Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL PARK OF TAMPA, LTD. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-000168 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000168 Latest Update: Feb. 09, 1987

The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.

Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of June, 1985.

Florida Laws (2) 120.52, 120.57

# 1

UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 91-005720 (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Sep. 05, 1991 Number: 91-005720 Latest Update: Mar. 04, 1992

The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted CON No. 6606 to convert 10 medical/surgical beds to 10 neonatal intensive care beds to create a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Findings Of Fact UCH is a licensed acute care hospital with 404 authorized beds. A number of these beds were transferred to the Women's Center, which was exempted from CON review by DHRS. (Exhibit 8) The Women's Center involved the expenditure by UCH of some $11,000,000 to construct and equip a separate building adjacent to the existing hospital. The Women's Center was completed and became operational in September 1991. Accordingly, at the time the Application for NICU beds was submitted through the processing of the Application by DHRS, no births were experienced at this facility. For the first two months the Women's Center was operational, the Women's Center experienced 107 births of which 1 required transfer to a hospital providing Level II neonatal intensive care services. At the time the batching cycle for the September 27, 1990 deadline and January 1993 planning horizon was published (Exhibit 18), the NICU inventory was in litigation, and DHRS did not publish a fixed bed need pool for that batching cycle. Instead, in Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 16, No. 34, dated August 24, 1990 (Exhibit 18), an estimated inventory of existing beds was used in the bed need formula calculation. This showed for District VI zero need for additional NICU Level II beds. Subsequent to the issuance of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in this case litigation was complete, and DHRS entered a Final Order on September 15, 1991 establishing the bed inventory for neonatal intensive care beds Level II and Level III in District 6. That Order increased the NICU Level II bed inventory by 15 beds by adding four beds to Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LMRC) NICU and 11 beds to Winter Haven's NICU. These additions increased the NICU Level II inventory in District VI from the 61 shown on Exhibit 18 to 76. The SAAR (Exhibit 6) used an inventory of 77 Level II NICU beds in District VI to determine no need after application of the bed need formula showed a need for 70 Level II NICU beds in District VI. Changing the inventory from 77 to 76 NICU beds does not affect this conclusion. Occupancy rates used in the bed need calculation were taken from the reports hospitals are required to submit to local health councils. In some instances in the batching cycle here involved, the hospitals had failed to report to the local health councils their occupancy rate for the period required by the bed need formula, and DHRS contacted these hospitals in District VI for the data needed. Petitioner contends that the occupancy rate data relied upon by DHRS in calculating the need for NICU beds for the 1993 planning horizon is inaccurate and that more reliable data is obtained from using different reports that the hospitals are required to submit to the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB). Petitioner's expert witness opined that the information hospitals are required to submit to the HCCB provides a more accurate method of determining the occupancy rate of the Level II NICU beds at each hospital. Petitioner also contends that at the time the Level II occupancy rates were provided to DHRS there was no finite definition, by rule, of the differences between Levels I, II and III NICUs, and the hospitals did not submit accurate data. However, credible evidence was presented that a proposed definition of Levels I, II and III NICUs had been promulgated to all of the hospitals and, when enacted as a rule, this proposed definition was adopted verbatim or nearly so. Intervenors' witnesses pointed out that the hospital reports to HCCB are based on DRG's (diagnostic related groups), and the same DRG is frequently used on a Level I, II or III NICU admission. Accordingly, from those reports to the HCCB an accurate determination of the Level II occupancy rate cannot be made. Furthermore, the patient, during the hospital stay, is frequently moved from Level III to Level II to Level I care, and this data cannot be obtained from the reports submitted to the HCCB. Accordingly, it is found that the reports submitted by hospitals to the local health councils provide more accurate occupancy rates than can be gleaned from the reports submitted to the HCCB, and the occupancy rate utilized by DHRS to calculate NICU bed need is correct. The average occupancy rate for District VI hospitals providing NICU Level II beds was approximately 70 percent during the most recent 12 months prescribed for this batching cycle. Although discrepancies were noted in the patient days at Humana and Tampa General during this period, when these discrepancies were corrected, the district occupancy rate remained in the vicinity of 70 percent. Rule 10-5.042(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, provides that regardless of bed need shown (by using the bed need formula) the establishment of new Level II NICU beds within a district shall not normally be approved, unless the average occupancy rate for Level II beds in the district equals or exceeds 80 percent for the most recent 12 month period ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed bed need pool. Petitioner submitted no evidence to demonstrate a not normal situation existed to waive the 80 percent average District VI occupancy rate required before additional Level II NICU beds will be approved. Petitioner principally relied upon the admissions in Hillsborough County to demonstrate an 80 percent occupancy rate. However, the rule specifically refers to a district rate rather than to a subdistrict or one-county rate. In several areas, Petitioner's estimates used to determine the anticipated number of patients to be served in the proposed NICU are not realistic. To determine the ratio of Level II patients to the number of births, Petitioner relied on data from Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LMRC) as a comparable hospital. However, LMRC is not comparable to UCH in patient payor mix. In excess of 40 percent of LMRC obstetrical cases are Medicaid patients, while UCH projects only 6 percent Medicaid births. A lower income payor such as Medicaid patients have a much higher ratio of ill babies at birth than do more affluent mothers who generally receive better prenatal care. Consequently, the percentage of births needing Level II care in the payor mix expected at UCH is more comparable to the percentage experienced by Humana Women's Hospital, an Intervenor herein. At Humana the percentage of births requiring Level II care is on the order of 6 percent as compared to 15.6 percent at LMRC. This lower ratio is more consistent with UCH experience in its first two months of operations where out of 107 births only 1 required transfer to a Level II NICU. Some question was raised regarding the accuracy of Petitioner's estimate of 1500-1700 births during the first full year of operation. While it would be expected that admissions to a new facility would be lower the start-up year than in subsequent years, hard evidence to support the proposed number of births or a lessor number was not presented. In either case, Petitioner has failed to meet the birth requirement of a minimum of 1000 live births for the most recent 12 month period ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool needed to qualify for this CON. Petitioner presented no evidence to support the not normal conditions that would provide an exemption to this requirement in Rule 10-5.042(6), Florida Administrative Code, other than the fact that it is patently obvious that a hospital that commenced operations 6 months after submitting its CON application could not demonstrate 1000 live births in the 12 months preceding its application. The protesting providers of Level II neonatal care are both located within one hour driving time of the site of UCH as is All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg. The other hospitals in District VI providing Level II neonatal care, to wit Manatee Memorial Hospital, Winter Haven Hospital and LMRC, are also within two hours driving time of UCH which is the geographical access guideline established by rules for NICUs. Although UCH contends that its application meets all eight preference items prescribed by the state health plan, the evidence presented established its application conclusively meets only one of these preferences, number 6. Absent a showing of need for the proposed facility as found in finding 6 above, granting this CON will increase the excess NICU beds in District VI and adversely impact existing providers. This includes Tampa General which is a disproportionate share provider (of Medicaid and indigent care). It appears from the evidence presented, that in constructing the Women's Hospital, space for an NICU was provided in the plans and, while awaiting a CON to provide a 10 bed Level II ICU, the space is used for storage. No structural changes will be required to operate a NICU at this location, and costs are related primarily to the equipment that will be needed. Whether the installation of a NICU in this space will improve the physical plant of the Women's Center depends on from which advantage point one looks. From Petitioner's point of view, the NICU would improve the physical plant and comply with Preference 3 of the state health plan. Based upon the premise that the proposed NICU beds will be used at an occupancy rate of 70 percent or greater, the conversion of 10 acute care beds currently operating at less than 50 percent occupancy to NICU beds, the overall occupancy rate will increase and Preference 4 would be met. However, no credible evidence was presented that the proposed 10 bed Level II NICU will operate at 70 percent capacity. If initial utilization of Level II care continues and less than 1 percent of UCH live births require Level II care, this Preference will not be met. Although Petitioner did not address Preference 5 in its application, the SAAR notes that HCB reports show of the three hospitals with a grouping of "05" UCH has lower gross revenues per adjusted admission. Petitioner meets Preference 6. Preference 7 of the State Health Plan pertains to applicants who propose to provide neonatal intensive care services to Children's Medical Services (CMS) and non-CMS patients who are defined as charity care patients. Although UCH proposes to provide 6 percent Medicaid and 5 percent indigent care, past history does not support this level of indigence or low pay care. Under Preference 8 of the State Health Plan, preference is given to applicants who propose to serve substance abuse, pregnant and postpartum women, and coordinate their services with other appropriate social agencies. Although UCH stated in its application that it has developed a referral relationship with the Teen Mom's Program, it did not specifically address coordination of its services with substance abuse, pregnant and postpartum women. The local health plan for District VI provides preference shall be given to an applicant who provides the department with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the subdistrict. UCH is not a disproportionate share provider and does not propose to become one. Accordingly, it does not comply with this preference item in the district health plan.

Recommendation It is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered denying the application of University Community Hospital for Certificate of Need No. 6606 to establish and operate a 10 bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5720 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted, except as noted below. Those not noted below and not contained in Hearing Officer findings were deemed not necessary to the conclusions reached. 22. Accepted as the testimony of Hopes, but not as a fact. Accepted only insofar as not in conflict with HO #5. Rejected. 32. Rejected. 34-35. Accepted insofar as not inconsistent with HO #7. 36. Same as 34. Accepted as testimony of witnesses. However, ultimate finding in HO #7 is that when these numbers were corrected, no change in bed need resulted. Rejected. 42. Rejected that Hopes utilization statistic more accurately reflects true utilization of NICU beds. 53-55. Rejected. 56. Rejected as outside the time period here involved. 58-59. Rejected. 62. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with HO #10. Rejected. Second sentence rejected as in conflict with HO #9. 75. Ultimate sentence rejected. 85. Rejected. 92. Accepted, except for the connotation that these patients have geographical access problems to existing facilities. 95. Accepted merely as the testimony of this witness who is currently an employee of UCH. 97-118. Although these preference items were discussed in HO findings #12-19, absent a comparative review these preferences were not considered in determining that a need for 10 more Level II NICU beds did not exist in District VI. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent and the Intervenors are accepted. Those not included in HO findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John Radey, Esquire Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

# 2

KINDRED HOSPITAL EAST, LLC vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL - PALM BEACH, INC., 03-002854CON (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Aug. 04, 2003 Number: 03-002854CON Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2005

The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.

Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.

Florida Laws (6) 120.569, 120.57, 408.031, 408.037, 408.039, 408.045

# 3

IRVING AND LOUISE LAMPERT AND GARY LAMPERT vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 77-002284 (1977)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-002284 Latest Update: Jun. 20, 1978

Findings Of Fact Petitioners' application for a certificate of need to construct a 60- bed skilled nursing home was recommended for approval by the Health Planning Council, the health systems agency (HSA) for the five counties of Martin, Palm Beach, Volusia, Okeechobee and St. Lucie, but was denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Office of Community Medical Facilities. The latter agency has the ultimate responsibility for granting certificates of need. In recommending the granting of a certificate of need, HSA considered available beds in existing facilities in lieu of licensed beds, found 89.6 percent occupancy of available beds equal to or greater than 90 percent occupancy of licensed beds prescribed by the State Plan for Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities (Exhibit 2), used its own population forecasts rather than State population forecasts, and failed to consider certificates of need approval recently granted to five nursing homes in Palm Beach County, some of which were already under construction. HSA, at the time of this application had Palm Beach County divided into four regions (which has now been expanded to five) and the proposed facility is located in region three. At the time of the application there were three existing nursing homes in region three and two additional facilities had been granted certificates of need in this region. HSA normally uses licensed beds to determine the percentage of occupancy, but for reasons not explained at this hearing, HSA used available beds to determine the percentage of occupancy. Using available beds HSA found the three nursing homes in region three of Palm Beach County to have an 89.6 percent rate of occupancy. Had licensed beds been used, the percentage of occupancy would have been 83. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, in determining the need for additional medical facilities, has divided the State into 60 health care service areas and Palm Beach County is one of those areas. No evidence was submitted to indicate that the service areas so established are not reasonable. At the time of Petitioners' application, there were 1981 licensed nursing home beds in Palm Beach County; and applications had been approved, or recommended for approval and subsequently approved, for an additional 460 beds in Palm Beach County. The projected need in the State Plan for 1977 (Exhibit 2) for nursing home beds for Palm Beach County by 1982 is 2038. Accordingly, at the time of this hearing, nursing homes in Palm Beach County had received approval for 2441 beds which is 403 more nursing home beds than the forecast need for the year 1982. In determining the need for medical and health provider facilities, the usage rate of existing facilities is first determined from actual usage of the facilities. The Projected Average Daily Census is then determined by multiplying the use rate by the forecast population and dividing by 365 days per year. From this figure the bed need is determined by dividing the Projected Average Daily Census by .85 and adding 10. In this manner, HRS determined in the 1977 State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities that Palm Beach County would have a need for 2038 nursing home beds in 1982. At the time Petitioners' application was recommended for approval by HSA, additional certificates of need had been granted for an additional 160 nursing home beds in region three of Palm Beach County. These facilities are designated as Life Care Centers because they are attached to condominiums from which their primary source of patients is expected to come. However, these facilities are essentially nursing homes and provide the same services as nursing homes. Had these authorized additional beds been included in computing the percentage of occupancy of nursing homes in region three the rate would have been approximately 60 percent, assuming no population change when these facilities become operational.

# 4

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL-PALM BEACH, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 03-002486CON (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 09, 2003 Number: 03-002486CON Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2005

Florida Laws (6) 120.569, 120.57, 408.031, 408.037, 408.039, 408.045

# 5

MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., D/B/A MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER vs MIAMI BEACH HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., D/B/A MIAMI HEART INSTITUTE, 94-004755CON (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Aug. 30, 1994 Number: 94-004755CON Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1995

The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).

Florida Laws (4) 120.57, 408.032, 408.035, 408.036 Florida Administrative Code (1) 59C-1.040

# 6

TALLAHASSEE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 82-001903 (1982)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-001903 Latest Update: Apr. 27, 1983

Recommendation That the application of Tallahassee Community Hospital for a Certificate of Need to establish a 20-bed obstetrical unit be approved in part by issuance of said certificate for a 17-bed unit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 27th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jon C. Moyle, Thomas A. Sheehan, III, and Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Jones and Flanigan, P.A. 707 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 James M. Barclay, Esquire Frank Olsavsky, Legal Intern Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore and Alfred W. Clark, Esquires Laramore and Aye, P.A. 325 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

# 7

VENCOR HOSPITALS SOUTH, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 97-001181CON (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Mar. 12, 1997 Number: 97-001181CON Latest Update: Dec. 08, 1998

The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application No. 8614, filed by Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., meets, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration relied upon an unpromulgated and invalid rule in preliminarily denying CON Application No. 8614.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON 8614 to Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., to construct a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, District 8. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (5) 120.56, 120.57, 408.035, 408.037, 408.039 Florida Administrative Code (2) 59C-1.002, 59C-1.008

# 8

HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 83-000932 (1983)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-000932 Latest Update: Dec. 02, 1983

Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Humana of Florida, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc., is the owner of Women's Hospital in Tampa. Women's Hospital presently has 192 licensed beds, of which 96 are used for obstetrical patients and 96 are used for gynecological patients. It is dedicated to meeting the physical, psychological, educational, social and environmental needs of women and newborns and offers a total program of obstetrical, neonatal and gynecological care. Although not designated by the State as a Level III facility, Women's Hospital in Tampa has the personnel and equipment necessary to provide Level III care. It treats many high-risk obstetrical patients and their newborns, as well as premature infants. High-risk infants do not require transfer to another hospital with Level III capabilities. Every practicing obstetrical/gynecological physician in Tampa is on the staff of Women's Hospital. Petitioner submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add a fifth floor to its existing facility and to increase its licensed obstetrical bed complement from 96 beds to 130 beds. Of the 34 additional obstetrical beds requested, 12 are to be allocated to an antepartum unit. These 12 beds would be organized as a separate self-contained unit to care for obstetrical patients experiencing or likely to experience a complicated pregnancy and/or delivery. The types of obstetrical patients who would utilize a separate antepartum unit would include diabetics, patients who experience difficulties with blood pressure, kidney disorders and conditions associated with the heart and thyroid. In many instances, the antepartum patient is ambulatory or quasi-ambulatory and is thus able to meet many of her own needs. As a result, the intensity of nursing care in an antepartum unit is lower than that which would be expected in a postpartum obstetrical unit, resulting in a cost-savings to the antepartum patient. The total proposed capital expenditure for the addition of a fifth floor and 34 obstetrical beds is approximately $2.8 million. While petitioner is licensed for 96 obstetrical beds, only 62 of those beds were in operation at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. Based on the 62 beds in operation, the average obstetrical bed occupancy rate was 112 percent from September, 1982 through August, 1983. Due primarily to the temporary discontinuance of obstetrical services at St. Joseph's Hospital located across the street from petitioner, occupancy levels have reached 130 percent since January of 1983. Such occupancy levels create significant problems in terms of patient care and facility, physician and nursing efficiency. The difficulties associated with scheduling surgery and infection control are exacerbated with overcrowded conditions. Because newborns and postpartum mothers are more susceptible to infection, it is medically necessary to separate and segregate postpartum and gynecological patients. Petitioner had 4,600 deliveries last year and projects it will have 5,800 deliveries this year. If all 96 obstetrical beds were currently in operation, petitioner's occupancy levels would be approximately 70 percent. An indication of adequate utilization of obstetrical beds is an average annual occupancy level of 75 percent. Petitioner expects to reach the 75 percent occupancy level of its existing licensed 96 beds within the next year and a half to two years. Petitioner presently has no private obstetrical rooms at its facility. When a patient requires isolation from other patients, one of the beds in the semiprivate room is not available for use. Due to high occupancy levels, petitioner is unable to offer a private room to any of its obstetrical patients when it is not medically necessary to do so. Thus, even without the addition of 34 beds, petitioner desires to construct a fifth floor to allow it to reconfigure its units and convert a number of semiprivate rooms into private rooms by transferring existing licensed beds to the fifth floor. This would enhance the hospital's ability to utilize its bed complement in a more efficient manner. Even without additional beds, petitioner's Executive Director believes that by amortizing construction costs over a period of 20 to 25 years and reducing its operating margin, there would not be a significant impact upon patient charges as a result of the fifth floor addition. Should petitioner be granted a Certificate of Need allowing it to construct a fifth floor with no new beds, petitioner would be willing to accept conditions concerning the conversion of existing semiprivate rooms to private, such as capping over medical gas outlets, deactivating wall outlets and light fixtures for a second bed and furnishing the new rooms on the exclusive basis of a private room. The conversion of semiprivate rooms to private rooms could be a less costly alternative to the addition of new beds in some instances. To the extent that the addition of private beds provides a potentiality for greater utilization of existing services, additional patient revenues can be generated. It is not the policy if the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to grant approval for "shelled in" or "banking" space due to the potential competitive advantage it affords by allowing a future increase of beds without significant cost. Petitioner has the ability to adequately staff its proposed project with all necessary technical, nursing, and medical personnel, and will provide an acceptable level of patient care. Sufficient funds are available to construct and operate the project and the project has immediate and long-term financial feasibility. Its costs and methods for the proposed construction are reasonable, appropriate, and cost-efficient. The respondent HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code which establishes a uniform methodology for determining the number of acute care hospital beds needed five years into the future within the eleven HRS service districts throughout the State. The Rule addresses the need for general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical acute care services in hospitals and the Department will not normally approve applications for additional beds if the new beds would cause the number of beds in a particular district to exceed the number calculated to be needed under the Rule's methodology. Rule 10-5.11(23) calculates need through a series of formulas by considering the need for the various types of individual services and then adding these figures together to produce a figure indicating the total number of acute care beds which would be needed in a particular District within a five-year time frame. Then, after certain adjustments, all existing licensed and approved acute care beds are subtracted from the total bed need to determine the net bed need within the District. Subdistrict allocations by type of service are to be made by the individual Local Health Councils consistent with the District total acute care bed allocations, with certain adjustments permitted. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, the Sixth District's Local Health Council's plan for the allocation of beds on a service specific or subdistrict basis had not been adopted. The acute care bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(23) takes into account the population for the service area projected five years into the future, the historic utilization rate for particular types of service, average lengths of stay, optimal occupancy rates for the various types of services, and, with regard to obstetrical bed projections, the fertility rate of women between the ages of 15 and 44. The Rule sets forth the manner in which the figures for these various components are to be derived. Utilizing the methodology for determining acute care bed need as set forth in the Rule, District VI presently has 950 acute care beds in excess of the beds projected to be needed in the year 1988. By applying the subportion of the Rule relating to obstetrical beds to Hillsborough County, there are presently 47 obstetrical beds in excess of the number needed for 1988. While the petitioner agrees with the basic generic form of the methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), petitioner would substitute different data than that mandated under the Rule and perform certain adjustments. For example, petitioner would adjust the numbers used in the formula by increasing the statewide fertility rate for the years 1979-81 by 5 percent, by factoring in a number of 2 percent to 3 percent to represent the in-migration of obstetrical patients, by increasing the statewide average length of stay from 3.5 to 3.8 days so as to reflect the actual experience at petitioner's facility, by making an adjustment for hospital stays by an obstetrical patient which do not result in a delivery and by making a downward adjustment for those births which do not occur in a hospital setting. Petitioner would also subtract from the number of existing and/or approved beds the 15 obstetrical beds at St. Joseph's Hospital which were taken out of service on an interim basis as of December 31, 1982, pending the development of a comprehensive plan for the delivery of obstetrical services on a decentralized basis. The parties to this proceeding have stipulated that St. Joseph's Hospital contemplates that its future obstetrical service will be centered around birthing rooms, rather than actual labor, delivery and recovery rooms, and that it is reasonable to expect that, once the service is resumed, approximately 360 deliveries will occur with this number increasing over time. After making all these adjustments and utilizing different data in the formula for determining need, petitioner concludes there is a 1988 need in District VI for 26 or 27 additional obstetrical beds. Petitioner's analysis of bed need based both on an institution-specific analysis and a trend analysis resulted in a finding of from 32 to 36 additional beds needed at petitioner's facility by the year 1988.

Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need in its entirety be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr., Esquire & James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Claire D. Dryfuss Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Bldg. 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.56

# 9

SAN MARCO SURGICAL CENTER, LTD. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-003712 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-003712 Latest Update: Apr. 03, 1986

The Issue This proceeding was initiated when HRS proposed to deny San Marco's application for Certificate of Need No. 3304 for an ambulatory surgical center in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. San Marco filed a timely petition for formal hearing. Initially four intervenors were involved: Baptist, Memorial, Surgical Services of Jacksonville, Inc. and Medivision of Duval County, Inc. Surgical Services filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 7, 1985, and Medivision withdrew on October 28, 1985. At the hearing, San Marco offered evidence through eight witnesses and 28 exhibits; HRS presented one witness and one exhibit; and the two intervenors presented nine witnesses and 26 exhibits. Certain exhibits, by stipulation of the parties, were entered as "Hearing Officer Exhibits." Those four exhibits included the state agency action plan, the petitioner's application for CON, a three-volume state health plan and the District IV health plan The primary issue is whether San Marco is entitled to Certificate of Need No. 3304 for an ambulatory surgical center which will include two operating rooms. During the course of the proceeding several ancillary issues developed; those issues are summarized here and are addressed in the body of this recommended order: In determining need for a free-standing ambulatory surgery center, is it appropriate to consider evidence of out- patient surgical services provided by hospitals? (Petitioner's Motion in Limine, T-9). Is the project proposed by San Marco an "ambulatory surgical center" as defined in subsection 381.493(3)(a), Florida Statutes? (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, T-500). Should the intervenors, Baptist and Memorial be dismissed for failure to establish standing? (Petitioner's Motion for directed verdict, T-1182). The briefs, memoranda and proposed orders of the parties have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is included in the Appendix attached hereto. On March 25, 1986, Petitioner filed a Motion for Restricted Reopening of Record. Basis for the motion is Medivision's withdrawal of its application for certificate of need. The motion is denied.

Florida Laws (3) 120.56, 120.57, 395.002

# 10