Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, NME, Inc. d/b/a Seven Rivers Community Hospital, operates a Level II hospital facility on Highway 19, approximately six miles north of Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida. It is located in HRS District No. 3. The facility has been in operation since August, 1978. On November 12, 1982, petitioner filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for a certificate of need to add fifteen acute care beds to its facility at a total cost of $37,231.34. The application was denied by respondent on February 28, 1983, on the following grounds: The major reason for denial is that the proposed project is not consistent with the Goals, Standards and Objectives of the HSP. There is an excess of 28 medical/surgical beds in Planning Area IV by 1987. Overall occupancy in the two county area averaged 71.2 percent in 1981. The addition of 122 beds at Lykes Memorial and Bayonet Point Hospital, Inc., should, in the foreseeable future, satisfy demand for beds in the area. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. The hospital is classified as a Level II facility and currently has 75 beds consisting of 67 medical 1/surgical beds and 8 intensive care unit/critical care unit (ICU/CCU) beds. It is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The facility provides a wide range of services including a 24-hour emergency room, pharmacy, respiratory therapy department, laboratory with clinical and pathology sections, a radiology department with nuclear medicine, ultrasound, regular radiographic and flourscopic units, and a mobile CT scanner. However, it does not provide open heart surgery, radiation therapy, renal transplantation, or obstretic and pediatric services. The staff has specialists in the areas of opthalmology, cardiology, pulminology, gastroenterology and general and peripheral vascular surgery. A large majority of these services and resources are provided to people who live within HRS District No. 3. At the present time there are 206 existing or approved acute care beds licensed for operation in Citrus County. The only other licensed facility in the county Is Citrus Memorial Hospital in Inverness. It presently has 131 acute care beds. Planning Area IV, in which petitioner's facility lies, includes Citrus and Hernando Counties. The latter county has one existing hospital, Lykes Memorial Hospital, with 161 acute care beds, and one hospital approved for construction, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. HCA was recently authorized 96 acute care beds and expects to open a new facility in Spring Hill, Florida in 1986. Petitioner's Proposal Petitioner proposes to add fifteen beds by converting fifteen private rooms to semiprivate rooms. This can be done quickly and inexpensively since the rooms already have the appropriate square footage, lighting and electrical systems to accommodate the conversion. If the application is approved, the conversion project can be completed in about two weeks at a cost of only $37,231.34. The hospital has historically experienced seasonal fluctations in its patient occupancy rates. Typically, the large influx of winter visitors and residents has caused its occupancy rates to increase during the winter months while a tailing off has occurred between April and September. However, in 1983 this trend changed and the so-called traditional "slack period" occurred only in the months of May and July, when the occupancy rate fell below 75 percent. Indeed, during the first four months of 1983 the rate was in excess of 92 percent, which is well above the 80 percent optimum occupancy standard used by the Department. This in turn has caused long waiting periods in the emergency room by patients waiting for a bed and postponements by persons seeking to have elective surgery. Based upon historical annual growth patterns experienced during the years 1979 through 1983, which is the most current and representative data, petitioner expects to have an annual growth rate of almost 12 percent in patient days during the years 1984 through 1988. This in turn will create the need for 57 additional beds by the year 1988. Even if the potential loss of patient days caused by the opening of the new hospital in Spring Hill in 1986 is considered, petitioner will still need 46 additional beds by 1988. In this regard, it considers the 15 bed addition sought herein as an interim measure, and intends to file another application for additional beds in the near future. The granting of the application will alleviate the overcrowding conditions in an extremely cost-efficient manner. Proposed Department Rule 10-16.004 The Department has proposed a new Rule 10-16.004 which contains the Local Health Plan for HRS District 3. 2/ The rule was published in Volume 9, No. 22, Florida Administrative Weekly, page 1954. The proposed rule was developed by the local health council in District 3. The council has proposed to eliminate the five planning areas within District 3 and to establish in lieu thereof seven separate subdistricts. Under the new proposal, Citrus County would be the only county in Subdistrict 5. The rule projects a total acute care bed need of 260 beds in 1988 for the Subdistrict, or a net need of 54 beds over the present number licensed for operation in the County. The time for filing challenges to Rule 10-16.004 has expired and none have been filed. At the time of the hearing the rule was being revised as a result of the amendment (HRS). . .made, which arose out of testimony at the public hearings", and had not yet been filed with the Department of State. The extent and nature of such amendments, if any, were not disclosed. Department Objections As noted earlier, the basic reason for denial of the application was that the proposed project was not consistent with the Goals, Standards and Objectives of the Health Systems Plans (HSP). In its state agency action report issued on February 28, 1983, the Department reasoned that because there will be an excess of 28 medical/surgical beds in Planning Area IV (Citrus and Hernando Counties) by 1987, and overall occupancy in the two county area averaged only 71.2 percent in 1981, and new beds will be added at Lykes Memorial and HCA Services of Florida, Inc., the demand for beds in the area should be satisfied. As further clarified at the hearing, a Department representative indicated the reasons for denying the application included (a) a lack of need, (b) petitioner's failure to have a Medicaid contract, and (c) petitioner having exceeded certain "screens" of the Hospital Cost Containment Board for 1983 and 1984. However, the latter "problem" was attributable to a lower patient length of stay at Seven Rivers than at other hospitals reviewed by the Board, and for this reason the excesses were acceptable. The Department's principal concern as to the Medicaid issue was that NME, the parent corporation, had an alleged corporate policy of not taking Medicaid patients which is contrary to Department "goals". But petitioner has agreed to enter into a Medicaid provider contract if the application is approved in order to satisfy this objection. Moreover, during fiscal year 1983, the facility had direct patient write-offs of approximately $750,000 which represents uncompensated care to medically indigent individuals. This amount exceeded the level of care given to indigents by Citrus Memorial Hospital, a tax supported hospital in Citrus County, during the same period of time. Under the methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, the Department determined there is a projected need for 24 additional acute care beds by the year 1988 in the entire District 3, which encompasses 16 counties. This is based upon a current total of 3,139 beds within the District and a projected total need of 3,163 beds by that date. The record is unclear as to how 20 beds at shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville now devoted to special psychiatric care for children are classified. If they are classified as acute care, the actual net need for beds within the District is 44 since these beds should not be classified within that category. The Department has not allocated the bed shortage to any particular county or planning area. Therefore, there is no impediment to assigning a portion of that total to Citrus County. This is especially appropriate in light of petitioner's occupancy rates, the overcrowding which has recently occurred, and the cost efficient manner in which the addition will be completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Seven Rivers Community Hospital for a certificate of need to add fifteen acute care beds to its hospital in Citrus County, Florida, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1983, 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 21st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Gary Williams, Esquire and Michael J. Glazer, Esquire O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay Adams, Esquire Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration has a policy regarding the determination of the need for long term care beds which constitutes a rule and, if so, whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. (Vencor), applied for a certificate of need (CON No. 8614) to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) District 8, for Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. AHCA is the state agency authorized to administer the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. AHCA reviewed and preliminarily denied Vencor's application for CON No. 8614. The reasons for AHCA's actions on this or any other CON application are memorialized in documents called State Agency Action Reports (SAARs). Vencor alleges that the following statement generally describes AHCA's policy in regard to the review of CON applications for long term care hospitals: Long term care is not a separate category of health service, but is instead merely an allowable form of reimbursement pursuant to Medicare regulations. The care provided in acute care hospitals, hospital based skilled nursing beds, "subacute" care in nursing homes, and care at rehabilitation facilities, are all equivalent to the care provided at long term care hospitals. Therefore, in evaluating the need for long term care hospital beds, AHCA will assess the availability of other categories of beds and services to meet the need for the services proposed by the applicant for long term care hospital beds. Need for long term care beds is determined on a regional basis. Prior to 1994, long term care hospitals were not regulated separately and were considered comparable to general acute care hospitals. In 1994, AHCA amended the CON rules to establish long term care beds and hospitals as separate categories of health care providers. In 1994, AHCA defined and continues to the present to define long term care hospital as follows: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code. In the federal regulations referenced by the AHCA rule, long term care hospital is more specifically defined as a hospital with an independent governing structure, an average length of stay greater than 25 days, referral of at least 75 percent of total patients from separate hospitals, and which meets the requirements for Medicare participation. 42 CFR Ch. IV, Subch. B, Pt. 412, Subpt. B, s. 412.23. AHCA also distinguishes long term care in its rules governing the conversions from one type of health care provider to another. The applicable conversion rules provide: "Conversion from one type of health care facility to another" means the reclassification of one licensed facility type to another licensed facility type, including reclassification from a general acute care hospital to a long term care hospital or specialty hospital or from a long term care hospital or specialty hospital to a general acute care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(14), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added); and "Conversion of beds" means the reclassification of licensed beds from one category to another including, for facilities licensed under Chapter 395, F.S., conversion to or from acute care beds, neonatal intensive care beds, hospital inpatient psychiatric beds, comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, hospital inpatient substance abuse beds, distinct part skilled nursing facility beds, or beds in a long term care hospital; and, for facilities licensed under Chapter 400, Part I, F.S., conversion to or from skilled beds and intermediate care beds in a facility that is not certified for both skilled and intermediate nursing care if such conversion effects a change in the level of care of 10 beds or 10 percent of the total bed capacity of the facility within a 2-year period, or conversion to or from sheltered beds and community beds. Rule 59C-1.002 (15), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). AHCA also defined "substantial change in health services" to include: The conversion of a general acute care or specialty hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., to a long term care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(41)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Taken together AHCA's rules recognize long term care hospitals or beds as a separate and distinct category. Elfie Stamm was responsible for the development of the rules and is currently the chief of the CON and Budget Review Office at AHCA. Ms. Stamm testified in a 1994 rule challenge case, when AHCA was drafting a rule with a numeric need methodology for long term care beds, that: long term care hospitals serve patients who cannot be cost effectively treated in an acute care hospital, who do not have the same needs for the same types of service; it would not be fair for an applicant for the new construction of a long term care hospital to be compared to an acute care hospital; comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) services are different than services in a long term care hospital; a long term care hospital with an average length of stay of 25 days or more is different from an acute care hospital that generally has a length of stay of 5 to 6 days but provides a full range of services; the patient populations in long term care hospitals are different from those in an acute care hospital in terms of overall patient characteristics, including older than average age, higher percentage of patients with particular diagnoses, such as ventilator dependency, higher overall mortality rates than acute care hospitals, and a much higher percentage of admissions by referrals from acute care hospitals. [T. 262-283]. See also Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, etc. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 94-0958RU (R.O. 8/2/94). On behalf of AHCA, Ms. Stamm testified in this proceeding that: AHCA has changed its mind on whether or not it is appropriate to leave a patient in an acute care setting rather than transfer to long term care, specifically with regard to cost-effectiveness. [T. 373]. AHCA has not changed its mind and still says acute care hospitals and long term care hospitals should be reviewed separately, because if they would be reviewed comparatively, . . . there would be no chance for any [long term] beds ever because we don't show any need for acute care beds anywhere in the state. [T. 376]. But in evaluating Vencor's application for long term care hospitals in District 8 that would be located in Lee County, the Agency viewed hospital-based skilled nursing units, community nursing home subacute beds and comprehensive medical rehab beds throughout the entire district as existing and like potential alternatives to the proposed project. [T. 389]. AHCA does not necessarily agree that CMR services are different from long term care hospital services. [T. 265]. AHCA does not have a clearly identified population group for whom long term care would be more cost-effective, or to determine a numeric need methodology. [TR. 324]. Although there is a population that does need services that exceed 25 days or prolonged ventilator service, AHCA is not sure what is the most appropriate setting for their care because of inadequate data on comparative costs and outcomes. [TR. 327-8]. AHCA attributes its change in position to the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Lewin-VHI, Inc. The document is commonly referred to as the Lewin Report. The Lewin Report concludes that long term care hospitals serve patients who are also served in other subacute settings, including CMR beds and hospitals, acute care hospital skilled nursing units, and skilled nursing units in freestanding nursing homes. As a result of the conclusions in the Lewin Report, AHCA maintains that it is unable to develop a numeric need methodology without an identifiable patient population. AHCA has not, however, repealed the rules establishing long term care as a separate type of health care service. Rather, the agency intends to wait for additional studies, including one being conducted for Vencor. The Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for acute care hospitals created the market for subacute and long term care. Under the PPS, acute care hospitals receive a fixed payment based on the patient's diagnosis or diagnostic related group (DRG). Upon discharge to a subacute or long term setting, the patient's care is no longer reimbursed on a fixed basis, but at actual, reasonable costs. AHCA maintains that financial pressures created the current system, but without cost/benefit or outcomes analyses to demonstrate the appropriateness of using long term care hospitals. Therefore, AHCA considered the occupancy levels of acute care hospitals and available nursing home beds in determining the need for Vencor's project. AHCA has no rule defining subacute care, no inventory of subacute care units in nursing homes, and no reporting requirements from which it can determine the level of care or services provided in hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA has no reports on specific levels or types of services provided in CMR beds. AHCA, nevertheless, presumed that the services are like those provided in long term care beds based on the Lewin Report. In rejecting Vencor's attempts to distinguish itself from other types of health care providers, AHCA relied, in part, on its finding that 1995 District 8 acute care hospital occupancy averaged 47.69 percent and peaked at 60.26 percent. By not adopting rules for determining the numeric need for long term care, AHCA also failed to establish the appropriate service area for determining need. AHCA considers the need for long term care services on a regional basis. In support of AHCA's decision to deny a long term care hospital application in District 9, Ms. Stamm's predecessor, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that long term care is a regional service. As further evidence of AHCA's position, the SAARs issued by AHCA on long term care hospital applications, have examined available services beyond the limits of the district. AHCA contends that long term care is regional, but determines its need by comparison to available hospital based skilled nursing units and subacute beds in community nursing homes, which are evaluated on a subdistrict basis, and CMR services which are tertiary but evaluated on a district-wide basis. See Finding of Fact 22. Since November 1995, AHCA has preliminarily denied all CON applications for long term care hospitals. Its policy of comparing the need for long term care to available beds in nursing homes and other types of hospitals is consistently repeated in the portions of the SAARs which address need. In analyzing the need for long term care hospitals in AHCA District 1, the SAAR dated January 10, 1997, includes the following statements: Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. defines its patient population as those currently being treated in ICUs and belonging to roughly 10 DRGs (which account for approximately 83% of Vencor patients. . . .) However these DRGs could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based freestanding skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to residents of District 1. and The applicant [Baptist Health Affiliates Inc.] also discusses the differences between its proposed patient population and that of an acute care hospital, nursing home and those treated at home. However, there is no documentation provided which demonstrates the applicant's potential patients could not receive appropriate care in the District's existing rehabilitation facility, hospital based or nursing home skilled subacute nursing units. . . . Vencor Exhibit 12, pages 3-4 and 8. AHCA reviewed a CON application filed by Columbia of Pinellas County, Inc., to convert acute care beds to a long term care hospital in District 5, and concluded: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above (by the applicant) are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 13, page 8. The SAAR issued on the Columbia of Pinellas County CON application continued with an extensive discussion of the Lewin Report. The SAAR reported AHCA's finding that CMR hospitals are alternatives since they admit patients who do not fit federal guidelines for CMR admissions (being able to tolerate three hours of therapy a day), and who might otherwise be in long term care hospitals. In the SAAR issued after the review of long term care applications for District 7, the same statement appears: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above [by Orlando Regional Hospital] are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 14, page 11. Finally, in reviewing applications from Palm Beach County in District 9, AHCA concluded again: The applicant states that generally speaking the long term care hospital patients have respiratory complications, . . . tracheostomies, . . . chronic diseases, an infectious process requiring antibiotic therapy, . . . skin complications . . . need a combination of rehabilitation and complex medical treatment or are technology dependent individuals requiring high levels of nursing care. However, these patients could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to the residents of District IX. Vencor Exhibit 15, page 4. AHCA relies on the statutory review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as authority for its consideration of all beds and facilities which may serve the same patients. That provision requires consideration of: (b) The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. The expert witness for AHCA, however, distinguished between "like and existing" services for purposes of determining numeric need and the statutory criteria. She noted that once numeric need is established and published for nursing beds or CMR beds, for example, that same category of beds outside the appropriate health service planning subdistrict or district is not considered "like and existing." Similarly, within the district or subdistrict, there is a factual issue in each case but no presumption that beds of a different category are "like and existing." AHCA contends that it has no policy related to long term care and any comparable services. Since 1995, long term care CON applicants, according to AHCA, have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.008(e), which provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. (Emphasis added). AHCA's argument ignores the fact that its expert witness provided competent, substantial evidence that it has redefined and expanded the meaning of "like services" for purposes of demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology. It also ignores the fact that AHCA has expanded the comparison of need beyond the geographical limits of the district. AHCA's argument that it is waiting for additional data before adopting a need methodology, including data from a Vencor study, is to no avail since AHCA has already changed its policy. After reviewing a total of eighteen CON applications for long term care hospitals, AHCA has issued two CONs, one as part of a settlement agreement and the other approving an application filed by St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg), for CON 8213. The St. Petersburg application demonstrated need using an identical methodology prepared by the same health planner as Vencor in this case. Referring to CON 8213, AHCA's expert witness candidly admitted . . . "I want to make clear that particular application was actually submitted and approved prior to the Lewin study." (T. 393). Subsequent to the Lewin study, AHCA has consistently denied applications for long term care beds or hospitals.
Findings Of Fact Filiberto did not appear, and was not represented, at the final hearing. There is no evidence in the record of the proceeding concerning Filiberto's application for CON 4302. On or about October 10, 1985 Brevard filed an application with the Department for CON 4301 to construct a 60 bed medical-surgical satellite hospital of Holmes Regional Medical Center (HRMC) in the Palm Bay area of south Brevard County, Florida. This application does not contain any reference to, or information about, a voluntary delicensure or transfer of 60 previously approved beds, but rather seeks approval for 60 "new" beds. By letter dated February 28, 1986, the Department notified Brevard of its intent to deny this application, and thereafter Brevard timely sought review of the Department's decision. The parties stipulated as follows: Brevard's application for CON 4301 meets all statutory criteria, except for criteria set forth in Section 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d) and (1), Florida Statutes (1987). The Department does not dispute any of the data or information contained in Tables which are a part of Brevard's application, with the exception of Table 10 (Projected Utilization) which is in dispute, and Table 6 (Total Facility Utilization) upon which Brevard does not rely. There is no numeric need for additional medical- surgical beds in the applicable service district. Financial feasibility of this project is not at issue. The site proposed by Brevard for this satellite hospital is an appropriate hospital site. In certain life-threatening situations, a thirty minute drive time to a hospital may be too long, and in order to protect and save a particular patient's life, less than a thirty minute drive time may be needed. There is a dispute between the parties concerning the authenticity of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) introduced at hearing as Brevard's Exhibit There is no signature page on the SAAR, and a review of all files relating to this matter has failed to locate the missing page, which would also normally contain a summary of the Department's findings. Although Brevard introduced the Exhibit, it did so simply to establish that the SAAR on file at the Department does not evidence approval, through signature, by any authorized representative of the Department. Nevertheless, this SAAR was obtained from the Department's official files concerning the CONs here at issue, and was also authenticated, in part, by Reid Jaffe, consultant supervisor, who prepared the original draft of the SAAR and recalled seeing the final SAAR with a signed signature page. No evidence disputing the authenticity of this document was offered. Therefore, Brevard's Exhibit 4 is accepted for all purposes as the Department's SAAR concerning CONs here at issue. In view of stipulation 4(c), set forth above, Brevard's case at hearing in support of CON 4301 is largely premised upon the offer of Holmes Regional Health Care Systems to voluntarily delicense or transfer 60 approved beds at HRMC, a wholly owned and operated non-profit corporate subsidiary of Brevard. The Department deemed Brevard's application complete on December 30, 1985, at which time the application contained no reference to, or information about, a voluntary delicensure and/or transfer of approved beds. In discussions between the parties in January, 1987, Brevard made this offer and on January 27, 1987 the Department informed Brevard of its position "that the change from `new beds' as proposed in the application, to `transferred beds' would be a substantial change in the scope of the project," and as such the Department would consider this to be a "substantial amendment to the application," which it contends is prohibited after an application is deemed complete. As a significant new issue or factor which was not addressed or raised in any way in Brevard's application prior to it being deemed complete, although its ability to have raised this issue was entirely within Brevard's control, Brevard's offer to voluntarily delicense 60 beds at HRMC if CON 4301 is approved constitutes a substantial amendment of its CON application, rather than an update or supplement of data contained therein. Such an amendment is not permitted after an application is deemed complete because it raises issues which the Department had no way to consider when it reviewed the application and the SAAR was prepared. Additionally, to allow consideration of Brevard's offer at hearing would change the entire need methodology against which this application was reviewed by the Department since the acute care bed need rule, which was properly used to review this application for new beds, is not applicable and cannot be applied to bed transfers. Brevard's offer to voluntarily delicense beds in connection with approval of an equal number of beds at a satellite facility is nothing more than an impermissible, substantial change of its new bed application. There is currently pending before the Department, in a subsequent batch, an application filed on behalf of HRMC to delicense 6 beds and relocate or transfer those beds to a new satellite hospital in the Palm Bay area. At the time of hearing, the Department had not acted upon this subsequent application. HRMC is a 528 bed acute care hospital located in Melbourne, which is in south Brevard County. Of its 528 licensed beds, 495 are actually in service. Brevard proposed to delicense 60 of these 528 beds at HRMC, which would then result in a net reduction of only 27 beds actually in service at HRMC. Brevard has proposed in its application to locate a 60 bed satellite hospital of HRMC on a 45 acre site located east of Interstate 95 and north of Malabar Road in Brevard County. This location is immediately south and east of the city limits of Palm Bay, which itself is located south of Melbourne. The site has already been purchased. The proposed satellite would have 36 private and 12 semi-private rooms. It is proposed to have a primary service area that includes an area from Palm Bay south and west to the county line and bordered on the east by the intra-coastal waterway, and will serve Medicare, Medicaid, indigent and charity patients, as well as paying patients. HRMC has had an indigent care agreement with Brevard County since 1977, and this proposed satellite would be included in that agreement. The primary service area of the proposed satellite has been an area of extremely rapid population growth. From 1970 to 1980, the area's population increased 156.3 percent (9,660 to 24,578 residents) compared with Brevard County's 18.7 percent increase. It is estimated that the primary service area's "phenomenal" population growth will continue through 1990. The population of Palm Bay has grown from 15,000 in 1980 to a current population of 55,000; Palm Bay's growth has been primarily to the south and west, away from HRMC and toward the proposed site of the satellite. A satellite hospital associated with an established acute care hospital has a number of significant advantages over a new free-standing facility, including the ability to share: administrative and management support; clinical and financial data; data processing; insurance and billing costs; purchasing; and staff orientation and education programs. Need In Relation To the Applicable Health Plans The State Agency Action Report (SAAR) prepared by the Department in its review of Brevard's application specifically indicates that this application is consistent with the applicable District 7 Local Health Plan, and therefore Brevard's ability to meet the policies, goals and priorities of the Local Health Plan is not at issue in this case. Brevard's CON application addresses certain goals, objectives and policies set forth in the 1981 Florida State Health Plan. However, the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan was adopted prior to the filing of Brevard's CON application at issue in this case, and is therefore applicable to the review of that application. The Florida State Health Plan sets forth the following pertinent Objectives and Recommended Actions: By 1989, the ratio of acute care hospital beds to Florida's population (in 1000's) should be less than 4.11. (Objective 1.1) Restrain increases in the supply of hospital beds in Florida through the state certificate of need program. (Recommended Actions 1.1a and 3.1a) By 1989, attain an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent for all non federal, short-stay hospital beds considered together in each of Florida's eleven HRS districts. (Objective 3.1) Brevard's application is inconsistent with these Objectives and Recommended Actions. Specifically, it seeks to add 60 new beds to the acute care bed inventory when the bed ratio is already less than 4.11, occupancy rates are significantly below 80 percent, there is a projected surplus of 166 beds in Brevard County for 1990, and the parties have stipulated there is no numeric need for new beds. It is directly contrary to a restraint on the increase of beds. Even if the delicensure and transfer were to be considered, rather than viewing this as an application for 60 new beds, this application is still inconsistent with the State Health Plan because it does nothing to reduce the oversupply of acute care beds, and competent, substantial evidence was not introduced to establish that such a transfer would significantly increase occupancy rates or to otherwise establish a need for these new beds. See also Recommended Action 1.16. Geographic Accessibility Brevard's application does not specifically address the issue of accessibility, or set forth reasons why its application should be approved based upon this review criterion. The State Health Plan sets forth the following Objective: Through 1989, assure that acute care hospital services are available and accessible to urban residents within thirty minutes average one way drive time . . . (Objective 2.2). The applicable Local Health Plan sets forth the following Priority: Priority for needed acute care services should be given to those applicants who transfer unutilized beds and/or establish hospital facilities in regions of the District where access to service can be substantially improved by at least 25 minutes for 10 percent of the population . . . (Priority 4). The SAAR concludes that geographic accessibility is not a problem as it relates to Brevard's application and therefore concludes that this application does not meet this criterion. A travel time sketch prepared by Reid Jaffe is included in the SAAR. Therefore, geographic accessibility is at issue in this proceeding by virtue of the Department's reliance upon this criterion, contained in the SAAR, as a basis of denial. Accordingly, the Department's objections at hearing to the admissibility of travel time data are hereby specifically overruled, and evidence concerning geographic accessibility offered at hearing is admitted, and has been considered. The residents of Palm Bay and south Brevard County are predominantly located within thirty minutes of HRMC, although the less populated area of south-west Palm Bay, which has recently started to develop, is beyond a thirty minute drive time to HRMC. This finding is based upon the testimony and study of William Tipton, who was accepted as an expert in traffic and transportation engineering, as confirmed and supported by Reid Jaffe's testimony and study contained in the SAAR, and a study performed by Wendy Thomas, who was accepted as an expert in health care planning. While Peter Wahl, Community Services Director for Brevard County, who was accepted as an expert in county health planning, testified about the inadequacy of access roads and major arterials in Palm Bay, and the increasing problems which will result as the population of Palm Bay continues its extraordinarily rapid growth, ambulance run times which he described from the scene of an accident to existing hospitals were primarily under thirty minutes. Although emergency medical response time is increasing, Wahl's testimony does not establish that the thirty minute drive time standard is being exceeded. Tipton confirmed the characterization of Palm Bay's road system as very poor, and also that as its population increases the traffic delays will worsen. Quality of Care, Efficiency HRMC renders quality care, and is a well respected acute care hospital in south Brevard county. As a corporate subsidiary of Brevard, its record of quality care can reasonably be expected to continue at the proposed satellite hospital. As set forth in Finding of Fact 13, above, a satellite hospital has a number of significant advantages over a new free-standing hospital. These advantages contribute to the efficient operation of such a satellite. Availability and Adequacy of Alternatives Brevard has not shown that other health care facilities and services, such as outpatient care and ambulatory services, are inadequate or cannot serve as alternatives to the proposed satellite hospital. There are a surplus of beds available. HRMC had only a 70.8 percent occupancy rate in 1985, and the SAAR reports that the occupancy rate for acute care beds in Brevard County in 1985, including HRMC, was only 68 percent. Thus, although HRMC's share of south Brevard County patients was approximately 87 percent, there are still surplus beds available at HRMC as well as other area hospitals. HRMC currently operates an out-patient, ambulatory service facility in Palm Bay on the site of the proposed satellite. Impact of the Proposed Project HRMC would experience a slight negative financial impact until approximately 1992 if the satellite were constructed. After 1992 both the satellite and HRMC would have recouped losses and start-up costs. Patient charges at HRMC are lower than at other hospitals in the service district, and would continue to be lower if the satellite were constructed. In addition, because of the cost-sharing and efficiencies which would result from the satellite hospital's affiliation with HRMC, the proposed satellite would be able to operate with lower patient charges than a new free- standing hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department issue a Final Order denying CON applications 4301 and 4302. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-1537 87-0930 Rulings on Brevard's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 4-5 Rejected in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(c), 6, 7, 25, but Rejected as to any stipulated need based upon the access. While this was the position of Brevard, it was opposed by the Respondent. Rejected as irrelevant and not based upon competent substantial evidence. 8-9 Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 13-14 Rejected in Finding of Fact 19 and as otherwise unnecessary and irrelevant. 15 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4(e) but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 16-18 Rejected as irrelevant, and as simply a summation of testimony, and as otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected in Finding of Fact 19, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 16, 17. Rejected in Finding of Fact 15 and otherwise as simply a summation of testimony. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16, 17 and otherwise as irrelevant. 24-25 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(d), 26, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 26-27 Rejected as irrelevant in view of Findings of Fact 6,7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 27. Rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10, otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. The parties' stipulation is set forth in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(c), 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 6-7 Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(c), 17, 24. COPIES FURNISHED: E. G. Boone, Esquire Jeffrey A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Frank P. Filiberto, M.D. 5200 Babcock Street, NE Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Guyte P. McCord, III, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 ================================================================= DOAH ORDER RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE =================================================================
Findings Of Fact CON APPLICATIONS HCR-CON No.7530 HCR is a publicly owned, for-profit corporation which operates approximately 25 nursing homes in Florida. HCR filed an application, CON No. 7530, to construct a 98-bed freestanding nursing home. HCR proposes to locate the nursing home in the northwest part of Orange County, Florida. HCR proposes that the entire 98-bed facility will be dedicated to the care of patients with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias. The total cost of the HCR project is $7,132,000 for 47,750 square feet, or $472,776 per bed. The HCR proposal is modeled after an HCR 120-bed nursing home facility in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Boynton Beach facility is entirely dedicated to the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. The proposed HCR facility in Orange County would be identical to the Boynton Beach facility less one patient wing. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, as well as HCR's existing Orange County nursing home facility, have superior licensure ratings. HCR's Boynton Beach facility received accreditation with commendation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO), a national accreditation body which has established standards to measure the quality of care in dementia care units. Dementia is a complex of symptoms that can be caused by many different underlying diseases. Alzheimer's disease is one cause of dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. Significant research is being conducted into the cause and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is defined as a decline in intellectual function; global cognitive impairment, that is memory impairment and at least one of the following: impairment of abstract thinking; impairment of judgment; impairment of other complex capabilities such as language use, ability to perform complex physical tasks, ability to recognize objects or people, or to construct objects; and, personality change. The Reisberg Cognitive Rating Scale (RCS) classifies the stages of Alzheimer's disease from 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 being most severe. The rating scale is based on 10 axes: concentration, recent memory, past memory, orientation, functioning and self-care, speech, motor functioning, mood and behavior, practice of an art or skill, and calculation ability. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) for Age-Associated Cognitive decline and Alzheimer's Disease also defines seven stages of deterioration ranging from no cognitive decline to very severe cognitive decline. Persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease generally cannot survive without assistance upon reaching early dementia or level five on both the RCS and GDS. Approximately 50-58 percent of persons currently residing in community nursing homes suffer from some form of dementia. There is a need for community nursing home beds for persons suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease in Orange County. It is particularly difficult to place in nursing homes in Orange County, persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease (levels 5-7) who also have displayed a history of disruptive behavior patterns. Persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease have specific needs for care and treatment in nursing homes. Alzheimer's victims tend to wander and should have areas set aside for secured walking. The movement of Alzheimer's victims should also be carefully monitored. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, which is the prototype for HCR's proposed Orange County facility, has specific design features to accommodate the needs of patients suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease. HCR proposes a pod design of five residential pod units each with a central living area, also called the atrium area. The resident rooms open to the central living area. Each pod has an enclosed courtyard. Access to the courtyards is controlled. The two nursing stations are centrally located in each wing of the facility. Each central living area, or atrium, is visible from one or the other of the nursing stations. HCR provides specific staff training in the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A unit or a facility dedicated to the treatment of dementia patients may reduce the need for psychotropic medication of the patients. On a long-term basis, there may be some staff burnout in a facility or unit dedicated solely to the care and treatment of victims of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. HCR proposes that its CON be conditioned upon locating in northwest Orange County, providing at least 30 percent of its patient days to Medicaid eligible persons, providing respite care, and dedicating all 98 beds to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HCR currently meets its Medicaid commitment in the Boynton Beach facility. LIFE CARE CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P LIFE CARE is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates two nursing homes in Florida. LIFE CARE also operates three other nursing homes in Florida. As of September 1993, LIFE CARE had a net worth of approximately $50 million. LIFE CARE proposes to construct a freestanding 98-bed nursing home (CON No. 7534) in southwest Orange County, at a total cost of $5,988,000. The LIFE CARE 98-bed facility proposal includes a 20-bed unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a 20-bed subacute unit, an adult day care center, mental health services, and services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. LIFE CARE also made a partial request (CON No. 7534P) for a 60-bed facility which would be constructed at the same site and would include the same features. For economic reasons, patients are being released from acute care hospital settings at earlier stages of recovery and there is a need for subacute nursing home services in Orange County. The incidence of AIDS/HIV is increasing and there is a need for nursing home services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The 20-bed unit proposed by LIFE CARE for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients will be a distinct part of the facility, separate from other residents. The Alzheimer's unit has its own dining area and activity area, a centrally located bathing facility, and a secured courtyard for wandering space. The 20-bed LIFE CARE subacute unit will also be separate. The subacute unit will have two ventilator areas and be contiguous to a therapy area. The LIFE CARE design includes outdoor courtyards, a library, gift shop, and ice cream parlor. Pursuant to Sections 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, one of the required elements of a CON application is the listing of capital projects, which is presented in Schedule 2 of the CON application. The Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in these proceedings is identical to the Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in the December 1993 batching cycle for LIFE CARE'S proposed Clay County Project, CON No. 7501. It has been held that Schedule 2 of the LIFE CARE Clay County Project CON application No. 7501 met minimum CON application content requirements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 20 F.L.W. 1435 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 1995). During November of 1993, a LIFE CARE nursing home located in Altamonte Springs was downgraded from a superior to a conditional licensure rating due to a deficiency related to outdated medication. The conditional rating given to the facility was in effect for approximately fifty days. The facility was then given a standard rating, and upon the annual survey in the fall of 1994, the facility has been recommended for a superior rating. All other LIFE CARE facilities have superior ratings. LIFE CARE proposes to condition its CON application upon providing Medicaid participation of 65 percent in the 98-bed facility, and 43 percent in the 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST CON No. 7528 ADVENTIST is a not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care related enterprises. ADVENTIST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation, which owns and operates hospitals and health care facilities throughout the United States. ADVENTIST has operated health care facilities in Orange County since the early 1900s when Florida Hospital was founded. ADVENTIST is the largest hospital system in Orange County, with more than 1,400 beds located on five campuses. ADVENTIST proposes to add 38 beds to an existing freestanding 80-bed community nursing home, Sunbelt Living Center-East Orlando (SLC), which is directly adjacent to Florida Hospital's East Orlando campus. The ADVENTIST proposal would include a 20-bed subacute unit and also an 18-bed skilled nursing unit. This addition to SLC would be accomplished by constructing two new wings to the existing facility. The projected cost of the ADVENTIST addition is $1,386,500, or approximately $36,000 per bed. SLC is an 80-bed skilled nursing facility which opened in January of 1993. SLC has a superior licensure rating. SLC provides nursing home service to a variety of residents, including persons with AIDS/HIV, as well as persons with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. SLC does not have a distinct Alzheimer's unit, but is equipped with security features to accommodate Alzheimer's patients. SLC staff is trained in the care and treatment of all its residents, including those with dementia. SLC reached an occupancy rate of 96 percent-97 percent capacity in its first ten months of operation. The SLC design is based on a residential model. The intent of the design is to create a residential community, and to encourage the interaction among the residents, and also between the residents and staff. The residential wings contain twelve rooms with private and semiprivate accommodations. Each room has its own toilet facilities. The support facilities, food service, therapy areas, administrative offices, visitor and welcoming areas, are located in the center of the facility. The residential wings are clustered on each side of the facility. The facility also features outdoor courtyards and walkways adjacent to the residential wings. ADVENTIST proposes to condition its CON application on providing a Medicaid commitment of 65 percent of total patient days in the non-subacute wing of the 38-bed expansion. The ADVENTIST proposal also features an AIDS program and respite care. ADVENTIST currently meets it Medicaid commitment at SLC. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. There is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. In the 20-bed subacute unit ADVENTIST proposes that each room will include wall-mounted suction and gases to accommodate ventilator dependent patients, which will enable ADVENTIST to provide more intensive subacute care. RHA/PRINCETON CON No.7538 RHA is the owner and operator of Princeton Hospital, located on the west side of Orlando. Princeton Hospital is situated on 32 acres bordering Lake Lawne. Princeton Hospital has 150 beds, including 24 psychiatric beds, a multipurpose intensive care unit, a 13-bed progressive care unit, a nursery, pediatric services, women's services, an obstetrical unit and an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab. The psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital treats a wide range of mental disorders, including those afflicting the elderly population. The hospital also operates a senior psychiatric partial hospitalization program which serves geriatric patients, including persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Princeton Hospital currently provides care and treatment to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. Princeton Hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. On August 1, 1994, subsequent to the filing of CON application No. 7538, Princeton Hospital entered into a wide-ranging affiliation agreement with the University of Florida, College of Medicine and Shands Hospital. The agreement provides for extensive reciprocal training and educational programs between Princeton Hospital and the College of Medicine, as well as Shands Hospital. The agreement also provides for priority transfer of patients between Princeton and Shands hospitals. RHA proposes to include its nursing home facility within the scope of the affiliation agreement. The nursing home staff would benefit from the training and educational opportunities, and the nursing home patients would have access to priority reciprocity with the College of Medicine and Shands Hospital as provided for in the agreement. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994 Princeton Hospital had a Medicaid patient ratio of approximately 40 percent. Princeton Hospital also provides indigent care. RHA proposes to construct a freestanding 60-bed Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility on the campus of Princeton Hospital at a cost of $4,991,961 for 43,741 square feet, or $83,199 per bed. The services that are proposed include subacute care, a 15-bed unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long term care, and two pediatric beds. Respite care will also be provided. RHA proposes that its subacute care unit would provide step-down care for patients referred from acute care hospital settings. RHA also proposes to provide rehabilitative therapies to serve patients suffering from fractured hips and joint replacements as well as other patients needing more intensive physical therapy. Cardiac and respiratory patients will also be served in the subacute unit. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. RHA's proposed 15-bed Alzheimer's unit will be a distinct and secured part of the facility. The unit will have its own enclosed courtyard and activities area. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Orange County. RHA also proposes a program dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This program will provide long-term care, and will include psychiatric, as well as subacute services. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The RHA proposal includes two pediatric nursing home beds. It is not uncommon to provide pediatric nursing home beds in a small unit within a nursing home facility. These beds will provide subacute care to pediatric patients referred from acute care hospital settings. It is anticipated that the pediatric unit will serve patients with respiratory problems and other multiple system failures. RHA has experienced difficulty in placing pediatric patients discharged from Princeton Hospital. The RHA facility is designed in a series of modules. There are four patient wings located around a single nursing station. The Alzheimer's wing is distinct and secured. The pediatric beds are located in a single semiprivate room close to the nursing station. The subacute unit includes six beds with wall-mounted medical gases and vacuums. Each residential room has approximately 272 net square feet, and features its own handicapped toilet and bathing facilities. The facility includes a chapel, convenience store, laundry, ice cream shop, and beauty shop, designed in a mall concept. The corridors are ten feet in width instead of the standard eight feet. The intent of the design concept is to encourage social interaction. As designed, the location of the soiled utility room in the facility does not comply with applicable Florida code regulations; however, a proposed minor change in the design will move the soiled utility room approximately twenty feet to bring the facility into compliance with Florida code regulations. ALLOCATION FACTORS Relationship to District and State Health Plans Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes District Health Plan Allocation Factor 1 of the District Health Plan provides a priority for an applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center. This preference will continue to be given applicants until a total of 120 beds is obtained. HCR is the only applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center; however, in January of 1993, Sunbelt Living Center, a 120-bed community nursing home opened in Apopka, Florida, which is located in the northwest Orange County population center. Accordingly, the total bed number for this preference has been obtained, and this district allocation factor is inapplicable to these proceedings. Allocation Factor 2 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for applicants developing specific services for newborn and/or pediatric patients. RHA is the only applicant proposing specific services which include a unit for the care and treatment of pediatric patients. Accordingly, RHA is the only applicant which meets this allocation factor. Allocation Factor 3 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for an applicant proposing to develop a specific specialty service (or services), such as a unit for medically complex patients, a unit dealing with psychiatric disorders as a primary diagnosis, or services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This preference is also provided to an applicant which commits to working with, or in conjunction with, an existing provider of a specialty service, such as hospices, or mental health providers. RHA is the applicant which best meets this allocation factor. The RHA proposal provides for specialty services for medically complex patients, provides for services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV, and RHA specifically commits to working with mental health providers, including working with the psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE also propose to provide specialty services to medically complex patients in subacute units; however, the ADVENTIST facility is better equipped in this regard and is designed with piped in medical gases, vacuum, and expanded electrical capacity will have the capability to provide more extensive services. LIFE CARE also proposes to treat persons suffering from AIDS/HIV and persons with mental disorders. The LIFE CARE proposal, however, is not as specific in this regard as that of RHA. HCR proposes to provide specialty services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and is in general compliance with this allocation factor. State Health Plan Allocation Factors Each applicant meets the first State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to locate in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Orange County exceeds 90 percent. RHA and LIFE CARE meet the second State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of nursing homes. In Orange County the average is 65 percent for Medicaid service. ADVENTIST meets this preference with regard to its non-subacute unit. HCR which proposes a 30 percent Medicaid service does not meet this preference. The third State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Each applicant generally complies with this allocation factor and offers specialty services; however, RHA with its broader spectrum of specialty services, including services to AIDS/HIV residents, Alzheimer's residents, and its specific commitment to working with residents suffering from psychiatric disorders best meets this preference. The fourth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this preference. RHA and ADVENTIST have a history of providing quality health care service to the community. RHA and ADVENTIST have extensive ongoing relationships with acute care hospitals. HCR and LIFE CARE have also established relationships which will address providing a continuum of care, but not to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. The fifth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Each applicant proposes facilities designed to provide resident comfort and quality care. Each design has comfortable resident rooms, spacious activities areas, recreation areas, courtyards, landscaping, therapy rooms, and staff lounge areas. Each applicant meets this preference. The sixth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing innovative therapeutic programs which have proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functioning level and which emphasize restorative care. Each of the applicants' proposals feature specific elements of innovative therapeutic programs. HCR has received an award for its innovative design of the Boynton Beach Alzheimer's unit. RHA offers a multi-discipline approach with a psychiatric program. ADVENTIST offers an intensive subacute care unit, and LIFE CARE offer a well-balanced approach with intensive staff training. The seventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. In this respect, HCR projects Medicaid charges of $96.20 per patient day in Year 1, and $93.32 in Year 2. LIFE CARE projects Medicaid charges of $104.74 per patient day in Year 1, and $106.20 in Year 2. ADVENTIST projects Medicaid charges of $106.00 per patient day in Year 1, and $111.30 in Year 2. RHA projects Medicaid charges of $107.02 per patient day in Year 1, and $109.24 in Year 2. While HCR projects the lowest Medicaid per diem charges and appears to best meet this allocation factor, all applicants have agreed to a specified Medicaid utilization rate, and will accept the appropriate Medicaid reimbursement levels. The eighth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant with a history of providing superior resident care in Florida or other states. HCR has maintained superior licensure ratings, and its prototype Boynton Beach facility currently is rated superior. LIFE CARE in 1993 experienced a conditional rating for its Altamonte Springs facility; however, the facility, upon evaluation in the fall of 1994, is now recommended for a superior licensure rating. RHA does not currently operate nursing homes; however, RHA has a history of providing quality care in its Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST is the only applicant proposing to add nursing home beds to an existing facility that currently has a superior licensure rating, and in this respect, ADVENTIST best meets this allocation factor. The ninth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing staff levels which exceed minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents shall be given preference. All applicants meet this factor; however a comparison of the nursing staffing patterns of the applicants reflects that HCR (45.40 nursing FTE) and LIFE CARE (45.30 nursing FTE) have a higher than the minimum required ratio of nursing staff to residents for their proposed 98-bed facilities. RHA has proposed 35.30 nursing FTE for its 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST proposes a total 62.40 nursing FTE for its facility after the proposed 38-bed addition. The tenth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreational activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All the applicants offer a wide range of social, spiritual, nutritional, and recreational services. RHA, however, also proposes specific utilization of mental health care professionals, and a specific affiliation with the psychiatric care professionals from Princeton Hospital, and best meets this factor. The eleventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who ensures the residents' rights and privacy, and who implements a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Each applicant has documented specific plans for quality assurance and ensuring the residents' rights and privacy are protected. Accordingly, each applicant meets this factor. The final State Health Plan allocation factor provides for a preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs, and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. HCR has the lowest projected administrative and overhead costs ($18.28 per patient day as of Year 2), and best meets this allocation factor. Statutory Review Criteria, Section 408.035(1), F.S. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, inadequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. HCR, LIFE CARE, and RHA each proposes a unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (HCR 98-bed facility, LIFE CARE 20-bed unit, and RHA 15-bed unit). ADVENTIST, while currently providing care for Alzheimer's patients at SLC, does not propose a distinct Alzheimer's unit in its 38-bed addition. There are currently at least five nursing homes in the service district, and two others in close proximity, which feature dedicated Alzheimer's units, with a total of at least 345 nursing home beds serving Alzheimer's patients. There is a high utilization rate of Alzheimer's nursing home beds in the district. While there is an established need for more beds to serve Alzheimer's patients, particularly Alzheimer's patients with a history of disruptive behavior, there are additional needs in the service district to provide care and treatment for subacute patients, and for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. It is difficult to quantify the need for subacute nursing home beds due to the differing professional definitions of what constitutes subacute care; however, acute care hospitals in Orange County are, for cost-effective reasons, now releasing patients on an earlier basis, and there is an established need for nursing home beds to accommodate persons released from acute care hospitals. There is a high utilization rate of subacute beds in the district. There has also been an increase in the incidence of AIDS/HIV patients, and in the need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each applicant has the ability to provide quality of care, and each applicant has a history of providing quality of care. The distinguishing factors in this regard are that LIFE CARE is the only applicant that has experienced a downgrading of a nursing home facility from a superior to a conditional licensure rating, and ADVENTIST is the only applicant that proposes to add nursing home beds to a facility that currently has a superior licensure rating. In comparison, ADVENTIST best meets this factor, and LIFE CARE least meets this factor. Section 408.035(1)(e): Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. ADVENTIST and RHA both have specific proposals to work with, and share services with acute care hospitals. Both are in close proximity to acute care hospitals which will expedite sharing of medical resources. RHA will also share dietary services with Princeton Hospital. The freestanding facilities proposed by HCR and LIFE CARE do not have this advantage. Section 408.035(1)(f): The need in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. This factor is inapplicable to the proposals. No specific need was established as to special services and equipment not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. There are dedicated Alzheimer's units and dementia services for persons in adjoining areas. Section 408.035(1)(g): The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners. RHA has an extensive proposal for the participation and training of health care practitioners in conjunction with Princeton Hospital and best meets this criterion. RHA's affiliation with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Hospital, and the Brain Institute at the University of Florida enhances this proposal. ADVENTIST shares a similar educational and training relationship with Florida Hospital, and with Florida Hospital's registered nurse baccalaureate degree program through Southern College. LIFE CARE proposes to establish relationships with local community colleges and education centers to sponsor nursing programs. Section 408.035(1)(h): The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment As stipulated, each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant also has substantial personnel and management resources available for project accomplishment. Section 408.035(1)(i): The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. LIFE CARE, ADVENTIST and RHA meet this criterion, and reasonably project positive cash flows by the second year of operation. RHA a not-for- profit corporation, projects a net loss of $114,000 in Year 1 of operation, and an excess of revenues over expenses of $53,000 in Year 2 of operation. LIFE CARE projects a net loss of $440,496 in Year 1 and a net gain of $145,085 in Year 2 for the 98-bed facility, and a net loss of $259,971 in Year 1 and a net gain of $54,920 in Year 2 for the 60-bed facility. HCR projects an after-tax profit of $25,000 in Year 2; however, in order to attain a level of profitability HCR must meet its projected 65 percent private pay utilization. This is a very high private payor mix, and there is a significant question as to whether this payor mix is attainable in the subdistrict; however, as proposed, HCR meets this factor. Sections 408.035(1)(k)(l) and (m): Impact of the project on cost of health services; cost effective- ness; construction costs. ADVENTIST proposes the most cost-effective project by adding beds to an existing facility (SLC). The addition of 38 beds to SLC will promote and maximize the overall efficiency of the facility which was originally designed with core support features to accommodate 120 residents. The proposed 38-bed addition to SLC will also lower the costs per patient day of the entire facility. The ADVENTIST proposal adds nursing home beds at the lowest per bed cost ($36,000 per bed) of all applicants. Similarly, RHA is located on the campus of an existing acute care hospital owned by the applicant and, unlike HCR and LIFE CARE, projects no actual cash expenditure for land acquisition. Each applicant has proposed a reasonable design of its proposed facility and reasonable construction costs, and taken into consideration applicable costs and methods of energy provision and conservation. Each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant has also proposed a very high quality of care facility that will foster competition and promote quality assurance and cost- effectiveness. Each applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(n): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. RHA, ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE have proposed providing health care services to Medicaid patients at rates at, or in excess of, the district average. HCR proposes the lowest Medicaid service rate at 30 percent. RHA also has a strong record of providing Medicaid services and service to the medically indigent at Princeton Hospital. All applicants except HCR meet this factor. Section 408.035(1)(o): The applicant's past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals best meet this criterion. Both the RHA and the ADVENTIST proposals are closely associated with existing hospitals, and emphasize a continuum of care from the acute hospital setting to a nursing home facility. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals promote the interaction of health care professionals in a multilevel health care system. The HCR and LIFE CARE proposals do not reflect such an extensive interconnection with other aspects of the health care system, and do not promote a continuum of care to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. Section 408.035(2)(b): Whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those being proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. The evidence reflects that the existing inpatient facilities in, or adjacent to, the district which offer subacute and AIDS services, as well as services dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are operating at, or near, capacity, and are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: RHA's application for CON No. 7538 be APPROVED. ADVENTIST'S application for CON No. 7528 be APPROVED. HCR's application for CON No. 7530 be DENIED. LIFE CARE'S applications for CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 27th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX HCR's Proposed Findings 1-5. Accepted in substance. 6. Rejected, insofar as quantification of need for subacute services, while not readily ascertainable, was demonstrated by other applicants.demonstrated need existed in district 7-8. Accepted in substance. 9. See Number 6. 10-14. Accepted in substance, but disposed of by ruling in Clay County case. 15-27. Accepted in substance. 28-36. Rejected insofar as quantification of need for subacute services is not readily accessible; however, need for such services was established. Accepted, except that need for 120 beds has been met. Accepted, except that RHA proposes specific pediatric services and is entitled to preference. Accepted in substance, except last sentence is rejected. Accepted. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST meets preference as to the non- subacute unit. 42-43. Accepted in substance. 44-45. Rejected. Accepted in substance. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST and RHA also meet this factor, and ADVENTIST is adding beds to an existing superior-rated facility. 48-50. Accepted in part, other applicants meet these factors. 51-65. Accepted in substance; however other services are also needed in the district. 66-67. Rejected. 68-73. Accepted in substance. 74-76. Accepted; however other services are also needed in the district. 77. Rejected. 78-86. Accepted in substance. 87-94. Accepted only to the extent that the HCR proposal meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate financial feasibility. 95-103. Accepted in substance; however each applicant's proposal also meets this factor. 104-112. Accepted in substance. 113. Rejected. 114. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. 115-116. Accepted only as to RHA design features. 117-122. Rejected. 123-127. Accepted in substance. 128-131. Rejected. LIFE CARE's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted in substance. 4. Accepted, except that district plan includes consideration of pediatric population. 5-7. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. See Finding No. 4. Rejected to the extent that it is not uncommon for pediatric care to be provided in a nursing home setting. 10-38. Accepted in substance. 39-40. Rejected to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST have competitive staff salaries and have experienced no difficulty in hiring qualified staff. 41-57. Accepted in substance. 58-59. Rejected. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. Rejected. 62-65. Accepted in substance. 66-69. Disposed of by Clay County case. Accepted; however ADVENTIST meets this factor in the non-subacute unit. Accepted in substance. ADVENTIST's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted in substance. 5. Accepted only to the extent that HCR does not propose a specific subacute care unit. 6-13. Accepted in substance. Rejected to the extent that HCR's proposal meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. Accepted. 16-17. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. 20-21. Accepted in substance. 22-26. Disposed of by Clay County case. 27-29. Accepted in substance 30-31. Rejected. 32-35. Accepted in substance. 36. Rejected; see No. 19. 37-106. Accepted in substance. 107. Accepted; see No. 19. RHA's Proposed Findings 1-21. Accepted in substance. 22. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. 23-54. Accepted in substance. 55. Accepted to the extent that there are at least seven nursing homes with dedicated Alzheimer's units in or near the service area. 56-92. Accepted in substance. 93-96. Accepted; however HCR meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 97-102. Accepted; however LIFE CARE meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 103. Rejected. 104-122. Accepted in substance. 123. Rejected. 124-135. Accepted in substance. 136. Rejected to the extent that all applicants have met the design criterion. 137-140. Accepted in substance. 141. Rejected. 142-145. Accepted in substance. 146. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire BOONE, BOONE & BOONE, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida. 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HABEN, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Dean Bunton, Esquire Senior Attorney, AHCA Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire MATEER, HARBERT & BATES, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Barclay, Esquire COBB, C0LE & BELL 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the evidence presented by Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Sarasota, established its entitlement to approval of Certificate of Need Application No. 9320 for the addition of 21 acute care beds.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency authorized to administer the certificate of need (CON) program for health care services and facilities in Florida. For the January 2000 batching cycle, AHCA published a fixed need of zero for additional acute care beds in District 8, Subdistrict 6, for Sarasota County. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Sarasota (Doctors Hospital) applied for Certificate of Need (CON) Number 9320, to add 21 acute care beds to those licensed and in service at its hospital in Sarasota County. If approved, the CON will have, as a condition, Doctors Hospital's commitment to provide 3.8 percent of patient days in the 21 beds to charity/self-pay and 3.2 percent to Medicaid patients. Doctors Hospital is owned and operated by The Health Care Company (HCA), formerly Columbia HCA, the largest investor- owned, for-profit hospital company in the United States. HCA owns and operates two hundred hospitals nationwide, forty-two of those in the State of Florida. Doctors Hospital is licensed to operate 147 acute care beds, in a five-story building. The first floor is used for ancillary, support, and diagnostic functions. These include radiology, cardiovascular and laboratory services, as well as the kitchen, cafeteria, administrative offices and medical records. The second floor is occupied by inpatient and outpatient surgical units, the central processing department, an endoscopy unit and a unit with 16 intensive care beds (ICU). The third floor is largely dedicated to acute care beds in specialty units, including a 9-bed surgical progressive care unit, a 14-bed oncology unit, a 9-bed unit for pediatrics, and a 17-bed obstetrics unit. The fourth floor has 42 licensed acute care beds and an additional 21 unlicensed beds which are used for observation or overflow patients. Observation patients are technically outpatients who occupy inpatient beds for less than 23 hours. From 30 to 50 outpatients use Doctors Hospital daily, although not all of those need acute care beds. In general, post-surgery patients who have moved from the recovery room or patients who require evaluations of their progress for a relatively short period of time occupy observation beds. The 21-bed observation unit, which was previously a licensed substance abuse unit, is the subject of the application at issue in this case. AHCA's expert witness testified that ". . . whenever the hospital is using these unlicensed beds, it is illegal." (Transcript, p. 218). Finally, the fifth floor at Doctors Hospital is used primarily for cardiac care. All of the 40 beds are telemetry monitored, eight of which are grouped together in a cardiac progressive care unit. Doctors Hospital is pursuing a pending application to perform open heart surgery, as a part of its plan to expand cardiac services. Approximately 25 percent of all admissions, the single largest diagnostic group, receive cardiac care. Approximately 800 cardiac catheterizations are performed annually at Doctors Hospital. Doctors Hospital also expects to expand women's' health services, based on increasing levels of inpatient admissions. Obstetrics admissions, for example, increased in volume by eight percent in one year. Doctors Hospital operates an emergency department, which was expected to reach a volume of 24,000 visits, or a three percent increase last year over the prior year. Almost 20 percent of the emergency room visits result in admissions to the hospital, which accounts for approximately 60 percent of total hospital admissions. The proportion of visits as compared to admissions is slightly higher than the subdistrict rate of 16.76 percent. The medical staff at Doctors Hospital is composed of close to 550 Board-certified or Board-eligible physicians who, as required by the hospital's bylaws, live or have offices within the Sarasota area or in southern and eastern areas of Manatee County. Subdistrict occupancy of at least 75 percent; and Rule 59C- 1.038(4)-not normal circumstances if below 75 percent AHCA determined that additional acute care beds are not needed in Sarasota County, partly because the occupancy requirement in the local health plan preference was not met. That requirement, for at least 75 percent average 12-month occupancy in acute care beds in the subdistrict, is substantially the same as that required by rule, to find need under normal circumstances. See Rule 59C-1.038(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1999). Four hospitals in Sarasota County have licensed acute care beds. In addition to Doctors Hospital, which is located in eastern Sarasota County, one and a half blocks east of Interstate 75, there are Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Sarasota Memorial), which is six miles to the west, Bon Secours-Venice Hospital (Bon Secours) and Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), both of which are approximately 25 miles from Doctors Hospital in southern Sarasota County. At the four Sarasota County hospitals, the average annual acute care bed occupancy, calculated by AHCA, was 47.21 percent from July 1998 to June 1999. Average occupancy rates reported for each hospital separately, for that same period of time, for calendar year were as shown below: 1999, and from July 1999 to June 2000, 7/98-6/99 1999 7/99-6/2000 Doctors Hospital 69.95 68.84 68.48 Sarasota Memorial 38.23 40.59 39.68 Bon Secours 46.39 48.24 47.98 Englewood 55.80 63.11 64.98 The average annual occupancy for each hospital in AHCA District 8, subdistrict 6 is below 75 percent. Therefore, no additional acute care beds should be needed under normal circumstances. Hospital occupancy in acute care beds of at least 80 percent; Rule 59C-1.030(2)(a) -need for additional capacity; and Rule 59C-1.038(5) - not normal circumstances if over 80 percent The hospital-specific acute care bed occupancy preference, requiring at least 80 percent occupancy is also not met by Doctors Hospital. AHCA calculated the hospital's occupancy as 70.40 percent for what it termed "the reporting period." Doctors Hospital contends that a more realistic appraisal of the demand for beds requires the exclusion of the beds in the pediatrics and obstetrics units. The obstetrics unit, with 17 beds, is locked to limit access to newborns with limited immune system capabilities and to prevent abductions. Newborns stay in the rooms with their mothers, and it is not practical to use those beds for other medical/surgical patients. Although overflow post-surgical patients are sometimes placed in available beds in the nine-bed pediatric unit, concerns similar to those related to the obstetrics unit limit the use of designated pediatric beds for general acute care patients. Excluding pediatrics and obstetrics, Doctors Hospital has 121 acute care beds. Using only 121 acute care beds, to represent those which are generally available for adult medical/surgical patients, the occupancy rates in those beds were 84.14 percent in 1998, 79.02 percent in 1999, and 79.69 percent in 2000 (from January through September). For 2000, adjusted to include the remaining three months of the year, the occupancy rate is approximately 81 percent. Some of the 121 general adult acute care beds, even when available, are inappropriate for many medical/surgical patients. The 16-bed ICU on the second floor of Doctors Hospital is uncomfortable and unnecessarily costly for the hospital to operate for patients who do not require intensive care. The ICU does not have the same degree of privacy as patient rooms. Toilet facilities are located behind curtains. There are no showers. Lights are turned on almost 24 hours a day. For similar reasons, the surgical progressive care, cardiac progressive care units may be inappropriate for many patients. The oncology unit is not acceptable to some doctors due to the presence of terminally ill patients. There are also financial inefficiencies like those associated with intensive care, due to higher costs for the services provided in units which routinely care for more severely ill patients. Doctors Hospital evaluated occupancy levels excluding the specialty units. The occupancy levels in the remaining 74 acute care beds exceeded 70 percent, more than 80 percent of the time between January and November 2000. The most accurate measure of utilization of the facility, based on the evidence presented by Doctors Hospital, is not the midnight census. Although traditionally used by the hospital industry, in fact, the midnight census is typically the lowest of the day. When taken into account, outpatient and emergency room admissions, often arriving in the morning or during the day and discharged in the afternoon or evening, increase the midnight census at Doctors Hospital by five to ten patients each day. Doctors Hospital reported the effects of daily and seasonal variations on the utilization of acute care beds. From January through March, occupancy levels are higher than any other months. The same is true of weekdays, particularly towards the middle or end of the week, when occupancy levels range from four to seven percent higher than on weekends or at the beginning of the week. With average lengths of stay of four to four and a half days, utilization is uneven and usually at its peak on Thursdays of each week. Average monthly occupancy levels for the first nine months of 2000, ranged from lows of 67.88 percent in September and 70.35 percent in August to highs of 92.96 percent in January and 94.04 percent in February. AHCA rejected the notion that seasonal occupancy is a not normal basis for the approval of additional beds at Doctors' Hospital, because it is typical for all hospitals in Florida to experience higher volumes in winter due to the increase in the population of so-called "snowbirds." That group of older winter residents usually causes an increase in hospital occupancy in the first quarter of each year. AHCA found that additional acute care beds are not needed at Doctors Hospital because occupancy rates are leveling off. What Doctors Hospital projected, in the CON application, was an increase in utilization from 1999 to 2000, despite a historical drop by a little less than 5 percentage points from 1998 to 1999. The historical experience, explained by a temporary loss of a contract with a health maintenance organization is no longer a factor, however, since that contract has been renegotiated and re-instituted. By the end of 2001, Doctors Hospital reasonably projected 85 percent occupancy without the 21 additional acute care beds, and 72 percent with them. For the year 2002, occupancy levels could reach 89 percent without, and 75 percent with 21 more licensed beds included in the inventory. AHCA, by rule, has recognized that 80 percent occupancy is excessive. In order to accommodate unexpected demand, to move patients into appropriate units, and to operate at peak efficiencies, 75 percent occupancy is recommended. 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing facilities in the area AHCA found no geographical, financial, or other access problems in Sarasota County. The population growth rate for Sarasota County is slower than that of the rest of District 8 and the State, although the fastest growing areas of the County are the zip codes in the Doctors Hospital service area. AHCA considered Sarasota Memorial a viable alternative to the use of additional beds at Doctors Hospital. Sarasota Memorial is six miles from Doctors Hospital, is larger, and offers the same services. It is also a disproportionate share provider, meaning it delivers a higher percentage of care to Medicaid-funded and other low income patients. AHCA proposed that Doctors Hospital respond to any capacity constraints by transferring patients to other under- utilized hospitals, particularly Sarasota Memorial. There was no issue raised concerning the quality of care at any of the other hospitals. Doctors Hospital may be able to redirect some but not all its inpatient admissions to Sarasota Memorial. Based on the proximity of Interstate 75, the lack of any trauma protocols in the district and federal regulations requiring the receiving hospital to treat some emergency room patients, Doctors Hospital cannot divert many of those patients to Sarasota Memorial. These patients represent 60 percent of total admissions to Doctors Hospital. Although the significant overlap in medical staffs allows the medical staff to respond to any over-crowding at Doctors Hospital, they are not re-directing their patients in sufficient numbers to alleviate the need to use the 21 unlicensed beds at Doctors Hospital. Another alternative to the CON proposal is a reallocation of beds from obstetrics, pediatrics, or other special units to increase the supply for general medical/surgical patients. The physical limitations on the accessibility and appropriateness of obstetrics and pediatrics units which justify their exclusion from any realistic evaluation of demand, also render infeasible any partial reallocation of their beds for general acute care use. Unit sizes based on staffing requirements and the efficient allocation of resources should not be altered as long as those special services are provided. 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact on costs, competition, innovations in financing and delivery of services, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness The 21 beds, which are proposed for acute care licensure are located on the fourth floor of Doctors Hospital. The equipment and staff available for the unit, currently used largely for observation patients, is substantially the same as that for other beds and units in the hospital. The nurse's station, corridors, furniture, bathrooms and medical air and gases are also the same. The only difference is that, unlike the existing acute care beds, most of the 21 beds are in semi- private rather than private rooms. The total estimated building cost for the project is, at most, $123,500 for refurbishing and cosmetic work. No additional fixed costs will be added to the health care system as a result of the approval of this CON application. There is no evidence of any adverse impacts on the other three acute care hospitals in the subdistrict. 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care in multilevel system Although Doctors Hospital described community relationships and outpatient programs in its CON application, it is not a part of a multilevel health care system. Summary of criteria and prior AHCA decisions On balance, the evidence shows a need for the use of the 21 additional beds for acute care, as proposed in CON application number 9320. Doctors Hospital has demonstrated that it substantially meets all the CON criteria at issue in this proceeding, except the subdistrict occupancy of 75 percent and the operation of a multilevel health care system. In a case concerning Doctors Hospital's application for approval of an open heart surgery program, AHCA agreed that certain constraints on capacity exist at the facility. As described by the Administrative Law Judge and agreed by AHCA, the situation at Doctors Hospital, based on evidence presented in February and March of 1999, was as follows: Doctors' Capacity to Accommodate an OHS Program. Doctors' daily inpatient census has steadily grown since Doctors opened its new facility in 1995 in part because of the changed perception among physicians that the new facility is better able to handle more complex patients. Doctors' daily in-patient census will continue to grow in the foreseeable future as Doctors continues its successful efforts to increase the number of inpatient admissions at its hospital. At times, Doctors currently operates over its licensed bed capacity during the busy season. It has had as many as 188 in- patients in the facility for its 147 beds. Asked at hearing about operating in excess of capacity, Mr. Lievense replied, [B]ut they're not all in beds . . . in the middle of the day . . . you've got people down in the cath labs, . . . in the ORs, you've got them in the PACU, the recovery area . . . scattered all over the hospital. So you can have them . . . moving around like that and they're classified as inpatients, but in terms of the operation of the hospital, we don't look at them as inpatient, we look at them as a patient in process. (Tr. 116). Since opening its new facility, from time to time, Doctors has had to alert the Emergency Medical Services Office of Sarasota County to divert emergency patients from Doctors because of lack of beds. Because of its current constraints, during the busy season, Doctors will not be able to accommodate the incremental increase in daily census of 14 patients that is associated with implementation of an OHS program at Doctors, without operating in excess of its licensed bed capacity, regardless of the efforts of special bed coordinators who attempt to appropriately locate and relocate patients throughout the hospital. Doctors has 16 ICU beds grouped in two 8-bed pods. It plans to use five of them for the open heart patients. A review of Doctors' census shows that two-thirds of the time during the peak season (January through March), Doctors does not have five beds available for the open heart program. The problem is not limited to the peak season. Doctors has critical care capacity problems "year-wide." (Tr. 2082). Doctors' capacity constraints seriously compromise Doctors' ability to operate a high quality OHS program. Doctors does not have adequate numbers of OHS critical care beds to ensure its ability to provide high quality postoperative critical care to fresh OHS patients. At times, the five beds reserved for OHS patients might be occupied by both OHS and general ICU patients. At other times, an ICU bed might not be available for an OHS patient and the patient would have to be in another unit. Mixing OHS patients and general ICU patients is not good practice because it increases the exposure of the OHS patients to infection. Doctors' lack of adequate OHS critical care beds adversely impacts Doctors' ability to provide high quality of care to OHS patients. Doctors' ability to accommodate an OHS program is also compromised by the absence from Doctors' proposal of plans to construct and equip an additional cath lab, which will be necessary to accommodate the anticipated increase in diagnostic cardiac caths and angioplasties that are associated with an OHS program. Punta Gorda HMA, Inc., etc., et al. vs. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 98-1134 (F.O. 2/9/2000; R.O. 9/16/1999). At the final hearing in this case, AHCA's expert attempted to distinguish the OHS case from this case, as follows: Q Did you review the Doctor's Hospital open-heart surgery final order? A Yes. Q What is your understanding of the capacity constraints indicated in the final order for Doctor's Hospital? A That is a final order related to the addition of a new service at an existing provider. And issues of capacity related to their ability to successfully integrate a new service are in play. Q Do you view that as a situation that we are discussing today? A No. Q How does it differ? A Here we are talking about adding beds to a service area where there are many beds of the types already available. Transcript, page 206. Although it does appear that critical care beds are the focus of concern in the open heart surgery case, the findings also clearly demonstrated that AHCA determined that utilization at Doctors Hospital exceeded licensed acute care bed capacity. AHCA's position in this case is not consistent with the evidence in this case or its findings in the prior open heart surgery case. Doctors Hospital also demonstrated some inconsistencies in AHCA's interpretation of subdistrict and hospital occupancy requirements and not normal circumstances for the addition of acute care beds in other recent cases. In its review of CON applications to add acute care beds, AHCA has preliminarily approved 14, since 1997, in which subdistrict occupancies ranged from a low of 36.66 percent in 1998-1999 at a Lake City hospital, to a high of 74.74 percent in 1997-1998 in a Marion County hospital. In 10 of those, the hospital occupancy rate was below the 80 percent standard, ranging from 57.66 percent to 77.61 percent. Although each set of special circumstance is different, in nine of the applications, seasonal demand was, at least, one factor. Hospital specific occupancy levels ranged from 65.9 to 76.29 percent in five of the nine approvals based, in part, on seasonal demand. See Doctors Hospital Exhibits 23, 24, and 25; and Transcript, pages 141-145 and page 209.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application for Certificate of Need Number 9320 for Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Sarasota to add 21 licensed acute care beds. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a new 84-bed acute care hospital in Viera should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Parties Holmes and the Health First System Holmes, the applicant for the CON at issue in this case, is a not-for-profit corporation that operates two acute care hospitals in Brevard County: Holmes Regional Medical Center (HRMC) in Melbourne and Palm Bay Community Hospital (PBCH) in Palm Bay. HRMC opened in 1962. It is a 514-bed acute care hospital, with 504 acute care beds and 10 Level II neonatal intensive care (NICU) beds. HRMC provides tertiary-level services, including adult open-heart surgery, and it is the designated trauma center for Brevard County. HRMC has been recognized as one of the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals in the country, and it has received other recognitions for the high quality of care that it provides. PBCH opened in 1992. It is a 60-bed acute care hospital. PBCH does not provide tertiary-level services, and it does not provide obstetrical (OB) services. Holmes’ parent company is Health First, Inc. (Health First), which is a not-for-profit corporation formed in 1995 upon the merger of Holmes and the organization that operated Cape Canaveral Hospital (Cape Hospital). Cape Hospital is a 150-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital in Cocoa Beach. The range of services that Cape Hospital provides is broader than range of services provided at PBCH, but not as broad as the range of services provided at HRMC. For example, Cape Hospital provides OB services, but it does not have any NICU beds. All of the Health First hospitals are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Health First provides a broad range of health care services in Brevard County in addition to the hospital services provided at HRMC, PBCH, and Cape Hospital. For example, it operates a hospice program, surgical center, outpatient facilities, and fitness centers. Health First also administers the Health First Health Plan (HFHP), which is the largest managed care plan in Brevard County. All of the Health First hospitals serve patients without regard to their ability to pay, and as more fully discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, Holmes provides a significant amount of care to Medicaid and charity patients at HRMC and PBCH. Holmes also provides health care services to the medically underserved through a program known as HOPE, which stands for Health, Outreach, Prevention, and Education. HOPE was established in the early 1990’s to provide free health care for at-risk children as well as free clinics (both fixed-site and mobile) for medically underserved patients throughout Brevard County. At the time of the final hearing, the free clinics operated by HOPE were being transitioned into a federally- qualified health center, the Brevard Health Alliance (BHA). After the transition, Holmes will no longer operate the clinics; however, Holmes is obligated to provide $1.3 million per year in funding to BHA and it will continue to provide services to at- risk children through the HOPE program. Health First administers a charitable foundation that raises money to support initiatives such as the cancer center at HRMC, the construction of a hospice house, and an Alzheimer’s support center. The foundation has raised approximately $7 million since its inception in October 2001. Wuesthoff Wuesthoff operates two not-for-profit acute care hospitals in Brevard County: Wuesthoff-Rockledge and Wuesthoff- Melbourne. Like Health First, Wuesthoff provides a broad range of health care services in Brevard County in addition to its acute care hospitals. The services include a nursing home, assisted living facility, clinical laboratory, hospice program, home health agency, diagnostic center, and fitness centers. Wuesthoff-Rockledge opened in 1941. It has 245 beds, including 218 acute care beds, 10 Level II NICU beds, and 17 adult inpatient psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff-Rockledge provides tertiary-level services, including adult open-heart surgery, and it is the only acute care hospital in Brevard County designated as a Baker Act receiving facility. Wuesthoff-Rockledge is in the process of adding 44 more beds, including a new 24-bed intensive care unit (ICU) that is projected to open in 2006 and 20 acute care beds. After those beds are added, Wuesthoff-Rockledge will have 289 beds. Currently, approximately 57 percent of Wuesthoff- Rockledge’s beds are in semi-private rooms and 43 percent of the beds are in private rooms. After the addition of the 44 new beds, the percentages will be 69 percent in semi-private rooms and 31 percent in private rooms. Wuesthoff-Melbourne opened in December 2002. It originally received CON approval for 50 beds in November 2000. Before it opened, it received CON approval for an additional 50 beds, which increased its licensed capacity to 100 beds. Wuesthoff-Melbourne opened with 65 beds, all of which are in private rooms. At the time of the hearing, Wuesthoff- Melbourne had that same number of beds and an occupancy rate of approximately 80 percent. In December 2004, Wuesthoff-Melbourne added an additional 50 beds. Wuesthoff was awaiting final licensure approval from the Agency for those beds at the time of the hearing. The approval will increase Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s licensed capacity to 115 beds, all of which are in private rooms. The additional 15 beds (beyond the 100 previously licensed) were added pursuant to the 2004 amendments to the CON law, which permit bed expansions at existing hospitals without CON approval. Wuesthoff-Melbourne was designed and engineered for approximately 200 beds, and it expects to have 134 beds in service in the near future. The space for the additional 19 beds (to expand from 115 to 134) has been shelled-in, and the bed expansion will likely be completed in late-2005 or early- 2006. All of those beds will be in private rooms. The expansion of Wuesthoff-Melbourne to 134 beds will occur notwithstanding the outcome of this proceeding, but the expansion of the facility to 200 beds depends in large part on the outcome of this proceeding. Wuesthoff-Melbourne provides all of the basic acute care services, including OB services. It does not provide tertiary-level services. The Wuesthoff hospitals are accredited by JCAHO. Wuesthoff has been recognized as one of the “100 Most Wired” hospitals by Hospitals & Health Networks magazine for the comprehensive information technology (IT) systems in place at its hospitals. The Wuesthoff hospitals serve all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and as discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, the Wuesthoff hospitals provide a significant amount of care to Medicaid and charity patients. Wuesthoff also provides health care services to the medically underserved through a free health clinic in Cocoa and a mobile unit that serves patients throughout Brevard County. Like Health First, Wuesthoff administers a charitable foundation that funds initiatives at the Wuesthoff hospitals and in the community. (3) Agency The Agency is the state agency that administers the CON program and is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on CON applications. Application Submittal and Preliminary Agency Action Holmes filed a letter of intent and a CON application in the first batching cycle of 2004 for hospital beds and facilities. Holmes’ letter of intent and CON application were timely and properly filed. Holmes application, CON 9759, proposes the establishment of a new 84-bed acute care hospital in the Viera area of Brevard County. The proposed hospital will be known as Viera Medical Center (VMC). The fixed need pool published by the Agency for the applicable batching cycle identified a need for zero new acute care beds in Subdistrict 7-1, which is Brevard County. There were no challenges to the published fixed need pool. The Agency comparatively reviewed Holmes’ application with the CON applications filed by Wuesthoff to add 34 beds at Wuesthoff-Melbourne (CON 9760) and to add 44 beds at Wuesthoff- Rockledge (CON 9761). On June 10, 2004, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), which summarized the Agency’s findings and conclusions based upon its comparative review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of Holmes’ application and both of Wuesthoff's applications. After the Agency published notice of its intent to deny the applications in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Holmes timely petitioned the Agency for an administrative hearing on the denial of its application. Wuesthoff did not pursue an administrative hearing on the denial of its applications as a result of the 2004 amendments to the CON law, which became effective July 1, 2004. Under the new law, a CON is not needed to add acute care beds at an existing hospital and, as indicated above, the Wuesthoff hospitals are already in the process of adding the beds that they were seeking through CON 9760 and CON 9761. The Agency reaffirmed its opposition to Holmes’ application at the hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the Bureau Chief for the Agency’s CON program. Acute Care Subdistrict 7-1 / Brevard County The Agency uses a five-year planning horizon in determining the need for new acute care beds, and it calculates the inventory of acute care beds and considers CON applications for new acute care beds on a subdistrict basis. Brevard County is in Subdistrict 7-1. There are no other counties in the subdistrict. There are six existing acute care hospitals in Brevard County, all of which are not-for-profit hospitals: Parrish Medical Center (Parrish) in Titusville, Cape Hosptial, Wuesthoff-Rockledge, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, HRMC, and PBCH. Brevard County is a long, narrow county. It stretches approximately 70 miles north to south, but averages only 20 miles east to west. The county is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by the St. Johns River and Osceola County, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The major north-south arterial roads in the county are Interstate 95 (I-95) and U.S. Highway 1 (US 1). The Intracoastal Waterway also runs north and south through the eastern portion of the county. Other arterial roads in the south/central portion of the county are Murrell Road, Eau Gallie Boulevard and Wickham Road. Because of the county’s long and narrow geography, three recognized market areas for hospital services have developed in the county, i.e., northern, central, and southern. The northern area of the county, which includes the Titusville area, had approximately 63,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by one hospital: Parrish. The central area of the county, which includes the Rockledge and Cocoa areas, had approximately 163,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by two hospitals: Wuesthoff- Rockledge and Cape Hospital. The southern area of the county, which includes the Melbourne and Palm Bay areas, had approximately 276,000 residents in 2003. It is primarily served by three hospitals: HRMC, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, and Palm Bay. The Viera area, discussed below, overlaps the central and southern market areas and is primarily served by Wuesthoff- Rockledge, Wuesthoff-Melbourne, and HRMC. According to the data in Table 28 of the CON application, those hospitals together accounted for 90 percent of the patients from zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code. The evidence was not persuasive that the three market areas in Brevard County equate to “antitrust markets” from an economist’s standpoint, but it was clear that the hospitals and physicians in the county recognize the existence of the market areas. For example, there is very little overlap in the medical staffs of the hospitals in different market areas, but there is significant overlap in the medical staffs of the hospitals in the same market area, and the opening of Wuesthoff-Melbourne in south Brevard County impacted HRMC and PBCH, but had little impact on the hospitals in central Brevard County. Additionally, there is very little out-migration of patients from one area of the county to hospitals in another area. The data in Tables 18 and 19 of the CON application shows that in 2003, for example, 83.6 percent of south Brevard County adult medical/surgical patients were admitted to one of the three south Brevard County hospitals, and 79.5 percent adult medical/surgical patients in central Brevard County were admitted to one of the two hospitals in that area of the county. Viera Viera is an unincorporated area in south/central Brevard County that is being developed by The Viera Company (TVC). TVC is a for-profit land development company owned by A. Duda & Sons, Inc. (Duda). The Viera DRI Viera is being developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order that was first adopted by Brevard County in 1990. The original DRI included 3,000 acres east of I-95, which was developed primarily as residential subdivisions. In 1995, an additional 6,000 acres were added to the DRI west of I- 95, which is being developed as a mixed-use community. The portion of the DRI east of I-95 has effectively been built-out. The build-out date for the remainder of the DRI is 2020. The master plan for the DRI includes approximately 19,000 residential units, 3.7 million square feet (SF) of office space, 2.9 million SF of commercial space, a governmental center, six schools, parks, open space, and a 7,500-seat baseball stadium and practice facility used by the Florida Marlins. As of October 2004, over 5,800 homes and approximately 2 million SF of commercial and office space have been developed west of I-95 in addition to the governmental center, several schools, and the Florida Marlins’ facilities. There are approximately 12,000 acres of undeveloped, agricultural property adjacent to and to the west of the DRI that are owned by Duda and that, according to the chief operating officer of TVC, will likely be added to the DRI in the near future. The record does not reflect what type of uses will be developed on that property or when that development will begin. The DRI development order includes authorization for up to 470 hospital beds, with vested traffic concurrency for 150 beds. The master site plan for the DRI designates an area west of I-95 on the southwest corner of the Wickham Road/Lake Andrew Drive intersection as the “Proposed Viera Medical Park.” VMC is proposed for that location. The DRI development order provides all of the local government land use approvals, including traffic concurrency, that are necessary for VMC. TVC is developing Viera for and marketing it to retirees and younger persons, including families with children. The DRI includes age-restricted subdivisions, but it also includes amenities such as three elementary schools and a large regional park with ball fields and playgrounds. (2) Negotiations for a Hospital in Viera TVC has long wanted a hospital in Viera. Wuesthoff identified the Viera area as future growth area in the 1990’s and began establishing health care facilities in the area at that time. Wuesthoff has a diagnostic center, a lab facility, and a rehabilitation facility in the Suntree area, which is just to the east of the Viera DRI. Wuesthoff expressed interest in building a hospital in Viera in 1993 and, more recently, in 2003. In August 1993, Wuesthoff and TVC entered into an agreement that gave Wuesthoff a 10-year exclusive right to develop a hospital in Viera if certain conditions were met. However, Wuesthoff ultimately built Wuesthoff-Melborune in Melbourne (rather than in Viera), and the exclusivity provision in the August 1993 contract never went into effect. In July 2003, Wuesthoff sent a letter to TVC expressing its interest in obtaining an option to purchase 25 to acres within the Viera DRI to construct a hospital. In the letter, Wuesthoff stated that it would construct the hospital “within 10 years or when the population of Viera exceeds 40,000, whichever first occurs”; that the hospital would be “constructed similar to Wuesthoff Medical Center-Melbourne which currently encompasses 65 licensed beds in a 150,000 sq. ft. facility”; that it wanted the “sole right to build a hospital or hospital like facility in Viera . . . until 5 years after the opening of the hospital” and that it wanted TVC to “consider selling the desired land to Wuesthoff at a reduced price.” Wuesthoff’s July 2003 offer was not seriously considered by TVC because, by that time, TVC was in the process of finalizing its agreement for the sale of 50 acres to Health First for VMC. Additionally, the Health First agreement was more appealing to TVC because Health First was offering to purchase more property at a higher price than was Wuesthoff, and Health First was committed to building a hospital sooner than was Wuestoff. The contract between Health First and TVC was executed on August 5, 2003, and Health First has since closed on the purchase of the 50 acres at a cost of approximately $9 million. The Health First/TVC contract includes an exclusivity provision that prohibits the development of another hospital within the Viera DRI or on any of the lands owned by Duda until 2029 if Holmes constructs at least 70 percent of Phase I of the Viera Medical Park by August 31, 2006, and begins construction on a hospital with at least 80 beds by August 31, 2010. The contract also includes exclusivity provisions relating to the other uses being developed as part of the Viera Medical Park, but the exclusivity on those uses expires in 2010, at the latest. The exclusivity provision will be included in restrictive covenants that are recorded in the public records of Brevard County. The restrictive covenants will run with the land and will bind future purchasers of property from TVC and Duda. Exclusivity provisions are not uncommon in land- purchase contracts for large commercial projects or new hospitals. The August 1993 agreement between Wuesthoff and TVC included such a provision as did Wuestoff’s July 2003 offer. However, the length of the hospital exclusivity provision in the Health First/TVC contract and the fact that it applies to the land owned by Duda outside of the Viera DRI goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to allow the new hospital to become stabilized and has the potential to stifle competition for acute care hospital services in the Viera area for the next 25 years. Viera Medical Center (1) Generally Holmes conditioned the approval of its CON application on VMC being located at the "[i]ntersection of Lake Andrew Drive and Wickham Road, Viera, Florida." VMC was projected to open in 2008 as part of the Viera Medical Park that Health First is building on the 50 acres that it purchased from TVC at that location. VMC will be located in zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code. VMC will be built on 20 of the 50 acres purchased by Health First. The remaining 30 acres will be developed with the other health care facilities that will make up the Viera Medical Park. The development of the Viera Medical Park will be done in three phases. Phase I will include a fitness center; a medical office building; and outpatient facilities such as an urgent care center, an ambulatory surgical center, and a diagnostic imaging and rehabilitation center. Phase II will include VMC. Phase III may include a nursing home and/or assisted living facility as well as “multi-family retirement units.” VMC will be a 213,000 SF facility with 84 licensed beds, 16 “observation” beds, and a full emergency room (ER). The 84 licensed beds will consist of 72 acute care beds and a 12-bed critical care unit/ICU. All of the beds will be in private rooms. The total project cost for VMC is approximately $106 million, which will be funded primarily by tax-free bonds issued by Holmes. VMC will have a cardiac catheterization lab, but it will not provide interventional cardiology services such as angioplasty. VMC will not provide any tertiary-level services or OB services, and it will not have a dedicated pediatric unit. VMC will share management and administrative support services with HRMC so as to minimize duplication of those services and to reduce overhead costs. VMC will have an integrated IT system that will utilize electronic medical records and a computerized physician order entry system, as well as an electronic ICU (e-ICU). The e-ICU is an innovative critical care management system based upon a telemedicine platform that is in use at the existing Health First hospitals in Brevard County. Except for the e-ICU, which the Wuesthoff hospitals do not have, the IT systems at VMC will be materially the same as Wuesthoff’s award-winning IT systems. VMC will have a helipad without any weight restrictions and, as discussed in Part F(1)(a)(iv) below, VMC has been designed with hurricanes and other “contingency events” (e.g., bioterrorism) in mind. Demographics of VMC’s Proposed Service Area The primary service area (PSA) for VMC consists of zip codes 32934, 32935/36, 32940, and 32955/56; the secondary service area (SSA) consists of zip codes 32901/02/41, 32904, 32922/23/24, 32926/59, and 32927. Neither Wuesthoff nor the Agency contested the reasonableness of the PSA or the SSA. All of the zip codes targeted by VMC are within the primary service area of one or more of the existing hospitals, and there are three hospitals physically located within those zip codes. Wuesthoff-Melbourne and Wuestoff-Rockledge are located in VMC’s PSA, and HRMC is in VMC’s SSA. The 2003 population of the PSA was 108,436. In 2010, which would be VMC’s third year of operation, the PSA’s population is projected to be 128,498. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group that most heavily utilizes hospital services, is projected to make up 21.5 percent of the PSA’s population in 2010. That is a lower percentage than the projected populations of the 18-44 age cohort (29.1 percent) and the 45-65 age cohort (29.7 percent) in the PSA. VMC’s PSA has a more favorable payor-mix than the county as a whole. It has a lower percentage of Medicaid patients and a higher percentage of insured patients --i.e., commercial, HMO, PPO, workers comp, and Champus/VA patients -- than the county as a whole. Except for zip code 32935/36, each of the zip codes in VMC’s PSA has a higher median household income than Brevard County as a whole. Zip code 32935/36 is the zip code in which Wuesthoff-Melbourne is located. The zip code in which VMC will be located, 32940, has the highest median household income in Brevard County. The median household income in that zip code for 2004 was $67,000 as compared to the county-wide average of $44,000. Utilization Projections VMC was projected to open in January 2008, and Holmes' CON application contains utilization and financial projections for VMC's first three years of operation, i.e., 2008, 2009, and 2010. The utilization projections are based upon an average length of stay (ALOS) of 3.69 days, which is reasonable. The utilization projections are also based upon the assumption that by VMC’s third year of operation, it will have 26.9 percent market share in its PSA and a 7.4 percent market share in its SSA. VMC's projected market share in zip code 32940, which is its “home” zip code and the “main” Viera zip code, is projected to be 35 percent. The market share assumptions are reasonable and attainable. The utilization projections include a “ramp-up” period for VMC. Its annual occupancy rate in its first year of operation is projected to be 45.6 percent; its annual occupancy rate in its second year of operation is projected to be 65.7 percent; and in its third year of operation (2010), VMC is expected to have an annual occupancy rate of 76 percent with 6,313 discharges and 23,298 patient days. The occupancy rates, and the discharges and patient days upon which they are based, are reasonable and attainable.2 The application projects that VMC will redirect or “cannibalize” a significant percentage of its patients from the other Health First hospitals. The percentage of patients that VMC will cannibalize from the other Health First hospitals in each zip code varies from 75 percent to 45 percent, depending upon the proximity of the zip code to VMC. Overall, approximately 69.4 percent of VMC’s patients will be cannibalized patients, i.e., patients that would have otherwise gone to HRMC (66.2 percent), Cape Hosptial (3.2 percent), or PBCH (less than 0.1 percent). The remaining 30.6 percent of VMC’s patients will be patients that would have otherwise gone to Wuesthoff-Rockledge (15.8 percent) or Wuesthoff-Melbourne (14.8 percent). The record does not reflect the outpatient volume projected for VMC, but Holmes’ health planner conceded at the hearing that the projected outpatient revenues for VMC did not take into account the outpatient services that will be included in Phase I of the Viera Medical Park. As a result, the volume on which the outpatient revenues were based is overstated to some degree, but there was no credible evidence regarding the extent of the overstatement. VMC is projected to treat 15,851 patients in its ER in its first year of operation (2008), and by its third year of operation (2010), VMC is expected to treat 27,780 patients in its ER. The record does not reflect how those figures were calculated, nor does it reflect what percentage of those patients would have otherwise been treated in the ERs at HRMC, PBCH, or the Wuesthoff hospitals. However, the reasonableness of those figures was not contested by Wuesthoff or the Agency. Statutory and Rule Criteria Statutory Criteria -- Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2004)3 Subsections (1), (2) and (5) -– Need for Proposed Services; Accessibility of Existing Services; and Enhancing Access According to the CON application (page 14), the need for VMC is justified based upon: The large population base and significant population growth projected for the [Viera] area. The need to improve access and reduce travel times for this significant population for both critical care and inpatient services. The projected need for additional acute care beds at HRMC and the benefits of delivering non-tertiary services away from [HRMC’s] campus. Additionally, the CON application (page 15) asserts that the approval of VMC will: Significantly enhance the area’s Homeland Security and disaster planning and preparedness. Enhance the quality of care delivered to area residents as a result of key design and information technology innovations planned for [VMC]. Provide access to cost-effective, quality of care for all residents of the service area, including the uninsured. In its PRO (page 19), Holmes identifies those same six issues as the “not normal” circumstances that justify approval of VMC. Holmes’ health planner conceded at the hearing that the VMC project is not intended to address any cultural, programmatic, or financial access problems, and that those potential “not normal” circumstances were not advanced in the CON application as bases for approval of VMC. Population of and Growth in the Viera Area There has been considerable growth in Viera over the past 15 years, and the demand for new homes in the Viera DRI remains strong. The projected population of the Viera DRI is expected to exceed 40,000 when the DRI is built-out in 2020, and that figure does not include the population of the Suntree area, which is outside of the Viera DRI and has a number of large residential subdivisions. Zip code 32940, which is the “main” Viera zip code, had a population of 22,940 in 2003. By 2010, that zip code is projected to have a population of 31,862. That is an increase of 38.9 percent, but only 9,000 persons. As stated above, the population of VMC's PSA is projected to increase from 108,436 (in 2003) to 128,489 (in 2010). That is an increase of 18.5 percent, but only 20,000 persons. The population of VMC’s PSA is projected to grow at a faster rate than Brevard County as a whole. Over the seven-year period used in the application (2003 to 2010), the annual growth rate for VMC’s PSA is projected to be 2.64 percent while the annual growth rate of Brevard County as a whole is projected to be 1.74 percent.4 Population growth in Florida is normal and, indeed, is expected. There is nothing extraordinary about the growth projected for zip code 32940 and/or VMC’s PSA. Accordingly, the population growth projected in the Viera area does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of VMC. Enhanced Access There are two main components to Holmes’ argument that VMC will enhance access. First, Holmes contends that VMC will reduce travel times for Viera residents and thereby enhance their access to hospital services. Second, Holmes contends that the approval of VMC will relieve pressure on the overcrowded ERs at the existing hospitals in Brevard County thereby enhancing access to ER services countywide. For Viera Residents VMC will provide more convenient access to hospital services for Viera residents (at least those in need of the basic, non-OB services that will be offered at VMC), and to that extent, VMC will enhance access for Viera residents. VMC will also provide more convenient ER access for Viera residents. Quicker access to an ER is generally beneficial to the patient, although certain heart-attack patients may benefit more by going to the ER of a hospital that can do an immediate angioplasty, such as Wuesthoff-Rockledge or HRMC. VMC will not necessarily enhance access for other residents of the PSA and SSA targeted by VMC (e.g., those outside of the Viera area) because many of those residents are closer to an existing hospital. Indeed, some of those residents would have to pass an existing hospital to get to VMC, which seems particularly unlikely for emergency patients. VMC will also not enhance access for patients in need of OB services or tertiary services that will not be offered at VMC. Convenience alone is not a basis for approving a new hospital, particularly where (as here) the evidence establishes that the residents of the area to be served by the new hospital currently have reasonable access to hospital services. VMC will be located approximately 10 miles south of Wuesthoff-Rockledge, and approximately 11 miles north of Wuesthoff-Melbourne. VMC will be approximately 15 miles northwest of HRMC. There are multiple routes from the Viera area to the Wuesthoff hospitals and HRMC. The routes are along major arterial roads, including I-95, US 1, Wickham Road, Murrell Road, Fiske Boulevard, and Eau Gallie Boulevard. All of those roads are at least four lanes wide. The travel-time studies presented by Wuesthoff show that it takes less than 15 minutes to drive from either of the Wuesthoff hospitals to the VMC site. There was anecdotal testimony suggesting longer travel times, particularly from the VMC site to Wuesthoff-Melbourne,5 but that testimony was not as persuasive as Wuesthoff’s travel-time studies. The travel-time studies presented by Wuesthoff were not without flaws. For example, the travel times were calculated by driving away from the Wuesthoff hospitals, rather than driving towards the hospitals as a potential patient from Viera would be doing. Holmes did not present its own travel- time studies, and notwithstanding the directional issue and the other unpersuasive criticisms of the study by Holmes’ traffic engineer, Wuesthoff’s studies are found to be credible and persuasive. Indeed, Holmes’ traffic engineer estimated that it would take 15 to 20 minutes to get from VMC to Wuesthoff- Melbourne using the most direct route (Transcript, at 668), which is consistent with Wuesthoff’s travel-time studies. It takes longer to drive from Viera to HRMC than it does to drive from Viera to either of the Wuesthoff hospitals. The travel-time studies did not directly address the issue, but the anecdotal testimony suggests that the travel times from Viera to HRMC are between 25 and 45 minutes depending upon the time of day and traffic conditions.6 There are several road segments on the routes between Viera and the Wuesthoff hospitals whose “v/c ratios”7 currently exceeds 1.0, which is an indication of an over-capacity road. However, there are roadway improvements planned or underway that will expand the capacity of those road segments by 2010. Indeed, a comparison of the 2003 (Exhibit H-23) and 2010 (Exhibit W-50) v/c ratios for the road segments on the routes between Viera and the Wuesthoff hospitals shows only marginal increases in the ratios, with many of the 2010 ratios projected to be lower than 0.8, which according to Holmes’ traffic engineer, indicates that the “roadway that is probably operating well within its ability to carry that traffic volume.” Holmes’ traffic engineer did not attempt to quantify the extent to which travel times would increase due to the marginal increases in the v/c ratios. Thus, his opinion that travel times would “increase significantly” and be “significantly greater” in the future is not persuasive. TVC is required to mitigate for the off-site traffic impacts generated by the development of the Viera DRI. In this regard, road improvements (e.g., additional lanes, traffic signals, etc.) will be made in the future as necessary to accommodate the additional population in the Viera DRI. In fact, there are significant road improvements currently underway that are being funded, at least in part, by TVC pursuant to the Viera DRI development order, including the six-laning of I-95 through the Viera area. In sum, the evidence establishes that persons in the PSA and SSA targeted by VMC, including residents of the Viera area, currently have reasonable access to acute care services, and the evidence was not persuasive that there will be access problems over the applicable five-year planning horizon such that a new hospital in Viera is necessary to enhance access. For ER Services in Central and South Brevard County The Brevard County government is the emergency medical services (EMS) provider for the county. Brevard County EMS responds to emergency calls throughout the county and its ambulances transport emergency patients to hospital ERs. Overcrowded ERs can adversely affect the EMS system in several ways. First, if the ER is overcrowded it can take longer for ambulances to off-load patients to the ER staff, which results a longer period of time that the ambulance is “out of service.” Second, if the closest hospital is on “diversion status” because of an overcrowded ER, ambulances will have to transport patients to a more distant hospital, which also results in the ambulance being out of service for a longer period of time. Longer out-of-service periods can, on a cumulative basis, strain the EMS system because an out-of-service ambulance is not able to respond to emergency calls in its service area and the EMS provider may have to shift other ambulances to cover the area at the risk of increasing response times for emergency calls. Brevard County EMS protocol requires ambulances to take patients to the closest hospital, unless the patient is a trauma patient or the closest hospital is on diversion status. Trauma patients are taken to HRMC, which is the designated trauma center for the county. A hospital requests diversion status from EMS when it is unable to accept additional emergency patients because its ER is overcrowded. The most common reasons that an ER is overcrowded is that it had a large number of emergency patients arrive at the same time or that there is a “bottleneck” in the ER caused by a lack of inpatient beds to move patients from the ER that need to be admitted to the hospital. If diversion status is granted, EMS will take emergency patients to another hospital, even if it is further away than the hospital on diversion. As noted above, this strains the EMS system and can result in longer response times for emergency calls, which in turn, can negatively impact patient care. If diversion status is denied, the hospital is required to continue to accept emergency patients. This can create a less than optimal setting for patient care because the hospital may not have adequate space or resources to treat the patient in a timely manner. Until recently, Brevard County EMS would not grant diversion status to a hospital in south Brevard County if either of the other two hospitals in that area of the county informed EMS that they could not take the patients. That policy recently changed, and EMS will now grant diversion status to a hospital in south Brevard County if either of the other two hospitals in that area of the county informs EMS that it can take the patients. The new EMS policy change makes it easier for hospitals in south Brevard County to be placed in diversion status. For example, under the old policy, diversion status would not be granted to HRMC if either Wuestoff-Melbourne or PBCH informed EMS that they could not take HRMC’s emergency patients, but under the new policy, diversion status will be denied to HRMC only if Wuesthoff-Melbourne and PBCH both inform EMS that they cannot take HRMC’s emergency patients. In Brevard County, having a hospital on diversion was “pretty rare” until 2002. Diversion requests have become more frequent since then, and they are no longer a seasonal phenomenon caused by the influx of “snowbirds” into the county. Diversion is a more frequent problem in south Brevard County than it is in central Brevard County, and in south Brevard County, the diversion requests have come primarily from HRMC. The evidence was not persuasive that ER overcrowding is a significant problem for the Wuesthoff hospitals or PBCH. Wuesthoff-Melbourne has not requested to go on diversion, and only one occasion was identified where HRMC’s diversion request was denied because Wuesthoff-Melbourne was unable to handle HRMC's diverted patients. That occasion occurred when Wuesthoff-Melbourne had only 65 beds and, hence, less ability than it currently has to move patients out of the ER to accommodate additional emergency patients. According to Holmes, VMC will enhance access to ER services in central and south Brevard County because it will increase the area-wide ER capacity and reduce the frequency of diversion requests, which in turn, will reduce strains on the EMS system and benefit patients. The "North Expansion" underway at HRMC (discussed below) will include a new ER that is expected to help address the overcrowding issues that have required HRMC to request diversion in the past. The new ER is designed with shelled-in space to facilitate future ER expansions as needed. In any event, the evidence was not persuasive that VMC will materially reduce the ER volume at HRMC. The record does not reflect what percentage of VMC’s projected ER patients would have otherwise been served at HRMC as compared to the Wuesthoff hospitals. Moreover, it is not likely that non-trauma emergency patients from the Viera area are contributing to the overcrowding in the ER at HRMC because, under EMS protocol, those patients currently are being taken to Wuesthoff-Melbourne or Wuesthoff-Rockledge, which are closer to Viera than is HRMC. Need to “Decompress” HRMC Holmes contends that VMC will help to “decompress” HRMC and that it is the only viable option for doing so. HRMC is a well-utilized facility. According to the SAAR, its annual occupancy rate for the 12-month period ending June 2003 was 81.22 percent. HRMC's occupancy rate tends to stay above 80 percent, and at times it is as high as 115 percent. If VMC is not approved, HRMC’s annual occupancy rate for 2008 is projected to be 83.9 percent, and by 2010, its occupancy rate is projected to increase to 90 percent. Even if VMC is approved, HRMC’s annual occupancy rate is projected to be 81.7 percent in 2010. Those figures assume that HRMC will maintain its current bed capacity and they do not take into account the impact of the expansion of the Wuesthoff hospitals. HRMC currently includes approximately 612,000 SF. It is located on 18 acres of property that is bounded by streets and developed properties. Holmes owns several parcels of land adjacent to HRMC, and it is continuing to acquire parcels as they come available. Much of the adjacent land owned by Holmes is used for parking, and notwithstanding a 500-space parking garage on the south side of HRMC, there is still a shortage of parking at HRMC. Some of its staff parks at a nearby shopping center and take a shuttle to the hospital. There is an area on the north side of HRMC identified as the site of a "future parking garage," but there are no current plans to construct that structure. The original portion of the hospital, which is referred to as the “core” area, was built in the 1960’s. The remainder of the hospital has been added over the years, which has resulted in a less than ideal facility layout and has created operating inefficiencies. Some of the hospital’s support functions and administrative offices are located off- site. HRMC has undertaken a series of construction projects in recent years to reduce inefficiencies and congestion at the hospital and to increase the percentage of private rooms at the hospital. Those projects include the construction of a new OB unit and, most significantly, the $100 million “North Expansion.” The North Expansion is an eight-story, 337,000 SF addition to the hospital that is expected to be completed by the end of 2006. It will include 144 patient rooms, a new ER with a number of new observation beds, and it will allow all of the hospital’s cardiology services to be located in contiguous space. The 144 patient rooms will include 14 cardiovascular ICU beds, 22 ICU beds, and 108 acute care beds. All of the beds will be in private rooms. The 144 beds added as part of the North Expansion will not increase the bed capacity at Holmes. The same number of existing licensed beds will be eliminated, either through the conversion of existing semi-private rooms to private rooms or because the rooms are located in space that will be demolished to construct the North Expansion. The North Expansion has been designed and engineered to withstand 200-mile per hour winds, which exceeds the applicable building code requirements for hurricane protection. The North Expansion has also been designed and engineered to accommodate future expansion at HRMC in several respects. First, it includes shelled-in space on the eighth floor for an additional 36 private patient rooms. Second, it is engineered (but not shelled-in) to allow the fourth through eighth floors to be further expanded to include up to 180 additional private patient rooms in what was referred to at the hearing as a “mirror image” of the tower being built as part of the North Expansion. Third, the ER includes shelled-in space for future expansions as well as adjacent open space into which the ER could be further expanded in the future. There is no current plan to finish the shelled-in space on the eighth floor, but Holmes’ facility manger testified that he expected that to occur as soon as funding is available, and perhaps prior to the completion of the North Expansion. The beds added on the eighth floor will not increase the licensed capacity at Holmes, but rather they will come from the conversion of 36 additional existing semi-private rooms to private rooms. There is also no current plan to construct the “mirror image” side of the fourth through eighth floors of the North Expansion. That construction will be done in conjunction with the renovation of the core area of the hospital and will initially be used to locate the services from the core area that are displaced by the renovation. After the renovation of the core area, however, the "mirror image" will be used for patient rooms. In conjunction with the construction of the North Expansion, HRMC expects to relocate some of its ancillary and support services from the core area into the space where the existing ER is located, which in turn will open up space in the core area for other purposes. The space created by the construction of the new OB unit will also be available for other uses after it is no longer needed as "swing space" during the construction of the North Expansion. Additionally, Holmes recently purchased a building directly behind HRMC into which it will likely locate other ancillary and support services. Currently, less than 40 percent of HRMC’s general acute care beds are in private rooms. After the North Expansion, almost 80 percent of those beds will be in private rooms. Ultimately, Holmes wants all of the beds at HRMC to be in private rooms. Private rooms are beneficial because they offer the patients and their families more privacy and a more restful environment, and they can also help reduce the spread of infections. However, private rooms can also create operational inefficiencies for nurses who have to visit more rooms (often on longer hallways) than they would to serve the same number of patients in semi-private rooms. High quality care can be provided in semi-private rooms, and HRMC and Wuesthoff-Rockledge each do so. Although patients may prefer private rooms and most new hospitals are being designed with only private rooms, private rooms are still best characterized as an amenity, not a necessity. As a result, and Holmes’ desire to convert all of HRMC’s semi-private rooms to private rooms does not justify the building a new hospital based upon alleged capacity constraints at HRMC. Indeed, if Holmes chose to do so, it could increase the bed capacity at HRMC with little or no additional cost by adding the 36 beds in the shelled-in eighth floor of the North Expansion and/or by not converting as many semi-private rooms into private rooms. Moreover, after the North Expansion, HRMC will have approximately 50 observation beds (as compared to 20 currently) in private rooms that can be used for inpatients as needed. Indeed, as a result of the 2004 amendments to the CON law, some of those beds could be converted to licensed acute care beds at any time without CON review. Even if the beds are not converted to licensed beds, they will still help to decompress HRMC because observation patients will not need to be placed in inpatient rooms while they are being observed and evaluated for possible admission to the hospital. Several Holmes’ witnesses testified that even if Holmes wanted to add bed capacity to HRMC by converting fewer semi-private rooms to private rooms or other means, it could not do so because of limitations on the space available to provide the support services necessary for those additional rooms. That testimony was not persuasive because the witnesses conceded that Holmes has not undertaken a thorough analysis of what it intends to do with the space created in the existing building by the relocation of services as part of the North Expansion, which as noted above, will free up additional space for support services in the core area. The evidence was also not persuasive that the alternative presented in the CON application for adding 84 beds to HRMC is realistic. That alternative, the cost of which is presented in Table 23 of the CON application, was prepared after the decision was made to seek approval of a CON for VMC; it was not an alternative actually considered by Holmes and, indeed, it was characterized by the Holmes’ witness who prepared the cost estimate as a “theoretical solution” and not a viable solution to adding beds. The cost estimate in Table 23 is based upon a plan that would require the acquisition of additional land across the street from HRMC and the construction of a new bed tower on that land and an adjacent parcel on which Holmes currently owns a medical office building. The bed tower would be connected to HRMC by a two-story bridge over the street. The plan also includes the construction of a new parking garage and an office building to replace the existing medical office building. The land and building costs of the plan were approximately $86.2 million, which is approximately $18.3 million more than the land and building costs of VMC. When the equipment costs are added, the total cost of the plan is approximately $120 million. Not only was the plan not a viable solution, its cost was clearly overstated. For example, the $450/SF cost of the new bed tower was irreconcilably higher than the $278/SF cost of VMC and the $2.5 million that Holmes represented to the Agency in October 2003 that it would cost to add 50 beds to HRMC. In sum, the evidence fails to support Holmes’ claim that the only way to add bed capacity to HRMC is through the $120 million plan presented in Table 23 of the CON application. The evidence also fails to support Holmes’ claim that VMC is the only viable option to decompress HRMC. Indeed, the evidence establishes that HRMC could be decompressed if PBCH was better utilized. Holmes contends that PBCH is too far away from Viera to be a viable alternative to HRMC for patients from the Viera area. The evidence supports that claim, but that claim ignores the fact that better utilization of PBCH by Palm Bay patients will help to decompress HRMC. PBCH is currently an underutilized facility, and it has been ever since it opened in 1992. According to the SAAR, PBCH's annual occupancy rate for the 12-month period ending June 2003 was only 51.5 percent. Its annual occupancy rate is projected to be only 60.1 percent in 2008 and 65.4 percent in 2010, which are well below the 75 to 80 percent optimum utilization level. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of HRMC’s patient volume comes from the Palm Bay zip codes. If those patients were redirected to PBCH, the utilization rate at HRMC would go down and the utilization rate at PBCH would go up. Redirecting Palm Bay patients to PBCH has the potential to decompress HRMC more than redirecting Viera patients to VMC because HRMC has approximately 7,000 admissions from the Palm Bay area, as compared to approximately 6,000 admissions from the Viera area. Holmes did not present any persuasive evidence as to why patients from the Palm Bay zip codes could not be redirected to PBCH as a means of decompressing HRMC. On this issue, there was credible evidence presented by Wuesthoff that virtually no elective cases are being done at PBCH and that PBCH is essentially being used as a triage facility for HRMC. Finally, the expansion of the Wuesthoff hospitals (particularly Wuesthoff-Melbourne) will help to decompress HRMC because the Wuesthoff hospitals will be able to serve more patients. As the Wuestoff hospitals' market share grows, HRMC’s market share (and patient volume) will decline.8 Enhanced Homeland Security and Disaster Planning Brevard County is susceptible to hurricanes because of its location on the east coast of Florida and the length of its coastline. The evidence was not persuasive that Brevard County is more susceptible to hurricanes than are the other counties on the east coast. The three major storms that affected the county in the summer of 2004 were not the norm. Brevard County has a comprehensive emergency management plan to prepare for and respond to hurricanes, as do all of the existing hospitals in the county. Those plans were tested in the summer of 2004 when the county was directly impacted by three of the four major storms that hit the state Florida. The hospitals’ hurricane plans include securing the building, discharging as many patients as possible prior to the arrival of the storm, and canceling elective surgeries scheduled around the time the storm is expected to hit the area. The plans also provide for the evacuation of some of the hospitals during particularly strong storms, i.e., Category 3 or above. Cape Hospital is particularly prone to evacuation when a strong hurricane threatens the area because it is located close to the ocean on a peninsula in the middle of the Intracoastal Waterway. Cape Hospital was evacuated twice during the summer of 2004. None of the hospitals in Brevard County were evacuated during the first storm, Hurricane Charley. Cape Hospital and Wuesthoff-Rockledge were evacuated prior to the second storm, Hurricane Francis. That was the first time that Wuesthoff-Rockledge was evacuated since it opened in 1941, and its ER remained open and staffed even though the remainder of the hospital was evacuated. Cape Hosptial’s patients were taken to HRMC, and Wuesthoff-Rockledge patients were taken to Wuesthoff-Melbourne. The evacuated patients were accompanied by physicians and nurses and were transported to the receiving hospitals by ambulance. The evacuation of Cape Hospital and Wuesthoff- Rockledge placed strains on the receiving hospitals and their staffs. At one point during the evacuation, HRMC had more than 700 patients in its 514-bed facility and Wuesthoff-Rockledge had 156 patients in its 65-bed facility. By all accounts, despite the strains placed on the receiving hospitals, the evacuations went smoothly and there were no adverse patient outcomes attributable to the evacuation. Indeed, the director of Brevard County’s Health Department testified that all of the hospitals in the county responded and performed “great” during the hurricanes, and that sentiment was echoed by physicians and administrators affiliated with both of the hospital systems involved in this case. Cape Hospital was evacuated again prior to the third storm, Hurricane Jeanne. Wuesthoff-Rockledge was not evacuated during that storm, and approximately 15 of Cape Hospital’s patients were taken to Wuesthoff-Rockledge. None of the Health First or Wuesthoff hospitals suffered any significant damage from the hurricanes. The approval of VMC will not eliminate the possibility that Cape Hospital, Wuesthoff-Rockledge, or some other hospital in Brevard County may have to evacuate during a future hurricane. VMC may provide a more convenient (or at least an additional) place to evacuate some of the patients from Cape Hospital during a future hurricane because VMC is closer to Cape Hospital than is HRMC. VMC will also be more inland than HRMC and it will be designed to withstand 165 mile per hour winds. Holmes conditioned the approval of its CON application on the inclusion of a "suitable parcel, fully equipped and designed to support temporary staging of Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMAT)" at VMC. A DMAT is essentially a mobile emergency room set up by the federal government after a natural disaster to help serve the medical needs of those affected by the disaster. The DMAT staging area at VMC will be an open field adjacent to the hospital that is “pre-plumbed” with water, electricity, and communication lines. In some situations, it is beneficial for a DMAT to be set up proximate to a hospital, and in that regard, VMC’s inland location and proximity to I-95 may make it an attractive location to set up a DMAT in the future. It is not necessary, however, for a DMAT to be set up proximate to a hospital. DMATs are fully self-sustaining and they can be set up anywhere, including a Wal-Mart parking lot. Indeed, in some situations, it is more beneficial for the DMAT to be located closer to the persons in need of its services than to a hospital. For example, after Hurricane Jeanne, a DMAT was set up near the Barefoot Bay community in southern Brevard County, which is miles from the closest hospital. VMC’s central-county location and proximity to I-95 would also make it a good point-of-dispensing (POD) for vaccines and medicines in the case of a severe biological emergency. However, like DMATs, PODs can be set up anywhere and it is not critical for a POD to be proximate to a hospital even though proximity might allow for greater medical oversight of the dispensing process. There are high-profile, “Tier 1” terrorist targets located in Brevard County, including Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air Force Base, and Port Canaveral. There is also a nuclear power plant in Indian River County, just south of the Brevard County line. The nature of these targets is somewhat unique because they involve the country's space program, but the presence of multiple “Tier 1” terrorist targets is not unique to Brevard County and is not, in and of itself, a special circumstance that justifies approval of a new hospital. Brevard County has developed emergency management plans in conjunction with the state and federal governments to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks on those targets. Those plans have been in place for many years, but they have been significantly strengthened since September 11, 2001. VMC will include decontamination areas and other design features to facilitate the treatment of victims of bio- terrorism. The existing hospitals in Brevard County have similar design features as well as comprehensive plans for dealing with bio-terrorism. The evidence was not persuasive that VMC, as an 84- bed, non-tertiary satellite hospital, will materially enhance County’s ability to deal with a large-scale terrorist attack, whether biological or otherwise. Similarly, the evidence was not persuasive that Brevard County’s emergency management plans for hurricanes and/or terrorism are deficient in any way or that the approval of VMC would result in material enhancements to those plans. Any enhancements attributable to VMC would be marginal, at best. The DMAT staging area and other design elements included at VMC to facilitate the hospital’s participation in the Brevard County’s response to hurricanes, terrorist attacks, or other contingencies are positive attributes. Inclusion of those features in VMC (or any new hospital for that matter) is reasonable despite the infrequency of those contingencies, but it does not follow that VMC should be approved simply because it will include those features. IT Innovations and Design Features The evidence was not persuasive that VMC will provide a higher quality of care than is currently being provided at the existing hospitals serving central and south Brevard County as a result of the “innovative” IT systems and the other design features that will be incorporated into VMC. See Part F(1)(b) below. Accordingly, the approval of VMC is not justified on that basis. Enhanced Access to Care for the Uninsured Holmes’ contention that VMC will enhance access for the uninsured implicates the issue of “financial access.” Financial access concerns arise when there is evidence that necessary services are being denied to patients based upon their inability to pay or their uninsured status. Holmes’ health planner acknowledged at the hearing that VMC was not intended to address any financial access concerns for patients in the Viera area and, indeed, there was no credible evidence of any financial access concerns in PSA and SSA targeted by VMC. As discussed in Part E(2) above, VMC’s PSA include a higher percentage of insured patients than Brevard County as a whole, and as discussed in Part F(1)(g) below, the existing hospitals are adequately serving the medically indigent patients in central and south Brevard County, both at the hospital and through outreach efforts such as the Holmes’ HOPE program and Wuesthoff’s free clinics. Accordingly, the evidence failed to establish that VMC will enhance access to care for the uninsured, and approval of VMC is not justified on that basis. Subsection (3) -- Applicant’s Quality of Care Holmes, the applicant, provides a high quality of care at HRMC and PBCH, and it is reasonable to expect that it will provide the same high quality of care at VMC. The Wuesthoff hospitals also provide a high quality of care, and Holmes' witnesses acknowledged that VMC was not proposed to address any problem with quality of care in central or south Brevard County. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care at VMC will be materially better (or worse) than that provided at Wuesthoff-Melbourne, which has a similar range of services that will be provided at VMC. The award-winning IT systems in place at the Wuesthoff hospitals are materially the same as those proposed for VMC except for e-ICU at VMC. The evidence was not persuasive that the e-ICU significantly enhances quality of care, and because the e-ICU is being used at the existing Health First hospitals in Brevard County, VMC will not be providing any new technology or service that is not already available to physicians and patients in the county. Thus, the "innovative" IT systems proposed for VMC do not provide an independent basis for approving the CON application. The evidence was not persuasive that VMC would exacerbate nursing or physician shortages in Brevard County thereby negatively affecting quality of care in the county. See Part F(1)(c) below. Subsection (4) -- Availability of Personnel and Resources for Operations Holmes and Health First have the management resources necessary to establish and operate VMC. Holmes’ CON application projects that VMC will have 241.4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in its first year of operation, and that by its third year of operation, it will have 355.7 FTEs. Nursing positions -- registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, and nursing directors -- account for 123.1 of the FTEs in the first year of operation, and 189.2 of the FTEs in the third year of operation. According to the CON application, a significant number of the initial FTEs at VMC are expected to be filled by persons who transfer from Holmes’ existing campuses, HRMC and PBCH. The parties stipulated that the projected number of FTEs needed by position and the projected salaries contained in Holmes’ CON application are reasonable for the census projected at VMC. However, Wuesthoff disputed whether Holmes will be able to adequately staff VMC due to nurse and physician shortages in Brevard County and/or that VMC will exacerbate those shortages and make it more difficult to staff the existing hospitals in the county. There is a nursing shortage in Brevard County, as there is around Florida and across the nation, but the situation in Brevard County is improving. Wuesthoff was able to fully staff Wuesthoff-Melbourne prior to its opening in December 2002, even though the nursing shortage was more severe at that time. Additionally, Wuesthoff is currently in the process of adding beds at Wuestoff-Melbourne and Wuesthoff-Rockledge, and it expects to be able to recruit and retain the nurses necessary to staff those additional beds despite the current state of the nursing shortage. Holmes received “magnet designation” from the American Nurses Credentialing Center, which is a recognition of its excellence in nursing. No other hospital in Brevard County has magnet designation, and that designation helps Holmes attract and retain nurses. The evidence establishes that Holmes will be able to recruit and retain the nursing and other staff needed for VMC, and the evidence was not persuasive that the staffing of VMC will exacerbate the nursing shortage or otherwise significantly impact Wuesthoff. There is a shortage of physicians in Brevard County with certain specialties, including neurosurgery, neurology, orthopedics, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Like the nursing shortage, this problem is not unique to Brevard County and it is not as severe in Brevard County as it is elsewhere in the state. The shortage of physician specialists in Brevard County is to some extent hospital-specific. For example, there is only one neurosurgeon covering Wuesthoff-Rockledge and Cape Hospital, and Wuesthoff-Melbourne only has part-time coverage neurosurgical coverage, but Holmes has several neurosurgeons. Holmes has recently had success in recruiting new physicians to Brevard County, including specialists. One of the largest multi-specialty physician groups in Brevard County, whose physicians are on staff at Holmes’ and Wuestoff's hospitals, has also been successful recently in recruiting new physicians to the area. That group, Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, will be adding more physicians whether or not VMC is approved. The evidence establishes that Holmes will be able to attract the necessary physician staff for VMC, just as Wuesthoff-Melbourne was able to do when it opened. Indeed there are a number of physicians who have offices in the Viera area that are closer to VMC than the existing hospitals where they have privileges. Holmes and Wuesthoff require physicians with privileges at their hospitals to provide coverage for ER calls on a rotational basis. Physicians with privileges at more than one of the hospitals are required to provide ER call coverage at multiple hospitals, which can create a problem if the physician is on-call at two (or more) hospitals at the same time. Physicians who choose obtain privileges at VMC will be required to provide ER call coverage at VMC. ER call coverage is a problem in Brevard County, but the evidence was not persuasive that the problem is as significant in Brevard County as it is elsewhere in the state or that VMC would seriously exacerbate the problem. More specifically, the evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent to which VMC would cause physicians to be on call at more than one hospital at the same time. Nor was the evidence persuasive regarding the likelihood that physicians would relinquish privileges at other hospitals in Brevard County to obtain privileges at VMC in such numbers that ER call coverage problems would be created for the other hospitals. Subsection (6) -- Financial Feasibility The parties stipulated that VMC is financially feasible in the short-term and that Holmes has sufficient availability of funds for VMC's capital and operating expenses. The long-term financial feasibility of VMC is in dispute. Generally, if a CON project will at least break even in the second year of operation, it is financially feasible in the long-term. If, however, the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operation it is not financially feasible in the long-term unless it is nearing break-even and it is demonstrated that the hospital will break even within a reasonable period of time. Agency precedent (e.g., Wellington, supra, at 73-74) and the evidence in this case (e.g., Exhibit W-57, at 22) establish that in the context of a satellite hospital project that is expected to “cannibalize” patients from the applicant’s existing hospital, it is important to consider the impact of the project on the entire hospital system in evaluating the long- term financial feasibility of the project. The net operating revenue projected on Schedule 7A of the CON application, which is the starting point for the net income/loss projected on Schedule 8A, is reasonable.9 On Schedule 8A of the CON application, in the column titled “VMC only,” Holmes projects that VMC will generate a net loss of $5.71 million in its first year of operation, but that it will generate net profits of $1.48 million and $5.11 million in its second and third years of operation. Thus, as a stand-alone entity, VMC is financially feasible in the long-term. However, the “VMC only” figures do not provide the complete picture of the financial feasibility of the VMC project because of the significant percentage of its patients that will be cannibalized from HRMC and PBCH. In evaluating the long-term financial feasibility of the VMC project, it is also important to consider the “incremental difference” column in Schedule 8A. That column reflects VMC’s net financial benefit (or burden) to Holmes after taking into account the patients that VMC is cannibalizing from HRMC and PBCH. The “incremental difference” column in Schedule 8A shows a net loss of $695,000 in the VMC’s first year of operation, and net profits of $605,000 and $983,000 in the second and third years of VMC’s operation. The incremental figures presented in the CON application identify the profit/loss that will be generated by the patients treated at VMC that are new to the Holmes’ system, but they do not take into account the fact that the patients treated at VMC that were cannibalized from the other Holmes’ hospitals would have generated a different profit/loss for the Holmes’ system if they were treated at one of the other Holmes’ hospitals. When incremental profit/loss associated with treating the cannibalized patients at VMC rather than HRMC or PBCH is factored in, the “incremental difference” generated by VMC will be net profits of $498,000 (year one); $720,000 (year two); and $252,000 (year three). Included in the “incremental difference” column on Schedule 8A (and embedded in the revised figures in the preceding paragraph) are negative figures on the “depreciation and amortization” line and the “interest” line. Those figures are intended to reflect the depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses that Holmes will “save” by building VMC rather than by adding 84 beds at HRMC. A critical assumption underlying the “savings” shown on those lines is that it would cost $120 million to add 84 beds to HRMC. To the extent that cost is overstated, then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense “savings” on Schedule 8A are also overstated, as is the incremental net profit of the VMC project. The extent to which the net profit is overstated depends upon the extent to which the $120 million cost is overstated. For example, if the cost of adding 84 beds to HRMC is the same as the cost of VMC (i.e., $106 million rather than $120 million), then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown in the “incremental difference” column on Schedule 8A would be $0 (rather than a negative number) because the depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses in the “with this project” and “without this project” columns would be the same. If, on the other hand, there was no cost associated with the addition of 84 beds at HRMC, then the depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown in the “without this project” column would be $10.662 million lower in 2010 (see Endnote 10) and that amount would appear as a positive number -- i.e., expense -- rather than a negative number -- i.e., “savings” -- in the “incremental difference” column. The evidence was not persuasive that it will cost $120 million to add beds to HRMC, which is the amount underlying the projected “savings” in depreciation, amortization, and interest expense shown on Schedule 8A. Indeed, as discussed in Part F(1)(a)(iii) above, the evidence establishes that the alternative that gave rise to the $120 million cost estimate was not a viable option and that Holmes could add 84 beds at HRMC with little or no cost if it chose to do so by reducing the number of semi-private rooms that it converts to private rooms as part of the North Expansion and/or by finishing the shelled- in space on the eighth floor of the North Expansion. Accordingly, the “savings” embedded in Schedule 8A are grossly overstated as is the incremental net profit shown in that schedule. Specifically, in the third year of operation, when VMC is at a near-optimal occupancy level of 76 percent, the incremental net profit generated by VMC will be no more than $234,000 and, more likely, will be a net loss between $497,000 and $10.41 million.10 A net profit of $234,000 is a very marginal return on the $106 million cost of VMC, and is well below the three percent return that Holmes' seeks to achieve for its capital projects. However, according to Holmes' chief financial officer, the return generated by a project is not Holmes' paramount concern as a not-for profit organization, and at that level, the project would be considered financially feasible in the long-term. A $497,000 to $10.41 million incremental net loss would mean that the project is not financially feasible in the long-term. The “including this project” column on Schedule 8A projects that Holmes will have net income of approximately $31.1 million in 2010. Thus, even if VMC actually generated an incremental net loss in the range of $497,000 to $10.41 million in 2010, the Holmes' system would still be profitable. Subsection (7) -- Fostering Competition that Promotes Cost-Effectiveness Generally, competition for hospital services benefits consumers because it leads to lower prices and it creates incentives for hospitals to lower costs. It is not necessary for hospitals to be equal in size to compete, but the beneficial effects of competition will be greater if the hospitals are more equal. As explained by Dr. David Eisenstadt, Wuesthoff’s expert economist, “competitive constraints are a matter of degree” and “while it is true that a small hospital can pose some competitive constraint, it’s not correct that a small hospital can impose the same competitive constraint . . . as a large hospital could.” (Transcript at 1571-72). Holmes is, and historically has been, the dominant provider of hospital services in south Brevard County, with market shares exceeding 80 percent prior to the opening of Wuesthoff-Melbourne. Holmes still has a market share in excess of 70 percent in south Brevard County. A dominant hospital has the ability to set prices above competitive levels by commanding higher prices in negotiations with commercial payors. Holmes has done so in the past and, based upon the comparison of the commercial average net inpatient revenues reported by the Health First hospitals and the Wuesthoff hospitals in 2003 and 2004, it continues to do so. Holmes ability to set prices above competitive levels is enhanced by the fact that the largest managed care plan in Brevard County, HFHP, is operated by Health First. The original approval of the CON for Wuesthoff- Melbourne was based upon the Agency’s determinations that there was at that time a “compelling” need for competition for hospital services in south Brevard County; that the entry of a new, non-Health First provider into the market would give commercial payors and, ultimately, patients an alternative to Holmes, which because of its relationship with HFHP, had no incentive to negotiate competitive rates with other providers; and that competition would have the effect of reducing prices paid by the commercial payors to the hospitals and, ultimately, the premiums paid by patients. Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s entry into the market in December 2002 has not yet resulted in any material price reductions. Indeed, notwithstanding Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s presence in the market, HRMC increased its charges by 15 percent in 2003-04 and by an additional five percent in 2004-05. A hospital’s charges do not necessarily correspond to the prices that the hospital negotiates with commercial payors. However, in this case, there appears to be a correlation because Holmes had an 11.6 percent increase in net revenue per admission between 2003 and 2004 and it also had significant increases in the commercial average inpatient revenues per admission at HRMC and PBCH between 2003 and 2004. Moreover, the significant increase in charges at Holmes over the past two years is a strong indication that Holmes is not feeling any significant competitive pressure as a result of Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s presence in the market. Wuesthoff-Melbourne will be able to exert more competitive pressure on Holmes as its market share increases, particularly if Holmes’ market share continues to decline at the same time as is projected. As a result, Wuesthoff-Melbourne’s ability to expand and increase (or at least maintain) its market share in the growing Viera market is particularly significant to achieving price reductions (and/or minimizing price increases) in Brevard County.11 Holmes contends that even if VMC is approved, there will be sufficient competition in Viera because, according to Table 33 in the CON application, in 2010 the Health First hospitals will have a 50.5 percent market share of the PSA targeted by VMC and the Wuesthoff hospitals will have a 44.3 percent market share of the PSA. However, the approval of the VMC will have the effect of dramatically slowing the upward trend in Wuesthoff’s market share and corresponding downward trend of Health First’s market share in the PSA targeted by VMC because according to Tables 28 and 33 of the CON application, without VMC, the market share of the Wuesthoff hospitals in the PSA is projected to increase from 43.3 percent (in 2003) to 52.3 percent (in 2010), and the market share of the Health First Hospitals in the PSA is expected to decline from 51.2 percent (in 2003) to 42.5 percent (in 2010). Moreover, if VMC is approved, it is less likely that there will be sufficient need for additional acute care beds in the area to justify expanding Wuesthoff-Melbourne beyond 134 beds. That, in turn, will limit the competitive pressure that Wuesthoff-Melbourne will be able to exert on Holmes in the future. The evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent of the competitive pressure and/or price reductions that would result from the expansion of Wuesthoff-Melbourne rather than the approval of VMC.12 However, the fact remains that VMC will strengthen Holmes’ market position in central and south Brevard County, which will not foster competition that promotes cost effectiveness. Not only will the approval of VMC negatively affect the evolution of competition in south Brevard County, but it will effectively preclude the construction of another hospital in the Viera area until 2029 when the exclusivity provisions and restrictive covenants discussed in Part D(2) above expire. The evidence was not persuasive that there was an anticompetitive motivation underlying Holmes’ decision to propose VMC, but the evidence does establish that the approval of VMC will have anticompetitive effects. As a result, the criteria in Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, strongly weigh against the approval of Holmes’ CON application. Subsection (8) -- Costs and Methods of Construction The parties stipulated that the costs (including equipment costs), methods of construction, and energy provision for VMC are reasonable; that the architectural drawings for the VMC satisfy the applicable code requirements; and that the construction schedule for VMC is reasonable. Thus, VMC satisfies the criteria in Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes. Subsection (9) -- Medicaid and Charity Care Holmes conditioned the approval of its application on VMC providing the following levels of Medicaid and charity care: At least 3.0 percent of inpatients at [VMC] will be covered by Medicaid and/or Medicaid HMOs. At least 2.3 percent of the gross revenues of [VMC] will be attributable to patients who meet the guidelines for charity care. The Medicaid and charity commitments are lower than the averages for Brevard County, but they are reasonable and attainable in light of the demographics of the area that will be served by VMC. Holmes has a history of providing considerable services to Medicaid and charity patients, both at its existing facilities and through community programs such as HOPE. Wuesthoff also has a history of providing considerable services to Medicaid and charity patients at its existing facilities and through community programs such as its free clinic in Cocoa. Wuesthoff-Rockledge is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider, which entitles it to a higher Medicaid reimbursement rate from the State as a “reward” for serving more than its fair share of Medicaid patients. Holmes' hospitals and Wuesthoff-Melbourne are not Medicaid disproportionate share providers. Wuesthoff-Melbourne has not been open long enough to qualify. The Wuesthoff hospitals have a contract with Well Care, which is the only Medicaid HMO in Brevard County. Holmes' hospitals do not have a contract with Well Care. On a dollar-amount basis, Holmes provides considerably more Medicaid and charity care than any other hospital in Brevard County, including the Wuesthoff hospitals. In fiscal year 2003, for example, Holmes’ Medicaid gross revenues were $53.7 million (as compared to $39.7 million for the Wuesthoff hospitals) and its charity care gross revenues were $27.8 million (as compared to $10.9 million for the Wuesthoff hospitals). The larger dollar-amount of Medicaid and charity care provided by Holmes is due, at least in part, to Holmes being almost twice the size of the Wuesthoff hospitals. On a percentage basis, Holmes provides approximately the same level of charity care as Wuesthoff-Rockledge, but it provides less Medicaid care than Wuesthoff-Rockledge. In fiscal year 2003, for example, 2.8 percent of Holmes’ gross revenue was charity care (as compared to 2.5 percent for Wuesthoff- Rockledge) and seven percent of Holmes’ patient days were attributable to Medicaid patients (as compared to 10.9 percent for Wuesthoff-Rockledge). According to Mr. Gregg, the Agency gives more weight to the percentage of Medicaid and charity care provided by a hospital than it does to the dollar amount of such services. However, Mr. Gregg acknowledged that Holmes satisfies the criteria in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, based upon its history of providing services to the medically indigent and its Medicaid and charity commitments at VMC. Holmes' satisfaction of the criteria in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, is not given great weight in this proceeding because the medically indigent in central and south Brevard County are currently being adequately served by the existing facilities and, more significantly, zip code 32940, in which VMC will be located and from which it is projected to draw the largest percentage of its patients, has a lower percentage of Medicaid/charity patients and a higher median household income than Brevard County as a whole. Subsection (10) -- Designation as a Gold Seal Nursing Homes The parties stipulated that Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, is not applicable because Holmes is not proposing the addition of any nursing home beds. Rule Criteria The Agency rules implicated in this case -- Florida Administrative Code Rules 59C-1.030(2) and 59C-1.038 -- do not contain any review criteria that are distinct from the statutory criteria discussed above. The “health care access criteria” and “priority considerations” in those rules focus primarily on the impact of the proposed facility on the medically indigent and other underserved population groups, as well as the applicant’s history of and/or commitment to serving those groups. Holmes satisfies those rule criteria, but they are not given great weight for the reasons discussed in Part F(1)(g) above. Impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff Hospitals As discussed above, VMC is projected to take patients that are currently being served by, or would otherwise be served by one of the existing hospitals in central or south Brevard County. Approximately 30 percent of VMC’s patient volume will come at the expense of the Wuesthoff hospitals. As a result of the projected population growth in central and south Brevard County over the planning horizon, the Wuesthoff hospitals are projected to have more admissions in 2010 than they currently have, whether or not VMC is approved. However, if VMC is approved, the Wuesthoff hospitals will have fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC. The health planners who testified at the hearing agreed that in determining the impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff hospitals it is appropriate to focus on the number of admissions that the Wuesthoff hospitals would have received but for the approval of VMC. The Agency’s precedent is in accord. See Wellington, supra, at 54, 109 n.13. Holmes’ health planner projected in the CON application that the approval of VMC will result in the Wuesthoff hospitals having 1,932 fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC, 998 at Wuesthoff-Rockledge and 934 at Wuesthoff-Melborune. Wuesthoff’s health planner projected that the approval of VMC will result in the Wuesthoff hospitals having 2,399 fewer admissions in 2010 than they would have had without VMC, 1,541 at Wuestoff-Rockledge and 858 at Wuesthoff-Melborune. The projections of Wuesthoff’s health planner are more reasonable because they are based upon more current market share data and, as to Wuesthoff-Melbourne, the projections may even be understated because its market share is still growing in the areas targeted by VMC. On a contribution-margin basis, the lost admissions projected by Wuesthoff’s health planner translate into a loss of approximately $3.9 million of income at Wuesthoff-Rocklege and a loss of approximately $2 million of income at Wuesthoff- Melbourne. Using the lost admissions projected by Holmes’ health planner, the lost income at Wuesthoff-Rockledge would be $2.51 million and the lost income at Wuesthoff-Melbourne would be $2.15 million. Thus, impact of VMC on the Wuesthoff system would be a lost income of at least $4.66 million and, more likely, $5.9 million. A loss of income in that range would be significant and adverse to the Wuesthoff hospitals, both individually and collectively. Even though the Wuesthoff system has a net worth of approximately $70.95 million, its net income (i.e., “excess of revenues over expenses”) was only $971,000 in 2003 and $1.1 million in 2004. The system is still recovering from a “devastating” financial year in 1999 when it reported a loss of almost $12 million. Wuesthoff-Melbourne reported a $4.1 million net loss in 2003, and as of June 2004, it had yet to show a profit. The significance of the projected lost income at the Wuesthoff hospitals is tempered somewhat by the increased patient volume that the hospitals are projected to have in 2010 even if VMC is approved. However, the evidence was not persuasive that the increased patient volumes will necessarily result in greater profits at the Wuesthoff hospitals in 2010.13 The approval of VMC will also likely result in a loss of outpatient volume at the Wuesthoff hospitals. However, there is no credible evidence regarding the amount of outpatient volume that would be lost or the financial impact of the lost outpatient volume on Wuesthoff.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order denying Holmes’ application, CON 9759. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2005.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to add a total of 35 beds to Naples Community Hospital and North Collier Community Hospital should be approved based on peak seasonal demand for acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict.
Findings Of Fact Naples Community Hospital, Inc., ("NCH") holds the license for and operates Naples Community Hospital ("Naples"), a 331 bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, and North Collier Community Hospital ("North Collier"), a 50 bed acute care hospital. NCH also operates a 22 bed comprehensive rehabilitation facility and a 23 bed psychiatric facility. NCH is owned by Community Health Care, Inc., "(CHC"). Both Naples and North Collier are located within Agency for Health Care Administration ("ACHA") district 8 and are the only hospitals within subdistrict 2 of the district. Naples is located in central Collier County. North Collier is (as the name implies) located in northern Collier County approximately 2-3 miles from the county line. NCH's primary service area is Collier County from which approximately 85-90 percent of its patients come, with a secondary service area extending north into Lee County. Neither Naples nor North Collier are teaching hospitals as defined by Section 407.002(27), Florida Statutes (1991). NCH is not proposing a joint venture in this CON application. NCH has a record of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. NCH proposes to provide health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Neither Naples nor North Collier are currently designated by the Office of Medicaid as disproportionate share providers. NCH has the funds for capital and initial operating expenditures for the project. NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. The costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable. The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency charged with responsibility for administering the Certificate of Need program. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center ("Southwest") is a 400 bed for-profit acute care hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County. Lee County is adjacent to and north of Collier County. Southwest is owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation ("Columbia"), which also owns Gulf Coast Hospital in Fort Myers, and two additional hospitals in AHCA District 8. Southwest's primary service area is Lee County. Although Southwest asserts that it would be negatively impacted by the addition of acute care beds at NCH, the greater weight of the credible evidence fails to support the assertion. The primary market services areas of NCH and Southwest are essentially distinct. However, the facilities are located in such proximity as to indicate that secondary service areas overlap and that, at least during peak winter season periods, approval of the NCH application could potentially impact Southwest's operations. Southwest has standing to participate in this proceeding. Southwest offered evidence to establish that it would be substantially affected by approval of the NCH application. The NCH length-of-stay identified in the Southwest documents is inaccurate and under-reports actual length-of-stay statistics. The documentation also includes demographic information from a zip code (33912) which contributes an insignificant portion of NCH patients, and relies on only two years of data in support of the assertion that utilization in the NCH service area is declining. Southwest's chief operating officer testified that he considers Gulf Coast Hospital, another Columbia-owned facility, to offer more competition to Southwest that does NCH. Further, a physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital before she can admit patients to the facility. Of the physicians holding admitting privileges at Southwest, only two, both cardiologists, also have admitting privileges at NCH. Contrary to Southwest, NCH does not have an open heart surgery program. Accordingly, at least as to physician-admitted patients, approval of the NCH application would likely have little impact. On August 26, 1991, NCH submitted to AHCA a letter of intent indicating that NCH would file a Certificate of Need ("CON") application in the September 26, 1991 batching cycle for the addition of 35 acute care beds to the Naples and North Collier facilities. The letter of intent did not specify how the additional beds would be divided between the two facilities. The determination of the number of beds for which NCH would apply was solely based on the fact that the applicant had 35 observation beds which could be readily converted to acute care beds. The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH and are currently staffed. The costs involved in such conversion are minimal and relatively insignificant. Included with the letter of intent was a certified corporate resolution which states that on July 24, 1991, the NCH Board of Trustees authorized the filing of an application for the additional beds, authorized NCH to incur related expenses, stated that NCH would accomplish the proposed project within time and budget allowances set forth in the application, and that NCH would license and operate the facility. By certification executed August 7, 1991, the NCH secretary certified that the resolution was enacted at the July 24, 1991 board meeting and that the resolution did not contravene the NCH articles of incorporation or bylaws. Article X, Sections 10.1 and 10.1.3 of the NCH bylaws provides that no CON application shall be legally effective without the written approval of CHC. On September 26, 1991, NCH filed an application for CON No. 6797 proposing to add 31 acute care beds to Naples and 4 acute care beds to North Collier. The CON application included a copy of the NCH board resolution and certification which had been previously submitted with the letter of intent as well as the appropriate filing fee. NCH published appropriate public notice of the application's filing. As of the date of the CON application's filing, CHC had not issued written approval of the CON application prior to the action of the NCH Board of Directors and the filing of the letter of intent or the application. On October 2, 1992, four days prior to the administrative hearing in this case, the board of CHC ratified the actions of NCH as to the application for CON at issue in this case. The CHC board has previously ratified actions of the NCH in such fashion. There is uncontroverted testimony that the CHC board was aware of the NCH application and that no reservation was expressed by any CHC board member regarding the CON application. Although NCH's filing of the CON application without appropriate authorization from its parent company appears to be in violation of the NCH bylaws, such does not violate the rules of the AHCA. There is no evidence that the AHCA requested written authorization from the CHC board. After review of the application, the AHCA identified certain deficiencies in the application and notified NCH, which apparently rectified the deficiencies. The AHCA deemed the application complete on November 8, 1991. As required by statute, NCH included a list of capital projects as part of the CON application. The list of capital projects attached to the application was incomplete. The capital projects list failed to identify approximate expenditures of $370,000 to construct a patio enclosure, $750,000 to install an interim sprinkler system, $110,000 to construct emergency room triage space, and $125,000 to complete electrical system renovations. At hearing, witnesses for NCH attempted to clarify the omissions from the capital projects list. The witnesses claimed that such omitted projects were actually included within projects which were identified on the list. When identifying the listed projects within which the omitted projects were supposedly included, the witnesses testified inconsistently. For example, one witness testified that the patio project was included in the emergency room expansion project listed in the application. Another witness claimed that the patio enclosure was included in an equipment purchase category. Based on the testimony, it is more likely that the patio enclosure was neither a part of an emergency room expansion nor equipment purchase, but was a separate construction project which was omitted from the CON application. Similarly inconsistent explanations were offered for the other projects which were omitted from the capital projects list. The testimony was not credible. The capital projects omitted from the list do not affect the ability of NCH to implement the CON sought in this proceeding. The parties stipulated to the fact the NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. As part of the CON application, NCH was required to submit a pro forma income statement for the time period during which the bed additions would take place. The application failed to include a pro forma statement for the appropriate time period. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable, and that NCH has adequate resources to fund the project, the failure to include the relevant pro forma is immaterial. Pursuant to applicable methodology, the AHCA calculates numeric acute care bed need projections for each subdistrict's specific planning period. Accordingly, the AHCA calculated the need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2 for the July, 1996 planning horizon. The results of the calculation are published by the agency. The unchallenged, published fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this proceeding indicated that there was no numeric need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2, Collier County, Florida, pursuant to the numeric need methodology under Rule 59C-1.038 Florida Administrative Code. The CON application filed by NCH is based on the peak seasonal demand experienced by hospitals in the area during the winter months, due to part-time residents. NCH asserts that the utilization of acute care beds during the winter months (January through April) results in occupancy levels in excess of 75 percent and justifies the addition of acute care beds, notwithstanding the numerical need determination. Approval of the CON application is not justified by the facts in this case. The AHCA's acute care bed need methodology accounts for high seasonal demand in certain subdistricts in a manner which provides that facilities have bed space adequate to accommodate peak demand. The calculation which requires that the average annual occupancy level exceed 75 percent reflects AHCA consideration of occupancy levels which rise and fall with seasonal population shifts. The applicant has not challenged the methodology employed by the AHCA in projecting need. Peak seasonal acute care bed demand may justify approval of a CON application seeking additional beds if the lack of available beds poses a credible threat of potentially negative impact on patient outcomes. The peak seasonal demand experienced by NCH has not adversely affected patient care and there is insufficient evidence to establish that, at this time, such peak demand poses a credible threat of potential negative impact on patient outcomes in the foreseeable future. There is no dispute regarding the existing quality of care at Naples, North Collier, Southwest or any other acute care hospital in district 8. The parties stipulated that NCH has the ability to provide quality of care and a record of providing quality of care. In this case, the applicant is seeking to convert existing beds from a classification of "observation" to "acute care". The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH. Approval of the CON application would result in no net increase in the number of licensed beds. NCH offered anecdotal evidence suggesting that delays in transferring patients from the Naples emergency room to acute care beds (a "logjam") was caused by peak seasonal occupancy rates. There was no evidence offered as to the situation at the North Collier emergency room. The anecdotal evidence is insufficient to establish that "logjams" (if they occur at all) are related to an inadequate number of beds identified as "acute care" at NCH facilities. There are other factors which can result in delays in moving patients from emergency rooms to acute care beds, including facility discharge patterns, delays in obtaining medical test results and staffing practices. NCH asserted at hearing that physicians who refer patients to NCH facilities will not refer such patients to other facilities. The evidence fails to establish that such physician practice is reasonable or provides justification for approval of CON applications under "not normal" circumstances and further fails to establish that conditions at NCH are such as to result in physicians attempting to locate other facilities in which to admit patients. The rule governing approval of acute care beds provides that, prior to such approval, the annual occupancy rate for acute care beds in the subdistrict or for the specific provider, must exceed 75 percent. This requirement has not been met. Applicable statutes require that, in considering applications for CON's, the AHCA consider accessibility of existing providers. The AHCA- established standard provides that acute care bed accessibility requirements are met when at least 90 percent of the residents in an urban subdistrict are within a 30 minute automobile trip to such facilities. At least 90 percent of Naples residents are presently within a 30 minute travel time to NCH acute care beds. The number of acute care beds in the subdistrict substantially exceed the demand for such beds. Additional beds would result in inefficient utilization of existing beds, would further increase the current oversupply of beds, would delay the time at which need for additional beds may be determined and, as such, would prevent competing facilities from applying for and receiving approval for such beds. The financial feasibility projections set forth in the CON application rely on assumptions as to need and utilization projections which are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and are not credited. Accordingly, the evidence fails to establish that the addition of 35 acute care beds to NCH facilities is financially feasible in the long term or that the income projections set forth in the CON application are reasonable. As to projections related to staffing requirements and costs, the beds are existing and are currently staffed on a daily, shift-by-shift basis, based on patient census and acuity of illness. There is reason to believe that the staffing patterns will remain fairly constant and accordingly the projections, based on historical data, are reasonable. Generally stated, where there is no numeric or "not normal" need for the proposed addition of 35 acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict, it could be predicted that the addition of acute care beds would exacerbate the oversupply of available beds and could cause a slight reduction in the occupancy levels experienced by other providers. In this case, the market service areas are sufficiently distinct as to suggest that such would not necessarily be the result. However, based on the lack of need justifying approval of the CON application under any existing circumstances, it is unnecessary to address in detail the impact on existing providers. The state and district health plans identify a number of preferences which should be considered in determining whether a CON application should be approved. The plans suggest that such preferences are to be considered when competing CON applications are reviewed. In this case there is no competing application and the applicability of the preferences is unclear. However, in any event, application of the preferences to this proposal fail to support approval of the application.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered DENYING the application of Naples Community Hospital, Inc., for Certificate of Need 6797. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1510 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3-4, 6-8, 16-20, 29-36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49-61, 80, 88, 95-96, 100, 104, 108, 117-119, 122-125, 127, 134-138. Rejected as unnecessary. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Peak seasonal demand is accounted for by the numeric need determination methodology. There is no credible evidence which supports a calculation of three years of four month winter occupancy to reach a 12 month average occupancy rate. 21-27, 37, 42-43, 62-64, 66, 97, 99, 101-103, 105-107, 109, 120-121, 126. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 28. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence and contrary to the stipulation filed by the parties. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the transfer of patients from emergency room to acute care beds is delayed due to numerical availability of beds. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the alleged lack of acute care beds is based on insufficient number of total beds as opposed to other factors which affect bed availability. Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which fails to establish reasonableness of considering only a four month period under "not normal" circumstances where the period and the peak seasonal demand are included within the averages utilized to project bed need. 86. Rejected as cumulative. 114. Rejected as unsupported hearsay. Respondent/Intervenor The Respondent and Intervenor filed a joint proposed recommended order. The proposed order's findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6, 45, 51, 53, 59-67, 69-70, 94-113. Rejected as unnecessary. 16. Rejected as to use of term "false", conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as not clearly supported by credible evidence. 71-93, 114-124. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, & Cole Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Thomas Cooper, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D.C. Newton, II, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Beranek Monroe Park Tower, Suite 1000 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
The Issue The issue presented is whether the application of Respondent Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a East Pasco Medical Center for a certificate of need to add 24 acute care beds to its existing facility should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Seventh Day Adventist Church owns Respondent Advent-ist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. That corporation, which occupies a strong financial position, operates not-for-profit hospitals in several states, including Florida. One of the Florida hospitals is East Pasco Medical Center (East Pasco), located in Zephyrhills. Zephyrhills is in eastern Pasco County, which, for health planning purposes, is known as Subdistrict 2 of District 5. East Pasco is an 85-bed acute care hospital which provides most of the common services found in a community hospital. In addition to providing general acute care and obstetrics (OB), it has an intensive care unit (ICU) and offers neurosurgery and kidney dialysis services. East Pasco also has completed but not yet opened an 11-bed skilled nursing unit (SNU) and a 10-bed observation unit. The 11 beds in the SNU and the 10 beds in the observation unit are in addition to the 85 acute care beds for which East Pasco is licensed. For licensure purposes, acute care beds are not divided into types of service. East Pasco's current configuration for its 85 acute care beds is as follows: 68 medical-surgical beds, 8 ICU beds, and 9 OB beds. East Pasco has an active emergency room which experiences up to 30,000 visits per year. East Pasco obtains approximately 55 percent of its in-patient admissions through its emergency room. East Pasco is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Petitioner Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Pasco (Humana) is an existing 120-bed acute care hospital in Dade City. It is situated approximately 10 minutes away from East Pasco. Humana provides the same services that East Pasco provides, including medical-surgical, ICU/CCU, OB, kidney dialysis, and neurosurgery. Like East Pasco, Humana is accredited by the JCAHO. However, Humana's accreditation is "with commendation", the highest rating given by the JCAHO. Like East Pasco, Humana has a large medical staff, primarily consisting of physicians who have their offices located in Zephyrhills or Dade City. The medical staff rosters of Humana and East Pasco are virtually identical. Dade City is also located in east Pasco County, and the primary service areas of Humana and East Pasco are virtually identical. Like East Pasco, Humana serves the Medicaid and indigent patient populations. In its fiscal year 1991, Humana provided 6 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In fiscal year 1992, that increased to 8.8 percent, the same as East Pasco. Humana's Medicaid patient days increased substantially with the introduction of OB services at Humana since Medicaid patients receive primarily OB services. East Pasco has been designated as a disproportionate share provider under the State's program to give economic incentives to hospitals serving a certain percentage of Medicaid patients. East Pasco also serves the indigent patient population pursuant to a contract between it and Pasco County. In September, 1991, East Pasco filed its application for a certificate of need (CON) requesting approval for 24 additional medical-surgical beds (acute care beds) for the July, 1996, planning horizon. In January, 1992, the Agency notified East Pasco of its intent to approve the application and issue to East Pasco CON No. 6783. Humana filed this challenge to the Agency's intent to grant the application, and this proceeding ensued. All parties subsequently stipulated that Humana has standing to initiate and maintain this proceeding and that Humana was not obligated to present evidence of its standing. East Pasco has proposed a new unit to house the 24 additional medical- surgical beds to be located on the third floor of a new three-story tower. That third floor would consist of 13,000 gross square feet (GSF), would cost $4,087,810, and would consist of only private rooms with three nurse stations. East Pasco proposes no new services, only additional beds. Construction of the three-story tower has not yet commenced but is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. The first floor of the new tower will be a wellness center, a project which did not require CON review. The second floor will house a new ICU. East Pasco presented conflicting evidence as to the size of that new ICU. The Agency approved East Pasco's second floor ICU as a 12-bed ICU with a cost below the threshold cost which would have required CON review. In spite of the exemption from review obtained by East Pasco, it is specifically found that East Pasco intends to place a 16-bed ICU on the second floor of the yet-to-be-constructed tower. Thus, East Pasco would achieve its 16-bed ICU by relocating its existing 8-bed ICU and converting other beds to ICU beds. Thus, if the 24 new beds sought are approved they will produce 16 additional medical-surgical beds and 8 additional ICU beds. Resolution of the number of beds proposed for the second floor of the new tower is required in this proceeding for two reasons. First, the cost of this project is impacted. If 8 of the new beds are to be used as ICU beds rather than as medical-surgical beds, they will be more expensive to construct and equip. Second, corporate approval of corporate projects is a prerequisite in Florida's CON process. East Pasco's Board of Directors met on August 14, 1991, to authorize the filing of this application. This application proposes 24 medical-surgical beds, the corporate resolution filed with the Agency authorized 24 acute care beds, but the minutes of the Board's meeting reflect that the Board itself approved 24 beds for ICU and PCU services. Although ICU, PCU, and medical-surgical beds are all acute care beds, they are constructed, equipped, and staffed differently. For the reasons described below, there is no need in District 5 or in the east Pasco County Subdistrict for East Pasco's proposed 24 additional medical-surgical beds. Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code, includes the numeric need methodology for projecting acute care bed need. Under that Rule, applications for acute care beds will "not normally" be approved unless there is numeric need. For the September, 1991, application batching cycle, the Agency published a fixed need of zero acute care beds needed in District 5, Subdistrict 2, which is composed of only East Pasco and Humana hospitals. This fixed and published need of zero was not challenged. Per paragraph (7)(d) of the Rule, additional acute care beds will "not normally" be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy is at or exceeds 75 percent. All parties agree that calendar year 1990 is the proper period to ascertain whether this standard is met. In 1990, the acute care bed occupancy rate in the Subdistrict was 55.33 percent. The parties agree that the Rule's occupancy standard is not met. Therefore, no additional beds should normally be approved. There is ample unused capacity in District 5 and in the Subdistrict to meet acute care demand. Humana's occupancy is well below 50 percent. In years and 2 for the proposed unit, East Pasco projects 1,042 and 1,760 patient days, respectively. Humana has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate that projected demand. Utilization trends support the lack of need shown by the need methodology and the occupancy standard. Acute care utilization in the Subdistrict has decreased since 1986. In 1986, the two Subdistrict hospitals generated 42,830 patient days, a 57.2 percent occupancy. In 1991, notwithstanding population growth in the Subdistrict, the two Subdistrict hospitals generated 41,756 patient days, a 55.8 percent occupancy. Clearly, then, there is no increased demand for acute care services, but only a reshuffling of market share between the two hospitals. Contrary to East Pasco's suggestion, first quarter utilization does not show need and has, in fact, been decreasing. For example, the first quarter (January-March) of 1986 generated 13,572 patient days in the Subdistrict, a 73.6 percent occupancy; in the first quarter of 1992, there were 12,482 patient days, a 66.9 percent occupancy, the lowest first quarter utilization in the last 6 years in the Subdistrict. Additionally, the average length of stay (ALOS) in the Subdistrict continues to decline. In the first quarter of 1991, the ALOS was 5.4 days; in the first quarter of 1992, the ALOS was 5.1 days. Accordingly, although East Pasco shows an increased number of admissions over the last several years, the continued decline in the ALOS has resulted in a decreasing number of patient days. The population growth in the Subdistrict is not so substantial as to demonstrate need. Humana relied upon population projections produced by a national firm specializing in demographic analyses. Such a population data source is generally more reliable than a county's own projections, relied upon by East Pasco. The Subdistrict is growing but not at an extraordinary pace. In comparison, the West Pasco Subdistrict is growing faster. There are no geographic access problems to receiving acute care services which would support a finding of need. There are many hospitals available and accessible to residents of the Subdistrict within 30 minutes travel time or less. The entire Subdistrict is within a 30-minute travel time of Humana and of East Pasco. Most of the Subdistrict is also within 30 minutes travel time to other acute care hospitals, including University Community Hospital in Tampa, Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Lakeland, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City. The Zephyrhills area in particular is within 30 minutes travel time to those other facilities. Humana is an available alternative to the proposed project. Humana is geographically accessible to the entire Subdistrict, provides all the services that East Pasco provides, and provides good quality of care. Humana's medical staff roster includes the same physicians that practice at East Pasco. Humana already serves the same geographic service area that East Pasco serves. Indeed, several East Pasco witnesses testified that patients are transferred to Humana when East Pasco is full, thereby acknowledging Humana as an alternative for Subdistrict residents. Hospitals situated outside the Subdistrict are also available and appropriate alternatives to the proposed project. These hospitals have unused capacity to accommodate the projected demand from the Subdistrict. Notably, residents of the Subdistrict have historically greatly utilized hospitals located outside the Subdistrict. In 1990, 63.7 percent of the Subdistrict's residents went to a hospital other than Humana or East Pasco. Thus, physicians and residents regard hospitals situated outside the Subdistrict as appropriate and viable alternatives. Since East Pasco does not propose to offer any new service, and since there is accessible unused capacity at Humana and these other facilities, there are better alternatives to adding new beds at East Pasco. In addition, although approving more beds at East Pasco would improve availability of services at East Pasco, such is not a planning consideration or a review criterion. East Pasco and Humana provide similar levels of Medicaid care. In calendar year 1991, Medicaid comprised 8.8 percent of all patient days at East Pasco, less than in 1990. From September, 1991, to August, 1992, 8.8 percent of all patient days at Humana were Medicaid days. The two hospitals also provide similar amounts of indigent care. Therefore, Humana is economically accessible to all residents of the Subdistrict. Facilities located outside the Subdistrict also are economically accessible. Physician preferences are not significant in formulating conclusions of need on a District or Subdistrict basis. Physicians may well have their own reasons for doing things which may be contrary to sound health care planning principles. Further, physicians' personal preferences are not relevant to ascertaining how existing resources can be best and most efficiently used. The acute care bed Rule provides that additional beds "may" be approved at a specific facility if its occupancy exceeds 75 percent even though no beds can be authorized pursuant to the mathematical calculations established by the Rule. While East Pasco achieved an occupancy rate of 78.78 percent in calendar year 1990, that statistic merely "opens the door" for an evaluation of whether there are compelling circumstances to justify the approval of beds at a specific facility despite the absence of need demonstrated by the acute bed methodology. There are no factors or circumstances which would justify the approval of 24 additional medical-surgical beds at East Pasco pursuant to the specific facility provision. First, there are accessible and available alternatives for meeting projected demand. The majority of east Pasco County residents outmigrate even when beds are available at East Pasco. There is an excess capacity in the Subdistrict and in the District. Second, East Pasco's application discusses seasonal overcrowding due, in large part, to using in-patient beds for "observation" patients. Observation patients are those with a hospital stay of less than 24 hours. East Pasco has recently completed a new 10-bed observation unit. In 1991, East Pasco averaged observation patients per day; therefore, this new 10-bed unit will ease the strain on East Pasco's in-patient beds. Third, East Pasco's application relies on the "overflow" of patients in the winter season to justify its proposed bed addition. The actual amount of "overflow" is reflected in East Pasco's transfer log, which shows that there were not that many patients transferred in 1991. In fact, there were several months in which there were zero transfers. Fourth, the proposed beds are only intended to handle "seasonal" population demands. The proposed unit would not be open year-round. East Pasco was below 75 percent occupancy from May to October, 1991. East Pasco acknowledges that the proposed beds are only for part of the year and are intended to accommodate the demands of the seasonal population, who are not necessarily residents of the Subdistrict. East Pasco's application in reality requests approval for adding 24 beds at a cost of over $4,000,000 to accommodate, by East Pasco's own projections, an average daily census of three patients the first year and five patients the second year in a unit that would be closed at least six months out of each year. That is an excessive expenditure to provide access to relatively few people, where access to nearby facilities exists. Although East Pasco has shown that on certain days it has exceeded its OB capacity, and although East Pasco maintains that its most common capacity problem is the lack of available ICU beds, East Pasco's application itself does not suggest that it intends to increase the number of OB or ICU beds. Further, although on certain days East Pasco has experienced over 100 percent occupancy and has placed patients in the hallways, that situation can be obviated by referring patients to other hospitals, and the situation will be alleviated when East Pasco soon opens its additional 10-bed observation unit and 11-bed SNU. East Pasco has, therefore, shown that it has an occupancy rate sufficient to entitle it to review despite the lack of need under the acute care bed Rule, but it has shown no other reasons why its application should be approved. The Florida State Health Plan includes various preferences for reviewing CON applications. On balance, the East Pasco application is not consistent with that Plan. The first group of preferences relates to the addition of hospital beds. The first item in that group provides that no additional beds should generally be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy is at or exceeds 75 percent or unless the applicant-facility is at 80 percent. Since calendar year 1990 data was used to calculate the need formula and Subdistrict occupancy standard, it is appropriate to use that same data to determine East Pasco's occupancy for evaluating this preference, rather than using two different time periods as the Agency did. In 1990, the Subdistrict was below 75 percent, and East Pasco's occupancy was below 80 percent. Therefore, this preference is not met. The second item under this group provides that "in the event that acute care bed need is shown", preference shall be given to an applicant who provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent services in the Subdistrict. This preference is not met since no "acute care bed need is shown". The next group of preferences is entitled "transfer and conversion of acute care beds". Because East Pasco does not propose to transfer or convert acute care beds, East Pasco does not satisfy any of the preferences included under this grouping. The next group of preferences is entitled "indigent care". The first item provides that preference shall be given to an applicant who provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care in relation to other hospitals in the District or Subdistrict. This preference is not met. Although East Pasco has historically provided more Medicaid and indigent care than Humana, there is no showing that East Pasco will provide disproportionately more Medicaid and indigent care for medical-surgical services specifically. Most of East Pasco's Medicaid participation is for OB and newborn services, not medical- surgical services. Both Humana and East Pasco provide less than 1 percent of their gross revenues for indigent care. Given that most of the Subdistrict population is elderly, indigent care is not a major issue. Also, it was stipulated that East Pasco does not know how much indigent care it provides for medical-surgical services only. The second item under this group relates to whether CON approval would negatively affect the financial viability of a disproportionate share hospital. This preference is not relevant to East Pasco's application. The third group of preferences is entitled "emergency services". The first item relates to the applicant's record of accepting indigent patients for emergency care. East Pasco presented no information on this in its application except for its proof that it has a contractual obligation to do so. The second item relates to whether the facility/applicant is a trauma center. East Pasco is not a designated trauma center. The third item relates to whether the applicant demonstrates a full range of emergency services. East Pasco did not address this in its application. The fourth item addresses whether the facility has ever been fined by HRS for violations of emergency services statutes. East Pasco did not address this item in its application. Therefore, East Pasco does not meet the preferences in this group. The fourth group of preferences is entitled "teaching, research, and referral hospitals". The application does not address these particular preferences, and East Pasco does not hold itself out as a teaching, research or referral hospital. Therefore, East Pasco does not satisfy the items under this grouping. The fifth group of preferences is entitled "specialized services". East Pasco does not propose to provide any specialized services and, therefore, items under this grouping are not satisfied. The District 5 Local Health Plan includes recommendations for reviewing CON applications. On balance, the East Pasco application does not satisfy that plan. The first preference relates to whether the applicant provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care. For the reasons indicated above regarding the State Health Plan, this preference is not met. Further, East Pasco's application does not suggest that the 24 medical-surgical beds sought will enhance its Medicaid or indigent participation. The second recommendation provides that "if a numeric bed need exists as shown by the state bed methodology", preference is given to an applicant who has generated certain occupancy levels. Because no numeric bed need was shown per the Rule methodology, this recommendation is not met. The third recommendation relates to the transfer of existing acute care beds. Because East Pasco does not propose a transfer of beds, its application is not consistent with this recommendation. The fourth recommendation gives preference to applicants who document the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of their project. East Pasco does not satisfy this preference. East Pasco failed to show any cost efficiencies for its project. East Pasco proposes to spend over $4 million to serve, on the average, 3 to 5 patients per day in years 1 and 2. That is cost-inefficient. East Pasco did not prove that the charges or costs of providing medical-surgical services would be any less than what it currently charges. East Pasco's application includes two pro formas: a hospital-wide pro forma and an incremental pro forma for the proposed 24-bed unit. The person who prepared those pro formas did not testify, and the person who did testify did not participate in preparing the pro formas. Further, the witness only testified to the reasonableness of the incremental pro forma; he did not testify, directly or indirectly, regarding the hospital-wide pro forma. An incremental pro forma alone does not demonstrate long-term financial feasibility, even if the incremental pro forma were reasonable. An incremental pro forma alone does not reflect the project as a whole. At East Pasco, there are several projects and activities on-going or planned that must be evaluated. In addition to the existing 85 beds, East Pasco has underway: (1) opening a 10-bed observation unit; (2) opening an 11-bed SNU; (3) a planned wellness center on the first floor of the proposed 3-story tower; and (4) the planned relocation and enlargement of its ICU to the second floor of the proposed tower. Those projects add expenses, put strains on cash, and require debt. Without considering all the activity at the hospital, one cannot reasonably ascertain whether the proposed $4.1 Million third-floor project is financially feasible. For example, a small project could show an incremental profit but the hospital as a whole could lose money. East Pasco simply assumes that its 24-bed unit will be financially feasible in 1994 and 1995, years 1 and 2 of the project. The health care field is too dynamic and volatile for such assumptions. For example, East Pasco had an operating loss in 1990 but did well in 1991. By not analyzing the hospital-wide pro forma and proving its reasonableness, East Pasco did not show the required financial feasibility. It only demonstrated the results of one component of an entire operation. East Pasco has left unanswered the question of whether the facility as a whole will be able to finance this project in conjunction with all its other requirements. Further, the application lacked sufficient and clear presentation of the assumptions underlying the hospital-wide pro forma. Restated, the hospital-wide pro forma is not self-explanatory. The incremental pro forma, showing the proposed revenues and expenses for the 24-bed medical-surgical unit for years 1994 and 1995, is not reasonable. The projected revenues are overstated, and the projected expenses are understated. The assumptions underlying the financial projections are unreasonable. Further, the profit projections are unrealistic; in year two, East Pasco projects a profit of about $615,000 on an average daily census of less than 5 patients per day. On its face, that is unrealistic. In 1991, East Pasco generated 24,517 patient days, which was virtually the same as its 1990 utilization. In 1993, East Pasco projects 26,220 days. In year 1 of this project (1994), East Pasco projects 27,262 days hospital-wide, including the 1,042 incremental days associated with this project. Thus, in just a 3-year period, East Pasco projects almost 3,000 additional patient days, and even more for year 2 (1995). It is not reasonable to assume such an increase in utilization since utilization during the first quarter of 1992 declined from first quarter 1991. Therefore, patient day projections are overstated, thereby causing overstated projected gross revenue. East Pasco's projected daily charge is based on the hospital-wide average charge. It is not based on historical charges for medical-surgical services specifically. It is unreasonable to use charges for hospital services as a whole when the proposed project is for medical-surgical services only. Because the underlying assumption is invalid, projected revenues lack credibility. In calculating deductions from gross revenues, East Pasco assumed the hospital-wide payor mix and did not specifically ascertain the payor mix (and, therefore, the deductions) for medical-surgical services specifically. Again, this is an unreasonable assumption. Deductions from gross revenue should have been analyzed for medical-surgical services specifically. Due to the invalid assumption, the deductions from revenue figures lack credibility. East Pasco projects 5.8 FTEs for year 1 and 6.0 FTEs for year 2. East Pasco proposes to operate the 24-bed unit as an independent unit. These staffing levels are insufficient. East Pasco's proposed utilization equates to a 4.8 average daily census, which requires two nurses at all times. By East Pasco's admission, to staff a unit with two persons at all times throughout the year requires 9.2 paid nursing FTEs in addition to ward clerks and other support personnel. If the volume fluctuated and the census exceeded 7 or 8, more than two nurses would be needed. Thus, the 5.8 and the 6.0 FTE numbers are too low. The proposed staffing does not allow one RN to be on the floor at all times. To maintain one RN on the floor at all times throughout the year requires 4.2 FTEs; East Pasco budgeted for one. East Pasco does not have excess RNs available from its existing staff to cover the proposed addition. The supplies expense shown on the incremental pro forma was based on a hospital-wide average. The proposed project is for a specific service, and one cannot reasonably use a hospital-wide average instead. Accordingly, the calculation of expense for supplies is not reasonable. The pro forma includes an expense item entitled "other". East Pasco offered no explanation for that expense. Also, the pro forma did not include a line-item for the HCCCB indigent care tax, which is 1.5 percent of net revenue. East Pasco's proposed 24-bed medical-surgical unit will cover 13,000 GSF and will cost more than $4.1 million. All rooms will be private. The unit will have three nurse stations. According to East Pasco, the unit is to be a basic medical-surgical floor and is not intended to be a progressive care unit (PCU). This proposed design is not reasonable and is excessively large by at least 30 percent. This design is inefficient and, in reality, is not the design of a basic medical-surgical unit, but is instead the design of a PCU. There are three main reasons why the design is excessive. First, it is not necessary or reasonable to have all private rooms. A regular medical- surgical unit should have about an equal split of semi-private rooms. Notably, East Pasco's new 11-bed SNU has 5 private and 3 semi-private rooms for patients who will require hospitalization for up to 90 days. Second, these private rooms are almost twice the minimum size required by state licensure regulations. Third, three nurse stations are unnecessary; only one nurse station is needed for a basic 24-bed medial-surgical unit. East Pasco currently has 68 medical- surgical beds on 2 units, and each such unit has only 1 nurse station. The existing 68 medical-surgical beds at East Pasco average about 360 GSF per bed. The proposed 24 beds will average 542 GSF per bed. All private rooms and 3 nurse stations are, clearly, the design for a PCU. A PCU is a step- down unit from an ICU, which has high staff-to-patient ratios thereby requiring more nurse stations. East Pasco's projected construction cost for the 24-bed medical- surgical unit is $142.91 per GSF. This is unreasonably understated. It is uncontroverted that an SNU is less costly to construct than a medical-surgical unit. According to its projections, East Pasco's 11-bed SNU cost $171 per GSF in 1992. Clearly, that SNU cost is substantially greater than East Pasco's projected construction cost at issue. This inconsistency was never explained by competent evidence. In evaluating East Pasco's estimates, the Agency's architect relied upon 1991 Means construction cost data. He averaged the Means' medium figure ($123 per GSF) with the high figure ($172 per GSF) to derive a 1991 estimate of $147.50 per GSF. To that, one must add a 10 percent contingency factor, inflation, and an architectural fee. That totals $187.69 per GSF. The $187.69 projected figure is consistent with the 1992 SNU cost figure of $171. Thus, for construction costs alone, East Pasco underestimated by $44.77 per square foot, which is about $582,000. East Pasco proposed to construct a three-story tower; the third floor will house the proposed 24 medical-surgical beds. The second floor will house a 16-bed ICU, comprised of relocating the existing 8 ICU beds and converting 8 other acute care beds. East Pasco's application project costs only cover the third floor; East Pasco maintains the second floor is exempt from CON review and thus its cost is not relevant. As described below, East Pasco unreasonably failed to include costs of the second floor in its application. A hospital project costing $1,000,000 or more (other than an out- patient project) requires CON review. In its letter for exemption East Pasco states that the second floor would contain 12 ICU beds and cost $975,000 (calculated by multiplying 6,500 GSF by $150/foot). That letter is erroneous for several reasons: (1) the $150/foot is in 1992 dollars and does not include inflation; (2) the $150/foot does not include a 10 percent construction contingency fee, which is necessary and reasonable; (3) the $150/foot does not include an 8.4 percent architectural/engineering fee, which is necessary and reasonable; and (4) the $150/foot does not include any debt or financing fee. Including these necessary amounts alone shows that the second floor, in truth, exceeds the $1,000,000 threshold. Also, the cost for equipping an ICU bed is $45,000 per bed; for 16 beds, that is $720,000 for equipment. Surely the size and cost of a 16-bed ICU is different from and greater than a 12-bed ICU. East Pasco stated in its exemption request letter that the second floor would have 12 beds even though East Pasco intends 16 beds. East Pasco and the Agency correctly argue that the exemption given to East Pasco by the Agency for its second-floor ICU project is not part of the instant application and cannot be considered in this proceeding. However, the accuracy and reasonableness of the costs projected by East Pasco attendant to the 24 additional beds it seeks are an integral part of this proceeding, as is the scope of the project being reviewed and challenged. The second and third floor projects are, in truth, one project. It is East Pasco's intention to add 16 medical-surgical beds and 8 ICU beds to its facility. To establish the 16-bed ICU unit, East Pasco needs additional acute care beds; East Pasco does not have 8 available beds among its existing bed complement to convert to ICU purposes. The OB beds often run at 100 percent occupancy and, during the peak season, the medical-surgical beds run high occupancy. Thus, East Pasco cannot fully implement the second floor without approval of the proposed 24 new beds. There will be no community benefits in terms of charges if this application is approved. "Net revenues" must be the basis for comparing charges between facilities. Net revenues refers to what third party payors (such as Medicare, Medicaid, HMO/PPOs and most insurors) actually pay for hospital services as opposed to what hospitals charge. Few patients ever pay gross charges, particularly in the elderly East Pasco Subdistrict. In 1991, Humana's average net revenue per day was lower than East Pasco's. Humana's actual net revenue per admission in its fiscal year 1992 was $4,180. East Pasco's projected 1992 net revenue per admission is $5,301. Thus, for 1992, third party payors paid, on behalf of their patients, less per admission at Humana than at East Pasco. In its application, East Pasco projects an 8 percent per year increase in charges. An annual increase of 8 percent is not promoting charge-efficiency. East Pasco's application did not demonstrate cost-efficiencies resulting from approval, but rather, cost-inefficiencies. First, Humana would lose patient volume should East Pasco be approved. Humana currently receives transfers and direct admissions when East Pasco is full. Loss of patient volume would increase operating costs per patient day at Humana. Second, there is no need for additional beds in the Subdistrict. There is already excess capacity in the Subdistrict. Exacerbating excess capacity promotes cost-inefficiency. East Pasco admits the unit will not even be open six months out of the year because there is no need for it then. Third, East Pasco projects very low census in years 1 and 2, about 3 patients per day in year 1 and less than 5 patients per day in year 2. Spending over $4,000,000 to accommodate such low utilization is inefficient and unreasonable. Approval of East Pasco's application would not promote positive competition. There is competition now in the Subdistrict between Humana and East Pasco. East Pasco already captures a larger market share of the Subdistrict than Humana. Approving this application would only tip the scales more in favor of East Pasco and would adversely impact Humana's already poor financial condition. The quality of care delivered at Humana is very good. The JCAHO rates all acute care hospitals, and its rating is widely recognized in the hospital industry. The JCAHO evaluates many factors and components of a hospital. Humana is accredited "with commendation", the highest rating given. Only 5-6 percent of all acute care hospital in the country receive that highest ranking. Humana maintains a good utilization management program. Humana implements an excellent quality improvement plan, including soliciting and reviewing patient satisfaction comments. Mortality statistics cannot, by themselves, meaningfully measure the quality of care delivered at a hospital. Although the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) produces such a report for Medicare patients, the report itself represents that it is not intended to measure quality of care, and the American Hospital Association does not view HCFA mortality statistics as a measure of quality of care. There are many factors which influence mortality statistics at a hospital and, even more importantly, mortality is only one clinical outcome resulting from a hospital admission. When East Pasco is full, there is no medical problem or complication resulting from transferring patients to Humana or from directly admitting patients at Humana. There is no diminution of care or loss of continuity of care in transferring to or directly admitting to Humana. Emergency medical services are available in the Subdistrict, and, therefore, transfer is not a problem. Also, driving to Humana or to a hospital outside the Subdistrict is neither a problem nor an unusual circumstance. The large seasonal population drive to Florida in the winter, and, therefore, it is a mobile patient population. Most of its residents seeking hospital services receive them outside the Subdistrict. Subdistrict residents currently leave the Subdistrict to receive a variety of hospital services, including: in-patient cardiac cath, open heart surgery, Level II NICU, psychiatric services, substance abuse services, and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Thus, there is no merit to the suggestion that transferring patients from East Pasco to Humana or elsewhere is problematic. There would not be community benefits regarding Medicaid/indigent care by approving this application. As indicated, for all hospital services, Humana and East Pasco provide similar amounts of Medicaid and indigent care, although indigent care at both facilities is relatively insignificant. Therefore, access to Medicaid and indigent care does not provide a basis for approving East Pasco's application. Also, East Pasco's payor mix in its application was based on hospital-wide averages. East Pasco has not shown the amount of Medicaid or indigent care which would be specifically provided to, or which is needed for, medical-surgical patients. Finally, East Pasco's Policy and Procedure Manual includes several provisions requiring deposits upon in-patient admission absent verification of third party payor coverage. Such provisions are inconsistent with the proposition that East Pasco accepts all patients regardless of ability to pay. In Florida, an application for a CON must include a certified copy of an authorizing resolution of the applicant's Board of Directors. East Pasco included its corporate resolution in its CON application, that resolution being adopted at an August 14, 1991, meeting. That resolution clearly states, among other things, authorization to file an application for up to 24 additional acute care beds. The minutes of that meeting clearly reflect the Board's approval for 24 beds for ICU and PCU. The application itself requests approval of 24 medical-surgical beds. PCU, ICU, and medical-surgical beds are all types of acute care beds. Accordingly, East Pasco did file a proper corporate resolution consistent with the minutes and consistent with the application. The minutes and the application, however, are inconsistent. Although the corporation resolution is technically correct and fulfills the requirements for a CON application, the inconsistency among the corporate resolution, the minutes, and the application raised questions about the actual intent of East Pasco. The intent became more questionable during the final hearing when East Pasco's witnesses contradicted each other as to the number of beds to be placed in the to-be-constructed ICU on the second floor of the to-be-constructed 3-story tower. It is clear that the Agency only approved the construction of a 12-bed ICU on the second floor. It is also clear that East Pasco in fact intends to construct a 16-bed ICU on that second floor. It is also clear that East Pasco intends to construct a "medical-surgical" unit on the third floor in accordance with a design for a PCU. While the corporate resolution technically complies with the requirements for a CON application, the questionable nature of its accuracy, when considered in conjunction with the conflicting evidence of the scope of this project, raises concern as to East Pasco's projections regarding revenue, expenses, staffing, and the actual services to be made available in the Subdistrict. The lack of clarity as to East Pasco's proposal is a compelling reason to deny East Pasco's application. East Pasco's occupancy rate is quite high. It is higher even during the "peak season," i.e., November through April. The projections contained in East Pasco's application are based upon the historic high occupancy rate experienced at East Pasco. Those projections, however, do not take into account, nor did the Agency consider in reviewing East Pasco's application, the fact that East Pasco now has more than the 85 beds which formed the basis for its historic occupancy rate and its projections related to this project. Construction has been completed on the 10-bed observation unit and the 11-bed SNU. East Pasco already has an expanded capacity in place which should alleviate some of its occupancy problems. For example, East Pasco has experienced an increased number of out-patient observation days. With its new observation unit, the beds previously used for observation days are now available for in-patients which, in turn, will likely alleviate East Pasco's most common capacity problem-the lack of available ICU beds. Similarly, the SNU beds will also be available for in-patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying East Pasco's application for Certificate of Need No. 6783. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 9th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1497 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-32, 34-82, and 84-96 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 83 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 33 and 97 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 8, 13, 14, 27, 28, 31-33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, and 90 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 20, 21, 34, 45, 52, 54, 56-58, 68, 71, 73, 82, and 89 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or a conclusion of law. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 9, 19, 26, 48, 59, 61, 62, and 64 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. The Agency's proposed finding of fact numbered 46 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. The Agency's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12, 15-18, 22-25, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 50, 53, 55, 60, 63, 65-67, 69, 70, 72, 74-81, 83-88, and 91-93 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 16- 18, 20, 22-24, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 62, 63, 66-69, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89, 118, 119, 131, 135, 140, 174, 178-180, and 192 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 15, 25, 26, 55, 56, 70, 83, 90, 92, 94, 95, 100, 121, 127-129, 145, 146, 163, 164, 171-173, 176, 177, 184-189, 191, and 194 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 19, 87, and 88 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 21, 30, 31, 33-36, 39, 41, 51, 61, 86, 96-98, 102, 103, 105, and 154 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. East Pasco's proposed finding of fact numbered 84 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. East Pasco's proposed findings of fact numbered 27-29, 32, 42-44, 47, 49, 50, 52-54, 57-60, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74-77, 80, 91, 93, 99, 101, 104, 106-117, 120, 122-126, 130, 132-134, 136-139, 141-144, 147-153, 155-162, 165-170, 175, 181-183, 190, and 193 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen, Lewis, Goldman & Metz Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Darrell White, Esquire William Wiley, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones 215 South Monroe Street Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application Number 9099, filed by Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds, meets the criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK) is the applicant for Certificate of Need (CON) Number 9099 to convert a 20-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU) to 20 general acute care or medical/surgical beds. The construction cost is approximately $117,000, of the total project cost of $151,668. JFK is an affiliate of Columbia Hospital System (Columbia), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. JFK is a 343-bed hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5. Pursuant to a previously approved CON, an additional 24 acute care beds are under construction at JFK, along with 12 CON-exempt observation beds, at a cost of approximately $4 million. In August 1998, JFK was allowed to convert 10 substance abuse beds to 10 acute care beds. Other acute care hospitals in District 9 include the Petitioners: St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. (Good Samaritan), which are located in northern Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4, approximately 11 and 9 miles, respectively, from JFK. The remaining hospitals in District 9, Subdistrict 5, in southern Palm Beach County, and their approximate distances from JFK are as follows: Wellington (8 miles), Bethesda (7 miles), West Boca (18 miles), Delray (12 miles), and Boca Raton Community (17 miles). JFK and Delray are both "cardiac" hospitals offering open heart surgery services, with active emergency rooms, and more elderly patients in their respective service areas. The parties stipulated to the following facts: JFK's CON application was submitted in the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") second hospital batching cycle in 1998, and was the only acute care bed application submitted from acute care bed District 9, Subdistrict 5. AHCA noticed its decision to approve JFK's CON 9099 by publication in Volume 25, Number 1, Florida Administrative Weekly, dated January 8, 1999. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's each timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging approval of JFK's CON application. By Order dated March 17, 1999, the cases arising from those petitions were consolidated for the purposes of all future proceedings. JFK has the ability to provide quality care and has a record of providing quality of care. §408.035(1)((c), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application, at Schedule 6 and otherwise, projects all necessary staff positions and adequate numbers of staff, and projects sufficient salary and related compensation. See, §408.035(1)(h). JFK has available the resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. See, §408.035(1)(h), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the immediate term. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the long term, except, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend as it relates to projected utilization. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. Schedules 9 and 10 and the architectural schematics in JFK's application are complete and satisfy all applicable CON application requirements. Schedule 1 in the application is complete, reasonable, and not at issue. JFK's proposed construction/renovation design, costs, and methods of construction/renovation are reasonable and satisfy all applicable requirements. See, §408.035(1)(m), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application satisfies all minimum application content requirements in Section 408.037(1), Florida Statutes; except that Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that subsection (1)(a), is not satisfied. JFK certified that it will license and operate the facility if its CON proposal is approved. See, §408.037(2), Fla. Stat. JFK's Letter of Intent was timely filed and legally sufficient. See, §408.039(2)(a) and (c), Fla. Stat. Good Samaritan does not provide cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, or open heart surgery. St. Mary's does not provide elective angioplasty or open heart surgery services. JFK is one of the hospitals to which Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transfer patients in need of inpatient cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, and open heart surgery. Neither Good Samaritan nor St. Mary's have any present plans to apply for CON approval to add skilled nursing beds or acute care beds. The parties also stipulated that Subsections 408.035(1)(e), (f), (g), (h) - as related to training health professionals, (j), (k), and (2), Florida Statutes, are not at issue or not applicable to this proposal. For the batching cycle in which JFK applied for CON Number 9099, AHCA published a fixed need of zero for District 9, acute care subdistrict 5. In the absence of a numeric need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict, JFK relied on not normal circumstances to support the need for its proposal, including the following: delays in admitting patients arriving through the emergency room to inpatient beds, delays in moving patients from surgery to recovery to acute care beds, and seasonal variations in occupancy exceeding optimal levels and, at times, exceeding 100%. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's oppose JFK's CON application. In general, these Petitioners claimed that other problems cause overcrowding in the emergency room at JFK, that the type of beds proposed will not be appropriate for the needs of most patients, that "seasonality" is not unique to or as extreme at JFK, and that a hospital-specific occupancy level below that set by rule cannot constitute a special or not normal circumstance. If JFK achieves the projected utilization, experts for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's also projected adverse financial consequences for those hospitals. Rule 59C-1.038(5) - special circumstances During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the numeric need for new acute care beds in the subdistrict is zero. The rule for determining numeric need also includes the following provision: (5) Approval Under Special Circumstances. Regardless of the subdistrict's average annual occupancy rate, need for additional acute care beds at an existing hospital is demonstrated if the hospital's average occupancy rate based on inpatient utilization of all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 80 percent. The determination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate for the reporting period specified in section (4). Proposals for additional beds submitted by facilities qualifying under this subsection shall be reviewed in context with the applicable review criteria in section 408.035, F.S. The applicable time period for the special circumstances provision is calendar year 1997. JFK's reported acute care occupancy was 76.29% in 1997, and 79.7% in 1998, not 80%, as required by the rule. JFK and AHCA take the position that other special circumstances may, nevertheless, be and have been the basis for the approval of additional acute care beds. JFK also maintained that the reported average occupancy levels understated the demand for and actual use of its inpatient beds. Due to seasonal fluctuations caused by the influx of winter residents, JFK reached or exceeded 100% occupancy on 5 or 6 days, exceeded 80% occupancy on 20 days, and averaged 90.9% occupancy, in January 1999. In February 1999, the average was 96.5%, but was over 100% on 8 days, and over 90% on 25 days. In March 1999, the average occupancy was 90.1%, but exceeded 100% on one day, and 90% on 17 days. In recent years, the "season" also has extended into more months, from approximately Thanksgiving to Easter or Passover. It also includes flu season which disproportionately affects the health of the elderly. JFK also demonstrated that occupancy varies based on the day of the week, generally highest on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and lowest on weekends. JFK's acute care beds were also occupied by patients who were not classified as 24-hour medical/surgical inpatients. Others included observation and 23-hour patients, covered by Medicare or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Some of those patients were classified initially as outpatients to lower reimbursement rates, but routinely subsequently reclassified and admitted as inpatients. In fact, during the applicable time period for determining occupancy, Medicare allowed patients to be classified as outpatients for up to 72-hour hospital stays. Subsequently, Medicare reduced the allowable hospital stay to 48 hours for all "outpatients," according to AHCA's expert witness. When not classified as inpatients, patients are not counted in average occupancy rates which are based solely on the admitted inpatient census, counted each midnight. For example, in February 1999, the average daily census for 23-hour patients was 10.8 patients, which, when combined with 24-hour patients, results in an average occupancy of 99.7% for the month. Due to the Medicare classification system, some but not all of the so- called 23-hour patients affect the accuracy of the inpatient utilization data. According to AHCA's expert witness, however, numeric need cannot be determined because of JFK's failure to quantify the number of Medicare patients who actually affected the acute care bed utilization. The 23-hour or observation patients may use, but do not require CON-approved and licensed acute care beds. Instead, those patients may be held in either non-CON, non-licensed "observation" beds or in licensed acute care beds. As AHCA determined, to the extent that 23-hour patients in reality stayed longer, and adversely affected JFK's ability to accommodate acute care patients, their presence can be considered to determine if special circumstances exist. Combining 24-hour and 23-hour patients, JFK experienced an occupancy rate of 80% in 1996, and 85.7% in 1997. While some of the 23-hour patients were, in fact, outpatients who should not be considered and others stayed from 24 hours up to 3 days and should be considered, JFK's proportion of Medicare services is important to determining whether special circumstances based on acute care utilization exist. With 74% of all JFK patients in the Medicare category, but without having exact numbers, it is more reasonable than not to conclude that the occupancy level is between the range of 76.29% for acute care only and 85.7% for acute care and 23-hour patients. A reasonable inference is that JFK achieved at least 80% occupancy of patients who were in reality inpatients in its acute care beds in 1997. The expert health planner for the Petitioners conceded that bed availability declines, capacity is a constraint, and high occupancy becomes a barrier to service at some level between 80 and 83% occupancy. In a prior CON filed on behalf of Good Samaritan for a 4-bed addition to an 11-bed neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the same expert asserted that 76% occupancy was a reasonable utilization standard. That occupancy level was based on the desire to maintain 95% bed availability. An exact comparison of the occupancy levels in this and the NICU case, however, is impossible due to the small size of the NICU unit and the fact that the applicant met the occupancy level in that rule for special circumstances. The statistical data on the number patients actually using acute care beds at JFK in excess of 24-hours despite their classification, supports its claim of overcrowding. Emergency Room Conditions JFK described overcrowding in its emergency department as another special circumstance creating a need for additional acute care beds. The emergency room at JFK has 37 bays each with a bed and another 15 to 17 spaces used for stretchers. Eighteen parking spaces are reserved for ambulances in front of the emergency department. It is not uncommon for a patient to wait in the JFK emergency room up to 24 hours after being admitted to the hospital, before being moved to an acute care bed. In February 1999, after having converted 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds in October 1998, JFK still provided 234 patient days of acute care in the emergency department. The waiting time for patients to receive a bed after being admitted through the emergency department ranged from 10 hours to 5 days in the winter, and from an average of 6 hours up to 24 hours in the summer. While JFK claims that the quality of care is not adversely affected, it does note that patient privacy and comfort are compromised due to the noise, lights, activity, and lack of space for visitors in the emergency room. JFK's patients tend to be older and sicker than the average. As a result, more patients arriving at its emergency room are admitted to the hospital. In the winter of 1998, JFK was holding up to 35 acute care inpatients at a time in the emergency room. Nationally, from 15% to 20% of emergency room patients are admitted to hospitals. By contrast, almost twice that number, or one-third of JFK's emergency room patients become admitted inpatients. Emergency room admissions are also a substantial number of total admissions at JFK. In calendar year 1998, slightly more than 65% of all inpatient admissions to JFK arrived through the emergency room, most by ambulance. Ambulance arrivals at any particular hospital are often dictated by the patient's condition, with unstable patients directed to the nearest hospital. Once patients are stabilized in the emergency room at JFK, those requiring obstetric, pediatric, or psychiatric admissions are transferred from JFK which does not provide those inpatient services. Emergency room patients in need of acute care services provided at JFK, like the neonates at issue in the prior Good Samaritan application, are unlikely candidates for transfer The emergency room at JFK receives up to 50,000 patient visits a year, up from approximately 32,000 annual visits five years ago. JFK operates one of the largest and busiest emergency departments in Palm Beach County. Due to overcrowding in the emergency department at Delray Hospital, in southern Palm Beach County, patients have been diverted to other facilities, including JFK. In terms of square footage, JFK's emergency room does not meet the standards to accommodate the 52 to 54 bays and stretchers and related activities. JFK lacks adequate space for support services which should also be available in the emergency department. The Petitioners asserted that enlarging the emergency room will alleviate its problems. JFK demonstrated, however, that regardless of the physical size of the emergency room, optimal patient care requires more capacity to transfer patients faster to acute care beds outside the emergency department. Conditions in Other Departments Of 343 operational beds at JFK at the time of the final hearing, 290 were monitored or telemetry acute care beds, 30 were critical care beds, and 23 were non-monitored, non-critical care beds. Most of the monitored beds are in rooms equipped with antennae to transmit data from electrodes and monitors when attached to patients. When monitoring is not necessary, the same beds are used by regular acute care patients. The large number of monitored beds located throughout the hospital in various units reflects JFK's largely elderly population and specialization in cardiology. In 1998, 820 inpatient cardiac catheterizations (caths) were performed at JFK. Petitioners Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transferred 90 and 28 of those cath patients, respectively to JFK. In the first five months of 1999, 449 caths were performed, including procedures on 35 patients transferred from Good Samaritan and 16 from St. Mary's. Cath lab patients are held in the lab longer after their procedures when beds are not available in cardiac or the post- anesthesia care units. The Petitioners suggested that cath lab patients could be placed in a 12-bed holding area added to the lab in July 1999; however, that space was expected to be filled by patients being prepared for caths. Open heart surgery is available in Palm Beach County at three hospitals, Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens. Patients admitted to JFK for other primary diagnoses often require cardiac monitoring even though they are not in a cardiac unit. The additional 24 beds which were under construction at the time of the final hearing will also be monitored beds. The 20 beds at issue in this proceeding will not be monitored. The Petitioners questioned whether non-monitored beds will alleviate overcrowding at JFK where so many patients require monitoring. JFK physicians in various specialties testified concerning conditions in other areas of the hospital. A nephrologist, who consults primarily in intensive care units, described the backlog and delay in moving patients from intensive care into acute care beds. A cardiologist noted that patients are taking telemetry beds they do not need because there is no other place to put them. A general and vascular surgeon described the overcrowding as a problem with the ability to move patients from more to less intensive care when appropriate. Elective surgeries have been delayed to be sure that patients will have beds following surgery. The evidence presented by JFK supports the conclusion that the additional acute care beds will assist in alleviating overcrowding in other hospital units, including backlogs in the existing monitored beds. JFK has established as factual bases for special circumstances that its high occupancy exceeds the optimal much of the year, aggravated by seasonal fluctuations; that it has relatively large emergency room admissions over which it has no control; and that its intensive care and monitored beds are not available when needed. Number of Beds Needed With the conversion, in 1998, of 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds and the 1999 construction of 24 of 40 additional beds requested by JFK, the number of licensed and approved beds at JFK increased to 367. In addition, with CON- exemption, JFK has added observation beds. As a result of AHCA's partial approval of the previous JFK request for new construction and due to unfavorable changes in Medicare reimbursement policies for hospital-based SNUs, JFK now seeks this 20-bed conversion. JFK ceased operating the SNU in October 1998, after Medicare reimbursement changed to a system based on resource utilization groups (RUGs). JFK was unable to operate the SNU without financial losses, that is, unable to cover its patient care costs under the RUGs system. The proposal to convert the beds back to acute care, as they were previously licensed will allow JFK to reconnect existing oxygen lines in the walls and to use the beds for acute care patients. Although Good Samaritan and St. Mary's suggested that JFK can profitably operate a SNU, there was no evidence presented other than its previous occupancy levels which were very high, and the fact that Columbia is not closing all of its SNUs. The Petitioners also question JFK's ability to use its SNU beds for acute care and/or observation patients. AHCA, however, took the position that acute care licensure is required for beds in which acute care patients are routinely treated. Otherwise, the agency would not have accurate data on utilization, bed inventory, and the projected need. In order to demonstrate the number of beds needed, JFK's expert used historical increases in admissions. Some admissions data was skewed because the parent corporation, Columbia, closed Palm Beach Regional in 1996, and consolidated its activities at JFK. Excluding from consideration the increase of 3,707 admissions from 1995 to 1996, JFK's expert considered approximately 800 as reasonable to assume as an average annual increase. That represents roughly the mid-point between the 1996 to 1997 increase of 605, and the 1997 to 1998 increase of 1,076 admissions. A projected increase of 800 admissions for an average 5-day length of stay would result in an increase of 4,000 patient days a year which, at 80% occupancy, justifies an increase of 14 beds a year. Considering the closing of Palm Beach Regional, the number of beds in the subdistrict will have been reduced by 170. At the hearing, JFK's expert also relied on 3.3% annual patient day increase to project the number of beds needed, having experienced an increase of 5.8% from 1997 to 1998. Using this methodology, JFK projected a need for 20 additional acute care beds by 2002, and over 40 more by 2004. That methodology assumed patient growth in the excess of population growth and, necessarily, an increase in market share. JFK's market share increased in its primary service area from approximately 19% in 1993 to 27% in 1997. But the market share also slightly declined from 1997 to 1998. AHCA's methodology for determining the number of beds needed was based on the entire population of Palm Beach County, not just the more elderly southern area. It also assumed that JFK's market share would remain constant. Using this more conservative approach than JFK, AHCA projected a need for 383 acute care beds, or 16 beds added to the current total of 367 licensed and approved beds, at an optimal 75% occupancy by the year 2004. AHCA relied on a projection of 104,959 total patient days in 2004. Using the same methodology, JFK's expert determined that total projected patient days for 1998 would have been 94,225, but the actual total was 98,126 patient days. AHCA's methodology underestimates the number of beds needed, but does confirm that more than 16 additional beds will be needed by 2004. AHCA's reliance on 75% as an optimal future occupancy level as compared to the hospital-specific historical level of 80% was criticized, as was the use of the year 2004 as a planning horizon. The rule requires 80% occupancy for a prior reporting period and does not establish any planning horizon. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's used 80% occupancy in their analysis of bed need. At 80% occupancy, Petitioners projected an average daily census of 265 patients in 331 beds in 2001, or 268 patients in 334 beds in 2002, and 270 patients in 358 beds in 2003, as compared to 367 existing and approved beds. The Petitioners' projection is an underestimate of bed-need based on the actual average daily census of 269 patients in 1998. The Petitioners' methodology erroneously projects a need for fewer licensed beds than JFK has currently, despite the special circumstances evincing overcrowding. At 80% occupancy, based on the special circumstances rule, a hospital exceeds the optimal level and needs more beds. But, according to the Petitioners, 80% is a future occupancy target for the appropriate planning horizon of 2002. As AHCA's expert noted, it is illogical to use 80% as both optimal and as an indication of the need for additional beds. Similarly, it is not reasonable to use a planning horizon which coincides with the time when more beds will be needed. Therefore, the use of 75% for the five-year planning horizon of 2004 is a reasonable optimal target, as contrasted to the need for additional beds when 80% occupancy is reached at some future time beyond the planning horizon. AHCA's underestimate of need at 16 more beds by 2004, and JFK's overestimate of need at 40 more beds by 2004, support the conclusion that the requested addition of 20 beds in this application is in a reasonably conservative range. Rule 59C-1.038(6)(a) and Subsection 408.035(l)(n) - service and commitment to medically indigent; and Rule 59C-1.038(6)(b) - conversion of beds Rule 59C-1.038(6), Florida Administrative Code, also includes the following criteria: Priority consideration for initiation of new acute care services of capital expenditures shall be given to applicants with documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so. When there are competing applications within a subdistrict, priority consideration shall be given to the applications which meet the need for additional acute care beds in a particular service through the conversion of existing underutilized beds. Subsection (a) of the Rule, overlaps with District 9 health plan allocation factor one, which must be considered pursuant to Subsection 408.035(1)(a), and with the explicit criterion of Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All three require a commitment to and record of service to Medicaid, indigent and/or handicapped patients. JFK agreed to have its CON conditioned on 5% of the care given in the 20 new beds to Medicaid and charity patients. The commitment for the 24 beds under construction is 3% for Medicaid and charity patients. If charity patients are defined as those with family incomes equal to or below 150% of federal poverty guidelines, JFK provided $2.9 million in charity care in calendar year 1998, and $720,000 as of April for 1999. JFK provided an additional 3% to 5% in Medicaid care. The Medicaid total includes Palm Beach County Health Care District patients, who are also called welfare patients. The charity care provided by JFK is equivalent to approximately 1% of its gross revenue. JFK explained its relatively low Medicaid care as a function of its relatively limited services for people covered by Medicaid, particularly, the young who utilize obstetrics and pediatrics. JFK pointed to the differing demographics in Palm Beach County with more elderly, who have Medicare coverage, located in its primary service area. Excluding pediatric and obstetric care, Medicaid covered 6.7% of patients in southern Palm Beach County as compared to 16.3% in northern Palm Beach County. Of the Medicaid patients, 2.9% in the southern area as compared to 6% in the northern area are adults. On this basis, JFK established the adequacy of its historical Medicaid and indigent care, and of its proposed commitment. Subsection (6)(b) of Rule 59C-1.038 is inapplicable when, as in this case, there are not competing applications to compare. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - other local health plan factors and Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care District 9 allocation factor 2, favoring cost containment practices, is enhanced by the proposed conversion rather than the new construction of beds. Within the Columbia group of hospitals, there is an effort to avoid unnecessary duplications of services. JFK caters to an elderly population and to providing cardiology, neurology, and oncology services. Columbia's Palms West provides pediatric and obstetric care. Another Columbia facility in Palm Beach County, Columbia Hospital, specializes in inpatient psychiatric services. The elimination of the hospital-based SNU at JFK does eliminate one level of care in the system, contrary to the criteria. District 9 health plan allocation factor 3 requires favorable consideration of plans, like JFK's, to convert unused or underutilized beds. In this case, the JFK SNU was highly utilized but unprofitable. There is no evidence that alternative placements in free-standing nursing homes are inappropriate or unavailable. Minor inefficiencies result from the time lag for transfers during which skilled nursing patients remain in acute care beds. To some extent, the inefficiencies were already occurring while JFK operated the SNU due to its high average census of 18 or 19 patients in a total of 20 SNU beds. Those inefficiencies are outweighed by the low cost conversion of 20 beds for $117,000, particularly as compared to its prior 24-bed construction for $4 million. In general, the applicable local health plan allocation factors support the approval of the JFK application. Rule 59C-1.030 - needs access for low income, minorities, handicapped, elderly, Medicaid, Medicare, indigent or other medically underserved In general, the proposal is intended to increase access to JFK's services by decreasing waiting times for admissions. The services are used by a large number of elderly patients, who are primarily covered by Medicare. JFK demonstrated that the population in its service area also tends to be wealthier than the population in northern Palm Beach County. Medicaid and indigent access to care at JFK is consistent and reasonable given the demographic data presented. Access for elderly Medicare patients will be enhanced by the proposal. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) - accessibility, availability, appropriateness, and adequacy of like and existing services Good Samaritan and St. Mary's argue that hospitals below 75% occupancy are available alternatives to JFK's patients. Yet, those facilities are not viable alternatives for unstable patients admitted through the emergency room. Neither is it appropriate to transfer patients who need services provided at JFK. JFK does not allege that any problems exist at other facilities, but only that it is affected by special circumstances. From January to June 1998, the closest hospitals to JFK experienced wide-ranging occupancy levels from 92% at Delray, the hospital with services most comparable to those at JFK, to 57% at Bethesda, and 47% at Wellington. The wide range in occupancy rate is further indication of uniqueness of the need for patients to access services available only at Delray and JFK. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - outpatient care or other alternatives Admitted inpatients have no alternatives to their need for acute care beds. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - alternative use of resources and accessibility for residents The continued use of the 20 beds as a SNU was suggested as an alternative. As noted, however, that proved to be financially unprofitable at JFK, in comparison to the low cost conversion to acute care beds. AHCA reasonably rejected the idea that of the beds being designated "observation" beds when used for acute care patients. In addition, in 1996, JFK estimated the cost of moving patients from bed to bed in the hospital due to the shortage of appropriate beds, when needed, at up to $1 million. This project is intended to meet a facility-specific need based on the demand for services at JFK from patients who cannot reasonably initially be sent or subsequently transferred to other hospitals. As such, JFK's additional beds do not meet the criterion for accessibility for all residents of the district. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - utilization and long-term financial feasibility Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that JFK's proposal includes unrealistically high utilization projections for the additional 20 beds. Using 98,000 patient days in 1998, which excludes any days attributable to skilled nursing beds, total utilization projected in the second year is 78.4%. For the additional 20 beds, projected utilization is 77.4%. The expert for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's disagreed with the allocation of patient days between the existing and additional beds. If 80% utilization is assigned to existing 367 beds, as he suggested, then the average annual occupancy of the 20 new beds would be only 50%. The financial break-even point for the project, however, is 50 to 75 patient days, or 10 to 15 patients with average lengths of stay of 5 days. Therefore, even with the lower projected occupancy of 50%, or an average of 10 beds at any time, the project is financially feasible in the long-term. In reality, a separate allocation of patient days to the 20 new beds is somewhat arbitrary. It is also less important than total projected utilization, since the 20 beds do not represent a separate unit in which specialized services will be provided. The additional beds will become a part of the total medical/surgical inventory. By demonstrating that there will be sufficient total occupancy to exceed the financial break-even point in the newly converted beds regardless of the allocation of patient days to any particular bed, JFK demonstrated the long- term financial feasibility of the proposal for CON 9099. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs; effects of competition If the JFK proposal is approved, Good Samaritan anticipates a loss of 255 patients, or 1,392 patient days, which is equivalent to a financial loss of over $1.5 million. St. Mary's anticipates losses of 158 patients or 973 patient days, and in excess of $1 million. Both hospitals were experiencing overall operating losses in 1999. But, the estimates of financial losses for both hospitals did not take into consideration all of the expense reductions associated with serving fewer patients. Excluding pediatrics and obstetrics, which are not available at JFK, JFK's overlapping service areas with Good Samaritan and St. Mary's are minimal. Good Samaritan's market share in JFK's primary service area is 4.8%, and St. Mary's is 9.3%. Pediatrics and obstetrics contribute 30.7% of total patients at Good Samaritan, and 49.5% at St. Mary's. Physician overlap among the hospitals is also limited. Although 357 doctors admitted patients to JFK and 464 to St. Mary's in the first two quarters of 1998, the number of overlapping doctors was 28. With a total of 379 admitting doctors at Good Samaritan for the same period of time, only 21 were included in JFK's 357 admitting physicians. In general, doctors in the northern Palm Beach County acute care subdistrict seldom admit patients to hospitals in the southern subdistrict, and vice versa. The absence of overlapping medical staff also reflected the differences in the services. Most of the top twenty doctors who admitted patients to Good Samaritan and St. Mary's were obstetricians and pediatricians. When obstetricians and pediatricians are excluded, the number of overlapping doctors for JFK and Good Samaritan is reduced to 15, and for JFK and St. Mary's to 22. In addition to providing different services, to different areas of the County, doctors who practice primarily in one or the other subdistrict served patients in different payor classification mixes. In 1997, JFK's patients were 74% Medicare, consistent with the fact that a larger percentage of elderly patients live in JFK's service area. By contrast, Medicare patients were approximately 48% of the total at Good Samaritan, and 32% of the total at St. Mary's. Historically, the addition of acute care beds at JFK has not affected other hospitals in the district or even the same acute care subdistrict. After the conversion of 10 substance abuse beds in the fall of 1998, the acute care patient days at every hospital in the same subdistrict increased in early 1999 over comparable periods of time in 1998. The assumption that additional beds at JFK will take patients from other hospitals includes the assumption that JFK will draw a larger share of an incremental increase of patients. The assumption is, in other words, that all patients will be new to JFK. The expert health planner for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's conceded that facility-specific overcrowding can justify projections that the additional beds will accommodate the existing census plus growth attributable to increasing population, and will not generate new patients. The expert assumed, nevertheless that from 1478 to 1486 new patients (depending on whether the length of stay is rounded off) would be associated with JFK's project. From that total, the proportional losses allocated were 255 patients from Good Samaritan and 158 patients from St. Mary's. Another underlying assumption increase is that all of the new patients would go to other hospitals if JFK does not add 20 acute care beds. That assumption suggests that all of the patients could receive the services they need at the other facilities, which is not supported by the facts or current utilization data. More likely, with the addition of beds due to overcrowding, some patients will come from the existing hospital census at JFK. It is not reasonable to assume that JFK will have all new patients, nor that all patients could be treated at other hospitals in the absence of JFK's expansion. The proportion of emergency room admissions at JFK is reasonably expected to continue. Patients who arrive at JFK requiring open heart surgery, angioplasties or invasive cardiac caths are reasonably expected to continue to receive those services at JFK, including patients who are transferred to JFK from Good Samaritan and St. Mary's. Based on the failure to support the assumptions, and the differences in service areas, medical staff, specialties, and patient demographics, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's have not shown any adverse impact from the JFK proposal. On balance, considering the statutory and rule criteria for reviewing CON applications, JFK established, as a matter of fact, that it meets the special circumstance criteria related to emergency room admissions, pre- and post-surgical and intensive care backlogs, and average annual occupancy projections in excess of optimal levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered issuing CON 9099 to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds at Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, on condition that a minimum of 5% of new acute care patient days will be provided to Medicaid and charity patients. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 99-0714 is hereby closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kolins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313
