profit only during its latest month of operation. The addition of Medicaid beds will erode Health Quest's revenues to some extent. Health Quest has projected a profit of $16,663.00 from revenue of $1,771,303.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $40,698.00 from revenue of $1,850,156.00 for the second year of operation. Health Quest is projecting a payor mix of 16.7% Medicaid, 4.2% medicare and 79.2% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Regents Park opened in November, 1986, and filled up rapidly. It has been operating at full occupancy and with a waiting list. Health Quest's estimated fill up rate is reasonable in light of this fact. Health Quest has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. HCR. HCR has projected a loss of $267,436.00 on $1,068,427.00 of revenue for its first year of operation and a profit of $62,729.00 on $1,772,399.00 of revenue for its second year of operation. HCR has projected a payor mix of 42% Medicaid, 4% medicare and 54% private pay. These projections are reasonable. HCR's projected fill-up rate to 95% occupancy is reasonable. HCR's projected patient charges are reasonable. HCR's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HCR's project is feasible in the long term. (4). Trecor. Trecor has projected a profit of $77,458.00 on revenue of $2,481,229.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $367,896.00 on revenue of $3,106,152.00 for the second year of operation. The pro forma submitted by Trecor is for the 120-bed nursing home facility and not just the proposed 60-bed project. Trecor has a negative net worth and Trecor has been operating at a loss. Trecor has projected a payor mix of 59% Medicaid, 3.5% medicare, 34% private pay and 3.5% V.A. These projections are reasonable. Trecor has estimated it will achieve 50% occupancy in the first month of operation and an occupancy of 96% by the seventh month. This is a fill up rate of 2 residents a week. Arbor and HCR have projected fill up rates of 2 residents a month. Trecor does not expect to lose any patients during construction of its facility. Trecor is currently at full occupancy and has a waiting list. Trecor's projected fill up rate is achievable. Trecor's projected patient charges are reasonable. They are the lowest of the competing applicants. Trecor has failed to include some expenses in its projections. Trecor left $50,000.00 of administrative salaries out of its projections and FICA is underestimated because Trecor used the old rate. When these expenses are taken into account, Trecor's project is still financially feasible. Trecor's projected revenue and expenses, except as noted above, are reasonable. Trecor's project is feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the projected rates for nursing home services to be charged by the applicants, Arbor and Trecor will have the least adverse impact on patient charges, followed by HCR. Health Quest will have the greatest adverse impact on patient charges. Generally, all of the applicants will enhance competition if their projects are approved. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Arbor's building will contain 36,000 gross square feet, with 18,000 gross square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds it is seeking in this proceeding. The cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00 ($132.22 per square foot) and the cost of its entire project is $4,580,000.00. The projected cost of construction is $1,228,000.00, a cost of $68.22 per square foot. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor's proposed building will provide 300 square feet per bed. Arbor plans to build its prototype 120-bed nursing home facility. It has used its 120-bed nursing home plans for other Florida projects. These plans have been approved by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification. Arbors' building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The building will be constructed on a 6.5 acre site which is appropriately zoned and of sufficient size. The design of Arbor's proposed building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Health Quest. Health Quest has already constructed the building in which its proposed 60 nursing home beds dire to be located. The building is already licensed. The building complies witch all code and regulatory requirements. A total of 30,945 square feat will be devoted to the nursing home portion of Regents Park. This is the largest of the proposed facilities. The proposed building will have 515 square feet per bed. There are no construction costs to be incurred for Health Quest's proposal. Construction costs have already been incurred to construct the facility in which Health Quest's proposed beds will be housed. Health Quest's building design is of the highest quality. HCR. HCR is proposing to construct a 60-bed nursing home. Additional space for 31 adult congregate living beds and for an additional 60 nursing home beds will also be built. The facility will include a dedicated 30-bed Alzheimer's unit. The inclusion of this unit requires more space. The proposed HCR building will consist of 25,600 square feet for the 60-bed nursing home. This includes the $138,240.00 cost and the 2,300 square feet of the adult day care unit. The projected cost of HCR's project is $2,657,000.00 or $103.79 per square foot. The projected cost of constructing HCR's proposed building is $1,536,000.00 or $60.00 a square foot. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. 166. HCR's facility will consist of 426 square feet per bed. 167. HCR's facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. 168. HCR's design and methods of construction are reasonable. 169. HCR's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Trecor. The Trecor proposal entails the addition of a 60-bed patient wing on the second floor of a two-story building. The first floor of the building will be constructed by Trecor to replace its existing building. Approval of the replacement facility is not part Trecor's proposal at issue in this proceeding. The plans for the replacement building and the addition thereto have been developed together. The plans can be modified to insure that all of the proposed services can be accommodated in the building. The proposed Trecor building will be constructed in phases. First, the portion of the new building which will house the 120 nursing home beds will be constructed. Patients will then be transferred to the newly constructed facility. All of the existing building except the kitchen and administration facilities will then be demolished. Patients will be fed out of the existing kitchen and the administrative functions will be handled form the old administrative facilities. The new kitchen, dining and administrative offices will then be constructed. When this portion of the building is completed, the old kitchen and administrative offices will be demolished. Although inconvenient, Trecor should be able to continue to provide quality of care during the construction period. The other applicants have raised a number of issues concerning the Trecor building. The issues do not, however, involve violations of code or regulatory requirements for nursing home facilities. Trecor's building will contain a total of 31,398 square feet. This total includes 19,337 square feet attributable to the existing 60 nursing home beds and 12,061 square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds at issue in this proceeding. The proposed building is relatively small. Trecor's architect did a very good job of properly using the relatively small parcel of real estate he had to work with. The small size of the building, however, accounts for the lower cost of the Trecor proposal. The evidence failed to prove that Trecor cannot provide adequate care, despite the building's size. The cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $885,210.00 ($73.39 per square foot) and the cost of its replacement facility is $1,303,424.00. The projected cost of construction for Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $592,500.00, a cost of $49.13 per square foot. Questions have been raised concerning the project development costs and the estimated architecture/engineer fees for Trecor's project. Trecor did not include all of the expenses for these items in the projected costs of its proposed 60-bed addition because the costs were included as part of building the replacement facility. Some of those costs could have been included as part of the cost of the proposal being reviewed in this proceeding. If those costs had been included, their inclusion would not affect the conclusions reached in this proceeding concerning the reasonableness of Trecor's project. Trecor's projected costs are reasonable. Trecor's proposed building will provide 201 square feet for the proposed 60 nursing home beds, 322 square feet for the existing 60 nursing home beds and 261 square feet for the total 120 nursing home beds. Trecor's building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The Trecor facility will be located on 1.97 acres. The design of the Trecor building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Trecor's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants have a history of providing care to Medicaid patients. Health Quest, however, does not provide care to Medicaid patients at Regents Park. If Health Quest's application is approved, Regents Park will become Medicaid certified. The projected Medicaid of the applicants is as follows: Arbor: 45% Health Quest 16.7% HCR 42% Burzenski 59% first year; 60% second year All of the applicants except Health Quest are proposing to provide at least 42% Medicaid, which is the average Medicaid provided in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Trecor's application for certificate of need number 5443 and denying Arbor's application for certificate of need number 5841, Health Quest's application for certificate of need number 5442 and HCR's application for certificate of need number 5437. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1945; 88-1949; 88-1950 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Arbor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 10-13. 2 1 and 29-33. 3 15-21 and hereby accepted. 4 19-20, 34 and 36. 5 22-25. 6 37-40. 7 26-27. 28, 41 and 44-47. Trecor applied for a certificate of need in January, 1987, not May, 1987. Hereby accepted. Not all of the applicants in this proceeding, however, have met the minimum criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and a statement concerning the proceedings. 51. The last two sentences are argument. 51. The fifth through ninth sentences are argument. The evidence proved that Health Quest is adding 60 nursing home beds to its existing facility. Therefore, if its application in this case is approved it will have a 120-bed nursing home facility. 51. The last five sentences are statements of law and argument. Statement of law or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15 64-66. 16 67-69 and 73. 74 and hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43 and 81. The fifth, sixth and eighth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third, fourth and seventh sentences are hereby accepted. Although this proposed finding of fact, except the last sentence, is generally correct, this is not the only factor to consider in determining whether an applicant can provide quality of care. Argument, not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-55 and hereby accepted. The last sentence, except the reference to the state health plan, is hereby accepted. The second, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. See 52-56. Argument. 56 and hereby accepted. 85, 87-88 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51, 60-61 and 86. The second, third, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. 26 92 and 114. 27 95-97 and 106-107. 28 98 and 100. 109-111. The last five sentences are argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 111-113. 97 and 107. Short-term financial feasibility of Health Quest is not moot and Trecor can finance its project with the assistance of its shareholders. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115 and 118. The last four sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. 119-120. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding or are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 123. 34 130 and 134. 125, 127 and 132. The fifth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is hereby accepted. 136-137 and 143. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument, not relevant to these proceedings or taken into account in determining the weight to be accorded to testimony. 40 Hereby accepted. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 139-141. 42 See 97, 103, 107, 113, 124, 129, 135 and 145. Arbor has not proven that it is financially feasible in the long term. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43, 46 and 56 Statements of law. 146 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 47 148 and 153-155. 48 157-158, 160 and 175. 49 161-163 and 175. 171, 175, 180 and hereby accepted. The sixth, ninth and tenth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 171. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-54 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. 55 185 and 187-188. The last sentence is argument. 57-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 32, 34, 37 and 41. 3 2. 4 3. 4 and 6. 7. Not all of the applicants filed petitions. 7 48. 8 15-16. 9 67-68. 10 17-19. 11 21. 12 19. 13 58-59. See 57. The weight of the evidence did not prove that Regents Park will be closed to the public "unless Health Quest's application for conversion to community status is approved." 14-15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. 16 See 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17-19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. 20 70 and hereby accepted. 21, 24, 27, 30-48, 52, 54-57, 61, 64, 70, 77, 88-89, 93, 95, 97, 107-108, 110-111, 113, 118, 124, 126, 128-129, 132, 135-136 and 138-139. Hereby accepted. 22 Hereby accepted and summary of testimony. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 91. 23 72. 25-26 88 and hereby accepted. 56 and hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. 49 Hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, are based upon hearsay and constitute opinion testimony from a nonexpert witness. 50 69. 51 Not relevant to this proceeding or based upon hearsay. 53 126 and 128. 58 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 59 157. 60, 65-67, 71, 91, 112, 114-116, 121-122 and 125 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 62 Not relevant to this proceeding. 63 51 and 185-186. 68 100-101. 69 102. 72 51. The last sentence is rejected. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. The parties did not indicate that Section 381.703(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, was at issue in this proceeding or that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply. 73-76 Not relevant to this proceeding. The issue is not just whether nursing home services are available to all residents of the service area. Also at issue is whether each applicant is proposing to serve all of the residents of the service area. Health Quest's proposal does indicate Health Quest intends on serving a significant portion of Sarasota County's Medicaid population. 78 60-61. The portion of this proposed finding of fact prior to subparagraph a, the portion of subparagraph a appearing on page 19 of the proposed recommended order and subparagraphs b-d are rejected as argument, statements of law or as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. 79-82 Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are argument. 83 Not relevant to this proceeding. 84-86 Summary of testimony and argument. 87 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding or supported by the weight of the evidence. 90, 92 Not relevant to this proceeding. 94 Summary of testimony and argument. 96 Hereby accepted. The last sentence and the last half of the second sentence are rejected as not being relevant to this proceeding. 98-106 These proposed findings of fact were taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. 109 Although the first sentence is correct, the rest of the proposed finding of fact is not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117, 119-120 Not relevant to this proceeding. 123 108. The portion of this proposed finding of fact contained on page 30 of the proposed recommended order is primarily argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 143. 130-131 and 133-134 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, cumulative or not relevant to this proceeding. 137 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. Summary of testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2, 4-9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 30-32, 35, 41-42, 45, 47, 49-51, 53, 63-67, 71 and 75 Hereby accepted. 3, 15 and 33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The last sentence, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, this proposed finding of fact, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12 55. 17 37-4 and 55. 18 Hereby accepted, except that the first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 51 and 86. 24 51. The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 25 22-25. 26 76-78 and hereby accepted. 77 and hereby accepted. 78 and hereby accepted. 34 106-107. 36 Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that HCR would provide these benefits without cost to its proposed Sarasota facility. 37 131-132. 38 133. 39 134-135. 40 89-90. 43 39-40, 163-164 and 166. 44 152, 167-170, and 180. 46 169-170. 48 165-166. 52 Hereby accepted. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that appropriate services for "AD patients" are not adequately available. 54 The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 55 2-3. 56-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. 59 148-149. 60 Taken into account in determining the weight to be given to testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 61 123. 62 Hereby accepted except the last two sentences which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68-69 115-117. 70 Not relevant to this proceeding. 72 41, 45-47, 175-176, 180 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted except the third through fifth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted except the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. 80-81 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 109-110. The last three sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted, except for the first two sentences, which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted except the third and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 136. Not relevant to this proceeding. Trecor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-6, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 37-39 and 56. Hereby accepted. 7 28 and 41-42. 8 41, 43 and 81. 9 26-27. 10 41, 44 and 81. 11 44-45. 12 46 and 171. 13 173. 14 46, 171-172 and 174. 15-16 173. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 16 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 181. 18 54-55 and hereby accepted. 19 79. 25 40, 47, 109, 111-112 and hereby accepted. 26 175 and 177. 28 178 and hereby accepted. 33 184 and hereby accepted. 34 138 and 142. 36 139-141. 40 50. 41 51. 42 51. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although the Arbor site was not disclosed, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Arbor's proposal meets this portion of the district plan. 43-47 51. 48 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 51 and hereby accepted. 51 51 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 51. Argument. 51 and hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2-3 49. 4 Not relevant to this proceeding. 5-6 Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Contrary to a stipulation of the parties that all of the parties meet the state health plan to the extent that it is applicable. See 63. 10, 13, 15 and 17 Hereby accepted. 11 See 64-84 concerning Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes, had been met or did not apply. 12 86 and 129. 14 Not relevant in this de novo proceeding and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16 See 60-62. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles M. Loeser Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 James M. Barclay, Esquire 231 A East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams, Esquire Jay Adams, P.A. 1519 Big Sky Way Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
