Findings Of Fact Status of the case South Broward Hospital District (SBHD) is a special taxing district created in 1947 by a special act of the Florida Legislature to provide health services to the residents of South Broward County and surrounding areas. SBHD is a designated disproportionate share provider of medical services to the indigent, and currently operates two Class I General Hospitals in Broward County, to wit: Memorial Hospital, located in Hollywood, and Memorial Hospital West, located in Pembroke Pines. Pertinent to this case, SBHD was authorized to establish Memorial Hospital West by Certificate of Need (CON) number 4019 issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the predecessor to respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration) on December 21, 1988. The certificate's project description read as follows: Construction of a new 100 bed satellite hospital facility, which will be composed of 92 medical surgical and 8 intensive care beds, in southwestern Broward County, HRS District 10, via the transfer of 100 beds from an existing facility, Memorial Hospital, Hollywood, and retiring an additional 25 medical/surgical beds from the existing facility upon the opening of the satellite facility . . . . By letter of June 3, 1992, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3288, effective May 12, 1992, which authorized it to operate Memorial Hospital West as a Class I General hospital with 100 acute care beds. Contemporaneously, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3289, effective May 12, 1992, which reduced Memorial Hospital's licensed acute care beds to 489, "reflecting the transfer of 100 acute beds to Memorial Hospital West, and the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds," "[p]ursuant to Certificate of Need Number 4019." SBHD filed a timely petition challenging the respondent's issuance of License No. 3289, and, more particularly, the provision in such license reflecting "the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds." It was SBHD's position that the provision of CON 4019 which required the retirement of the additional 25 beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West was invalid or, alternatively, that the CON should be modified to delete such requirement. Respondent disagreed with SBHD's assertion that the provision of the CON requiring retirement of the additional 25 beds was invalid and contended that SBHD's request for modification could not be accommodated under the modification provisions of Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, but required certificate of need review. Accordingly, these formal proceedings to review, de novo, the agency's decision were commenced at SBHD's request. The quest for CON 4019 The quest by SBHD to construct a satellite hospital in southwest Broward County had its genesis in January 1984 when the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) evidenced its intention to deny SBHD's application for CON 2834 and SBHD requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and designated DOAH Case No. 84-0235. Thereafter, in 1985, SBHD filed another application with HRS, designated as CON application No. 4019, for authorization to develop and operate a 100-bed satellite hospital in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds from Memorial Hospital. After HRS's initial denial of that application, SBHD requested a formal hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. That case was assigned DOAH Case No. 85-3940, and was consolidated with the other application of SBHD, DOAH Case No. 84-0235. On April 11, 1986, SBHD updated its two applications to construct the satellite hospital, by proposing to transfer 100 beds from Memorial Hospital to the new facility, which would be composed of 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care beds. Subsequently, SBHD agreed to the retirement of 25 additional medical/surgical beds from Memorial Hospital upon the opening of its satellite facility, HRS agreed to support such project, and SBHD's application was duly updated. Accordingly, when the final hearing was held in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940 on September 12-16, 1986, October 22, 1986, and December 1, 1986, the issue was: . . . whether South Broward Hospital District's (District) application for a certificate of need to build and operate a satellite facility in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds and retiring 25 medical/surgical beds from its existing facility should be granted. On August 4, 1987 a recommended order was rendered in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940, which recommended that SBHD's application be denied. While recommending denial, such order ultimately metamorphosed into a final order, discussed infra, granting SBHD's application, and adopting a number of the findings of fact set forth in the recommended order. Those findings adopted included the recognition of the agency's evolving policy relating to bed transfers and relocation, as well as its consideration of a reduction of excess capacity within the district as affecting its decision to support such transfer. Specifically, the order noted: The Department has formulated a draft policy with respect to standards for evaluating applications to transfer beds or convert facilities. This policy was first written on August 7, 1986, and is based on the agency's prior experience in health planning. The Department's general policy for transfers and conversions is to try to "work off" any overbedding in a service district when approving transfers by requiring bed retirement as a condition to the approval of transfers. This strategy is the Department's attempt to reduce the excess of licensed and approved medical/surgical beds. The Department does not believe it possesses statutory authority to delicense acute care beds or retire acute care beds. Voluntary reduction of surplus beds in conjunction with applications to transfer beds or convert facilities provides one means for reduction of the number of beds in a service district. While the hearing officer observed that the agency did not believe it possessed the statutory authority to require the retirement or delicensure of acute care beds as a precondition for approval of a CON application, such observation, considering other findings of the hearing officer and the proof in this case, does not suggest that a proposed reduction in beds was not a legitimate factor for the agency to consider when evaluating an application and deciding whether it does or does not, on balance, satisfy relevant statutory and rule criteria. 1/ Indeed, one criteria to be considered in evaluating a CON application is its consistency with the State and Local Health Plan. At the time SBHD's application was reviewed, the State Health Plan set an appropriate ratio of medical/surgical beds to the population as a ratio of 4.11 to 1,000. Broward County (District X) was significantly overbedded at the time, with a medical/surgical bed ratio of approximately 5.1 to 1,000 and the Local Health Plan encouraged a reduction of licensed beds to achieve a ratio of 4.5 to 1,000 by 1988. Moreover, a proposed reduction in beds could also influence other criteria, such as, access, efficiency, and utilization. Following rendition of the recommended order on August 4, 1987, SBHD's pursuit of CON 4019 to final order took a tortuous route. In this regard, a final order of the agency dated August 18, 1988 observed: A prior invalid order of October 7, 1987, was vacated by order of February 29, 1988. After the order of February 29 was submitted to the First District Court of Appeal pursuant to relinquishment of its jurisdiction, the appeal of the final order was dismissed. Petitioner [SBHD] then moved for entry of a new final order. By order of June 27, 1988, the case was then remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for reevaluation of the merits of the application and additional findings based on the existing record, consistent with the rulings on exceptions by the Department contained in the Order of Remand. The Division of Administrative Hearings, by order of July 26, 1988, declined remand and ordered that the record be returned to the Department for entry of final order. The order then proceeded to adopt, except as specifically noted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the recommended order, and granted SBHD's application for CON 4019. SBHD's pursuit of its CON had not, however, met fruition. The final order of August 18, 1988, "was quashed on procedural grounds by the First District Court of Appeal in an Order dated September 15, 1988". Subsequently, by "order dated December 13, 1988, the District Court dismissed [the case] on the basis of a voluntary dismissal by the parties". The agency then observed that "it is now time for the disposition of the application for CON 4019." Accordingly, by final order rendered December 21, 1988, the agency resolved: . . . I conclude that CON 4019 should be approved for the reasons set forth in the Order rendered August 18, 1988. Therefore, the Order rendered August 18, 1988, is incorporated by reference. Based on the foregoing, it is ADJUDGED that the application of South Broward Hospital District for certificate of need number 4019 to construct a satellite facility in south- western Broward County be APPROVED. Consistent with that final order, CON 4019, dated December 29, 1988, with an issue date of December 21, 1988, was granted to SBHD. As heretofore noted, the certificate, consistent with SBHD's updated application, included the requirement that an additional 25 medical/surgical beds would be retired at Memorial Hospital upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West. The validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds. Here, SBHD has challenged the propriety of respondent's delicensure of 25 medical/surgical beds at Memorial Hospital based on the contention that the provision of CON 4019, which provided for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West, was invalid. SBHD's contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is unpersuasive. In support of its contention, SBHD offered proof a hearing that it was HRS that initiated the proposal to retire beds, and that HRS did not have the unilateral authority to "require" the retirement or delicensure of beds as a prerequisite or condition for approval of a CON application. 2/ Accepting that HRS initiated the dialogue, as well as the fact that HRS could not unilaterally require SBHD to retire beds, does not, however, compel the conclusion that the provision for the retirement of beds was invalid. To the contrary, as heretofore discussed, overbedding in District X was of legitimate concern to HRS, a reduction of beds was an appropriate consideration in the course of CON review, and SBHD elected to update/amend its application to include such a reduction and thereby garner HRS support in the face of opposition from other competitors. Accordingly, that HRS could not "require" SBHD to retire beds is irrelevant. SBHD updated/amended its application and affirmatively proposed, as part of its project, a reduction of beds. Such reduction was an integral part of the project reviewed and ultimately approved, and was a factor appropriately considered by the agency in evaluating the application. Finally, to support its contention that the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 beds was invalid, SBHD suggests, essentially, that the update/amendment of its application to include such a proposal was inappropriate or contrary to law. Such contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is likewise unpersuasive. Rather, the credible proof demonstrates that, at all times material to the subject application, HRS had no policy and there existed no rule or statute, that precluded an update or an amendment to an application for a CON during the course of an administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the amendment by SBHD of its application to include a provision for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds was not improper, and such provision can hardly be characterized as invalid. 3/ The request to modify CON 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 medical/surgical beds be retired. Accepting the validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds, and therefore the propriety of the agency's decision to delicense those beds, SBHD has requested that the CON be modified to delete such requirement due to changed circumstances since its issuance. The agency opposes SBHD's request, contending that the change in bed capacity requires CON review. Pertinent to this case, Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the procedure and the circumstances under which a certificate of need holder may seek a "modification" of a certificate of need. For purposes of the rule, "modification" is defined as: . . . an alteration to an issued, valid certificate of need or to the condition or conditions on the face of a certificate of need for which a license has been issued, where such an alteration does not result in a project subject to review as specified in . . . subsection 408.036(1) . . . Florida Statutes. Rule 59C-1.019(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 408.036(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: . . . all health-care-related projects, as described in paragraphs (a)-(n), are subject to review and must file an application for a certificate of need with the department. The department is exclusively responsible for determining whether a health-care- related project is subject to review under ss. 381.701-381.715. * * * (e) Any change in licensed bed capacity. In this case, the agency contends that the CON cannot be modified to delete the 25-bed retirement provision because such alteration would result in a "change in licensed bed capacity," and therefore a project subject to CON review. Contrasted with the agency's position, SBHD contends that it timely challenged the agency's decision to delicense the 25 beds, based on its contention that the provision requiring the retirement of beds was invalid, and "there can be no actual change in licensed bed capacity at Memorial Hospital prior to final resolution of . . . this proceeding." [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p.17]. As stated by SBHD, Rather than seeking to change its licensed bed capacity, SBHD is opposing a change in its licensed bed capacity in order to maintain the status quo. [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p. 17]. Considering the provisions of law and analysis, as discussed in the conclusions of law infra, it is concluded that the agency's position is founded upon a reasonable interpretation of law and is, therefor, accorded deference. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing SBHD's protest to the delicensure of 25 acute care beds at Memorial Hospital, and denying SBHD's request to modify certificate of need number 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 acute care beds be retired. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of September 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 23rd day of September 1994.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. Admitted facts The Charter facility will have a total of 60 beds and was preliminarily approved by DHRS for the following units: (a) 16 short-term adolescent psychiatric beds; (b) 16 long-term adolescent psychiatric beds; (c) 12 long-term child psychiatric beds; and (d) 16 long-term adolescent substance abuse beds. DHRS preliminarily approved a total project cost of $7,376,843 on December 2, 1983. As part of its decision, DHRS imposed as a condition and Charter agrees to dedicate 5 percent of its patient days and revenue to Baker Act patients. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") population projections for Broward County for 1988 is 1,252,660. Management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures are reasonably available to Charter for its proposed facility. The Charter facility will be geographically accessible to all residents of Broward County. Findings related to the application process Charter filed its application on August 15, 1983, and it was assigned to Mr. Straughn for review. On August 29, 1983, Mr. Straughn sent an "omissions" letter to Charter requesting additional information. On October 13, 1983, Charter sent a response to the "omissions" letter providing Mr. Straughn with additional information about the application. Charter's application was deemed complete on October 15, 1983. Based on information available to DHRS at that time it was impossible for DHRS to review the project because DHRS did not know what kind of beds Charter was asking for. Prior to the public hearing on November 8, 1983, Mr. Straughn was totally confused as to whether Charter wanted short-term or long-term beds. He called Mr. Holbrook at Charter and asked for clarification. By letter dated November 8, 1983, which was undoubtedly first presented to the DHRS at the public hearing held on that date, Charter explained exactly what kinds of beds it was seeking. Prior to November 8, 1983, it was not clear what kinds of beds Charter was seeking. And although the matter is still somewhat ambiguous and not completely free from doubt, careful review of the original application tends to indicate that the original application was for all short-term beds. Findings regarding the general nature of Charter's proposed facility and programs Charter is mostly interested in providing treatment to "salvageable adolescents and children." Charter is not interested in treating chronic patients. Chronically ill patients require a longer period of treatment than other patients. If Charter is not treating chronically ill patients, its treatment periods will be on the short end of the treatment spectrum. The proposed Charter programs do not contain any program which would be appropriate for the treatment of severe sociopathic patients. Although Charter contends that its 12-bed child psychiatric unit will be a long-term unit, the program it describes for the child psychiatric unit is clearly a short-term program. Charter contends that one of its proposed 16-bed adolescent units would have an average length of stay of 25 days and that the other 16-bed adolescent unit would have an average length of stay of more than 90 days. Other evidence discussed below indicates that Charter's expectations of average lengths of stay in excess of 90 days are unwarranted given the nature of the programs proposed by Charter and the experience of existing providers in Broward County and Charter's facility in Ft. Myers, Florida. The programs described in the Charter application are identical to the programs described in the earlier North Beach application. The North Beach application was for a short-term facility. There is nothing in the treatment programs described in the Charter proposal that makes them long-term programs. The proposed Charter treatment programs are identical to existing programs at Florida Medical Center and Fort Lauderdale Hospital. The diagnostic and evaluation portion of the Charter programs is no different from what is currently being done at Florida Medical Center and Fort Lauderdale Hospital. In reality, diagnosis and treatment occur simultaneously. From the day a patient is admitted he is being treated as well as diagnosed. There is no advantage in segregating patients who are being evaluated and patients who are being treated. The programs proposed by Charter are very typical of the programs used by most child and adolescent psychiatric hospitals in the United States. A condition placed on the certificate of need that Charter is seeking is that at least 5 percent of the projected patient days and projected revenues will be comprised of Baker Act patients. Long-term child and adolescent psychiatric patients are generally chronic patients. It is a contradiction in terms for Charter to say on one hand that it is a long-term facility and to then say it will not treat chronic patients. The step system is a treatment program typically used in short-term psychiatric facilities. It does not work with chronic child and adolescent patients that require long-term treatment. The Charter proposal envisions extensive cooperation and coordination with other forms of existing health care resources, particularly in discharge planning and follow-up. Given the nature of the types of patients Charter proposes to treat (acute patients) and the experience of existing providers in Broward County and in Charter's Ft. Myers facility in treating similar patients, the most reasonable expectation is that the average length of stay of patients at Charter's facility would be substantially less than the 90 days or more it projects. The most reasonable expectation is that the average length of stay of child and adolescent patients at Charter's proposed facility would be 60 days, or less. Findings regarding Charter's ability to provide quality of care Charter Medical is committed to providing a high quality of care at its facilities. It operates other psychiatric hospitals in Florida and does not appear to have experienced any quality of care problems in those facilities. Nevertheless, Charter only proposes to use 29 FTE's for its 60-bed facility in Broward County, which is a lower ratio of staff to patients than the current practice at some existing facilities. Also, Charter proposes to use some LPN's on its staff, while current practice at some existing facilities is to use only registered nurses. Findings regarding Charter's occupancy experience with other new psychiatric hospitals It has been Charter's past experience with opening new psychiatric hospitals, that the reasonable expectation for average occupancy during the first year of operation is in the neighborhood of 30 percent to 45 percent. This is true even when the facility has strong community and physician support. Of ten psychiatric hospitals opened by Charter during the past three years, most had occupancy rates during their first year of operation in the range of 30 percent to 45 percent. One was less, around 20 percent. Its best was around 60 percent, which was in Charter's home city. Charter's experience with bad debt during the first year of operation is in the range of 6 percent to 8 percent. Findings regarding one of Charter's other Florida psychiatric hospitals Charter Glade Hospital in Ft. Myers, Florida, is a psychiatric hospital with 104 beds. It offers the following programs: --adolescent programs --adolescent addictive disease program --adult addictive disease/chemical dependency program --general adult psychiatric program The average occupancy rate at Charter Glades Hospital during its first year of operation was 49 percent. A consideration which contributed to this occupancy rate is the fact that Charter Glades has no nearby competition offering psychiatric services. The average length of stay for adolescent patients at Charter Glades Hospital is between 45 and 55 days. Charter Oakdale uses the step or level system in its treatment programs for adolescents. It is a very typical form of adolescent psychiatric treatment and is essentially the same form of treatment presently used in the existing adolescent psychiatric programs in Broward County. It is also essentially the same form of treatment that is proposed for Charter's Broward County facility. Findings regarding the District and State Plans and DHRS information The applicable District Plan does not address the need for long-term psychiatric or substance abuse beds in District X. The District Plan recommends, in essence, that with regard to short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services, any new facilities should not exceed the bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code. The District Plan recommends that both psychiatric and substance abuse facilities should provide specialty services by population, age, and socioeconomic characterization. The District Plan also recommends that all psychiatric facilities should provide for a continuum of care. The District Plan recommends that inpatient psychiatric facilities have a minimum of 20 beds. The District Plan recommends a smooth transition between inpatient and outpatient services. The State Health Plan is too old and out of date to be a useful tool in the evaluation of applications for certificates of need. The District Plan does not indicate how many of the existing beds are dedicated to child or adolescent patients. Therefore, it is difficult for the DHRS to apply the separate 75 percent occupancy standard for adults and the 70 percent occupancy standard for children and adolescents. According to the best information available to the DHRS, during 1983 the combined (child, adolescent, and adult) occupancy rate in Broward County was approximately 68 percent, which is below both rule standards. (The evidence in this case indicates that the occupancy rates are somewhat lower, as noted hereinafter). The basis for the DHRS proposal to approve the short- term beds notwithstanding the fact that the occupancy standards were below those provided in the applicable rules was described as follows by Mr. Porter: However, in view of the proposal in its entirety, to include the long-term child and adolescent beds which are being proposed in this facility, and the absence of any such beds, a demonstration of need for those beds in this district, that is an overriding factor to specifically that criteria where occupancy of existing short-term beds does not exceed the standard quoted in the rule. There is no specific rule formula or methodology for determining need for long-term psychiatric or substance abuse services. The reasoning behind the DHRS proposal to approve the long-term beds included in this proposal was explained as follows by Mr. Porter: I think in combination of the fact that there were no similar and like services in this particular district, certainly through supporting documentation in the application as well as some statements which were made in the District X mental health plan, and an indication of the number of patients who were also seeking care at Grant Center Hospital. A combination of all those factors led the Department to conclude that there was, in fact, a need for long-term psychiatric and substance abuse services for children and adolescents in District X. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") population projections for Broward County for 1989 is 1,264,869. Findings regarding the same or similar services in Broward County There are seven existing facilities in District X which provide inpatient psychiatric services, The DHRS regards all seven of these facilities as "short-term" psychiatric facilities, but the evidence indicates otherwise. The seven existing facilities are: Broward General Medical Center Florida Medical Center Imperial Point Memorial Hospital Coral Ridge Fort Lauderdale Mental Health Institute Broward Pavilion The DHRS Certificate of Need Review Section does not have a reliable inventory of psychiatric beds in Broward County or South Florida in general. The DHRS does not have any clear information on the number of existing psychiatric beds that are adult beds and the number that are child or adolescent beds. General hospitals do not report occupancy by service. Accordingly, the DHRS does not have available any occupancy rates for the most recent 12-month period for psychiatric beds in general hospitals in Broward County. Pursuant to the best information available to the DHRS, the occupancy of the freestanding specialty psychiatric facilities in Broward County was as follows for the most recently documented 12-month period: Coral Ridge Psychiatric 74 beds 60.0 percent Ft. Lauderdale Hospital 58 beds 40.4 percent Hollywood Pavilion 46 beds 58.1 percent TOTALS 178 beds 51.1 percent The following hospitals in Broward County offer specialized inpatient units for adolescents: Fort Lauderdale Hospital, South Florida State Hospital, Community Hospital of South Broward and Coral Ridge Hospital. South Florida State Hospital also has a specialty inpatient unit for children. Fort Lauderdale Hospital and Community Hospital of South Broward offer specialized inpatient substance abuse programs for adolescents. The following hospitals all treat adolescents, but do not have specialized units for adolescents: Broward General Hollywood Pavilion Hollywood Memorial Imperial Point Florida Medical Center has 74 approved psychiatric beds and has 54 or 59 presently in operation. There are plans to construct more physical space to move up to full authorization. They will use existing beds to increase their psychiatric beds to the full authorized number of psychiatric beds. Florida Medical Center has a closed adolescent unit of 20 beds and a closed adult unit of approximately 25 beds. It also has a small geriatric unit. Florida Medical Center does not have beds specifically designated for patients under age 11, although, on rare occasions, it treats patients under age 11. Florida Medical Center has very high quality programs for adolescent psychiatric patients. These programs are in substance no different from the programs described in Charter's application. All psychiatric hospitals treating acute patients have behavior modification programs based on rewards and punishments. Florida Medical Center offers all of the proposed Charter programs in a short-term psychiatric program. The diagnostic and evaluation program described in the Charter application is not considered a separate program at Florida Medical Center. It is a standard process of every psychiatric admission to pursue diagnosis and evaluation. One can often reach a diagnosis in 30 days, but not always. All psychiatric hospitals use a diagnostic and evaluation system, but they do not designate diagnosis and evaluation as a separate program. The average length of stay at Florida Medical Center's adolescent psychiatric unit is 64 days. The average length of stay at that unit if one takes out all patients who stay less than 30 days is 78.3 days. Nine of Florida Medical Center's 36 adolescent psychiatric patients have stayed longer than 90 days. Florida Medical Center has provided treatment of six months duration to a few of its adolescent psychiatric patients. As of the date of the hearing the total census of the Florida Medical Center psychiatric beds (adult and adolescent) was slightly less than 30 patients. As of the date of the hearing, Florida Medical Center had 8 adolescent psychiatric patients out of a capacity for 20. There has never been a waiting list for the adolescent psychiatric beds at Florida Medical Center. With regard to staffing, Florida Medical Center has 21 FTE's for its 20-bed adolescent psychiatric unit. It uses all registered nurses in its adolescent unit and has no LPN's. In the 12 month period preceding the hearing, the number of total patient days for all types of patients at Florida Medical Center has dropped 20 percent. The DRG system of reimbursement is causing a drop in patient days, which can be expected to result in excess bed capacity. The DRG system of reimbursement is not applicable to child and adolescent psychiatric services. The anticipated impact of DRG's on the delivery of psychiatric services is that DRG's will result in an excess of med/surg beds which will cause hospitals with those excess beds to try to convert them to something else, including psychiatric beds. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is a specialty psychiatric hospital and is licensed for 100 beds. It has the following programs: 18 beds -- intensive adult care (very short-term) 23 beds -- adolescent psychiatry 20 beds -- adolescent substance abuse 18 beds -- adult psychiatry (open) 16 beds -- adult substance abuse Presently Fort Lauderdale Hospital has only 95 beds set up. It could set up the other five within less than half a day if it had patients for them. For the period December 1, 1982, through November 30, 1983, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit was 54 days. For the period December 1, 1983, through July 30, 1984, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit was 48.6 days. For the period December 1, 1982, through November 30, 1983, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit was 44.7 days. For the period December 1, 1983, through July 30, 1984, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit was 45.1 days. For the 12 months ending November 30, 1983, the average length of stay for adolescent psychiatric patients who stayed 30 days or less was 13.28 days. For the 12 months ending November 30, 1983, the average length of stay for adolescent patients who stayed 31 days or longer was 74.17 days. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has some patients who stay longer than 90 days. The average daily census for the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit is 12.5 patients (out of 23 available beds). The average daily census for the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit is 10.8 patients (out of 20 available beds). Fort Lauderdale Hospital offers all of the programs described in the Charter proposal. There is nothing unusual about those programs. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is very concerned about quality of care and provides high quality of care. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is involved in numerous community activities. It has community outreach programs and community educational programs. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has been trying continuously to have the public school system provide additional hours of school at the hospital, but the school system has failed to do so. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has an open medical staff. It has about 18 psychiatrists on the staff. If it had a closed medical staff limited to 4 or 5 psychiatrists it is reasonable to expect that psychiatric admissions would be reduced by 50 percent or more. Coral Ridge Hospital is licensed for 86 psychiatric beds. It is a long-term psychiatric treatment facility. Ninety- nine percent of the patients at Coral Ridge Hospital are chronic patients. At one time Coral Ridge Hospital was a short-term facility treating primarily acute patients, but it began turning into a long-term facility in 1977-78, and is now exclusively long-term. Coral Ridge Hospital has a 12-bed unit for children and adolescents. It also has a 24-bed substance abuse unit in which it can also place adolescents. The average length of stay of patients at Coral Ridge Hospital is well in excess of six months, perhaps as much as a year. Some patients at Coral Ridge Hospital stay as long as 18 months. As of the time of the hearing, there were three patients in the 12-bed child and adolescent unit at Coral Ridge Hospital. During the previous year Coral Ridge Hospital had had as many as 8 or 10 child and adolescent patients. As of the time of the hearing Coral Ridge Hospital had 44 beds filled out of a total of 86. Its average census during the previous 12 months was around 55 patients, or about 64 percent occupancy. Charges for room and board at Coral Ridge Hospital are about $195 per day. Total charges, which includes room and board, physician and therapy fees, tests, etc., range from about $6,000 to about $10,000 per month. Coral Ridge Hospital provides between 15 percent and 20 percent free services. Broward General Medical Center is a 744-bed acute care short-term hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It has a psychiatric unit in which it treats patients 14 years of age and older. South Florida State Hospital in Broward County has a 50-bed children's unit and a 50-bed adolescent's unit. All of the services proposed by Charter are presently available in Broward County. There are an adequate number of existing beds available in the private sector for long-term psychiatric treatment in Broward County or close to Broward County. There is an existing good distribution of long-term inpatient psychiatric services along the southeast coast of Florida. Findings regarding the same or similar services in adjacent districts Grant Center Hospital is a 100-bed child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric hospital in Dade County which specializes in providing long-term care. Grant Center is within a two hour travel time from Broward County. A true long-term adolescent psychiatric program such as they have at Grant Center -- envisions stays of a minimum of six months, often closer to a year, and sometimes lasting as long as two years. The average length of stay at Grant Center is 290 days. The ages of patients at Grant Center range from 5 years old to 19 years old. Children up to 6 years of age make up a insignificant portion of Grant Center's patient population. Dade County is the primary service area for Grant Center. However, 12 percent of Grant Center patients come from Broward County and 6 percent of its patients come from Palm Beach County. During 1984 the occupancy level at Grant Center averaged 98 percent. The usual waiting list at Grant Center has been 5 to 12 patients. Grant Center has been granted a certificate of need to add 60 beds for long-term child and adolescent psychiatric services. Those 60 beds are under construction and will be on line by the end of 1985. The approved cost of those 60 beds was $1.7 million. The 60 new beds at Grant Center will occupy about 28,000 square feet. Every patient that comes to Grant Center receives intensive diagnosis and evaluation such as is proposed by Charter, but Grant Center does not call that a separate program. During 1984, 18 percent of Grant Center revenues were written off as either bad debt, free care, or charity cases. Highland Park is a 72-bed facility located in the center of Miami, Florida. Highland Park is owned by the same group that owns Grant Center. Highland Park has a 16-bed child and adolescent unit. It is common for children and adolescents to stay at Highland Park for over 90 days. Highland Park is within two hours travel time from Broward County. In 1983 there were 20 psychiatric beds at Biscayne Hospital with an occupancy rate of 63.9 percent. Biscayne Hospital is in north Dade County, within two hours travel time from Broward County. In 1983 there were 56 psychiatric beds at North Miami Hospital with an occupancy rate of 60.9 percent. North Miami Hospital is in north Dade County, within two hours travel time from Broward County. On February 28, 1984, a certificate of need was granted for 60 long- term adolescent psychiatric beds in Boca Raton. Boca Raton is within a two hour drive of Broward County. Psychiatric Institute of Delray was granted a certificate of need to add 15 long-term child and adolescent psychiatric beds. This is within a two hour drive of Broward County. National Medical Enterprises was granted a certificate of need to add 25 child and adolescent psychiatric beds. These beds are within a two hour drive from Broward County. Findings regarding other health care facilities and services In North Dade, South Palm Beach, and Broward County there are about 500 beds offering residential psychotherapeutic services for adolescents. Findings regarding manpower and accessibility Charter can reasonably expect to be able to secure the necessary health manpower to staff its facility at the proposed FTE level. With regard to geographic accessibility, the proposed Charter facility will be accessible to more than 90 percent of the residents of Broward County. With regard to financial accessibility, the $64,000 that Charter projects for charity care equates to three indigent patients for 60 days each per year. Findings regarding financial feasibility of the proposal Although Charter does not yet have a commitment for its proposed revenue bonds, given the financial assets of the parent company and its history of obtaining financing for other similar projects it would appear that the project is immediately financially feasible in the sense that Charter has or can obtain the financial wherewithal to pay for the cost of building the facility. The long-term financial feasibility of the project is quite another matter. For many of the reasons set forth below the long-term financial feasibility of the proposed facility looks rather bleak. Charter's pro formas and other projections for the future were prepared in large part by Mr. Follmer, but Mr. Follmer appears to have made a lot of unwarranted assumptions and guesses in the formulation of his estimates and projections. Mr. Follmer expressed confidence in the availability of private insurance to pay for a substantial amount of the services provided by the proposed facility, but Mr. Follmer has never seen a composite report showing the average psychiatric insurance coverage for adolescent patients in Broward County. In fact no more than 10 percent of the adolescent patients seen at Fort Lauderdale Hospital have private insurance coverage in excess of 90 days. Mr. Follmer projects that Charter will have occupancy at a rate of 55 percent during its first year of operation, 65 percent during its second year of operation, and 80 percent during its third year of operation. For reasons which are set forth at the end of these findings of fact, it must be concluded that these projections are totally unrealistic and without reliable factual foundation. Based on a number of factors, including specifically Charter's first year experiences with its other psychiatric hospitals, the recent experience of existing psychiatric hospitals in and near Broward County the fact that Charter will have closed medical staff, the fact that its medical staff is not presently operating in Broward County and has no established following of patients, and the fact that Charter has no agreements for the referral of psychiatric patients from general hospitals, an optimistic projection for its occupancy rate during the first year of operation would be in the range of 35 percent to 40 percent, and there is no reason to expect it would achieve better than 50 percent to 55 percent occupancy during its second year of operation. The estimate of 80 percent occupancy during the third year of operation is sheer speculation for which there is no competent substantial evidence and which is totally contraindicated by the experience of existing providers of the same or similar services. The foregoing regarding the occupancy that can realistically be expected by Charter takes into consideration only the adolescent aspect of Charter's proposed facility. When the 12-bed children's unit is taken into consideration, the reasonable occupancy expectations become bleaker yet. It is very uncommon to admit a child under 12 years of age for inpatient psychiatric hospital treatment. Families tend to resist recommendations that children under 12 be hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital. There is no measurable demand or need for long-term child psychiatric beds in Broward County. On the rare occasions when a child under 12 is hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital, most such hospitalizations are for very short periods, often only for a few days. Further, if a child under 12 must be hospitalized for psychiatric reasons it is usually better to hospitalize them in a psychiatric wing of a general hospital, due in large part to parental resistance to hospitalizing children under 12 in a psychiatric specialty hospital. Finally, South Florida State Hospital, which is an excellent facility, already has beds for children under 12. Another indicator that Charter's occupancy levels will be much lower than originally projected is that Charter's projected patient charges of $355 per day are substantially higher than the patient charges at some existing facilities providing similar services. These higher charges will have a negative impact on Charter's ability to compete effectively with existing providers of the same of similar services. Mr. Follmer's pro forma assumptions for the first year include the following: --6 percent for bad debt. --1.5 percent for indigent care. --2.5 percent contract adjustment for Baker Act. For the second year pro forma, Mr. Follmer assumes 5 percent for bad debt. These assumptions are totally unrealistic when compared to the experiences of existing providers in and near Broward County. The bad debt experience for the psychiatric unit at Florida Medical Center during the 18 months immediately preceding the hearing was approximately 16 percent of gross revenues. Coral Ridge Hospital provides between 15 percent and 20 percent free services. During 1984, 18 percent of Grant Center revenues were written off as either bed debt, free care, or charity cases. In light of these experiences, it is unrealistic for Charter to project 7.5 percent as its expected loss of revenue due to bad debts and indigent care. A much more reasonable (and still conservative) estimate would be in the range of 10 percent to 12 percent for bad debt and indigent care during its first few years of operation. Another negative impact on the revenue projections has to do with Baker Act patients. The proforma assumes that 5 percent of patient days will be made up of Baker Act patients and that the hospital will get paid approximately 50 percent of its usual charges -- thus the 2.5 percent "contract adjustment" for Baker Act patients in the pro forma. For the reasons which follow, the 2.5 percent "contract adjustment" should be a 5 percent "contract adjustment." Charter does not have any contracts for receiving any Baker Act funds ford its proposed Broward County facility. Baker Act funds are presently not available in Broward County for private psychiatric hospitals, and Mr. Follmer has no idea what the availability of Baker Act funds for Broward County will be in the future. Without any Baker Act funds there would be a loss in both of the first two years of operation per the pro forma. The Charter Glade facility had an agreement to take Baker Act patients, but never got any because the funding ran out. Findings regarding impact on existing providers If Charter's proposed facility is built, it will most likely reduce the patient census at Fort Lauderdale Hospital. A reduced census at Fort Lauderdale Hospital could require reductions in staff and programs, which would impair quality of care and could also threaten accreditation of the hospital. Florida Medical Center's existing facility is less than three miles from Charter's proposed location. It is reasonable to expect that Charter's facility would divert adolescent patients from Florida Medical Center's psychiatric unit with results similar to those described in the preceding paragraph. If Charter's proposed facility is built it is reasonable to expect that it would have a similar negative impact on other existing Broward County hospitals offering adolescent psychiatric services. Findings regarding costs and methods of construction All of Charter's proposed construction costs are reasonable estimates of the actual cost of construction. The costs proposed in this case are substantially the same as the costs which were incurred to construct Charter's Ft. Myers facility. The proposed cost of construction and site preparation of Charter's Broward County facility comes to $97 per square foot. The proposed construction cost of just the building comes to $81 per square foot. The equipment list in the Charter proposal and the amounts listed for the various items of equipment are reasonable for the type of facility Charter proposes for Broward County. Charter uses a prototype design for its psychiatric hospitals. About 8 or 9 of the prototype hospitals have been built. The Charter prototype design is the same design that is used by Charter for short-term hospitals. Charter's proposed floor plan looks like a plan for an acute care (short-term) facility. Findings regarding DHRS policies The geographic access standard for long-term psychiatric beds is that at least 90 percent of the population in the service district should be within a two hour one-way drive of existing services. In applying that travel standard the DHRS looks at services available in other districts within the two hour travel radius. The travel time standard for long-term psychiatric beds would be meaningless if applied literally because, given the size of the DHRS Districts, it would virtually always be met and would become, in essence, a nonstandard. The DHRS construction of the travel standard for long-term psychiatric beds is to consider the availability of services within a two-hour travel radius of the proposed facility. In other words, need for long-term psychiatric services in the district in which a new facility is proposed is determined in part by the availability of the same or similar services within a two-hour travel radius, regardless of whether that radius extends into other districts. A certificate of need for long-term psychiatric beds will not normally be granted if there are available underutilized beds within the two-hour travel radius, even if the available beds are in the next district. The DHRS has applied this interpretation of the travel time standard in other cases involving applications for long-term psychiatric beds. The reason DHRS crosses district boundaries in looking at need for long-term psychiatric beds is that long-term psychiatric care is a "regional" type of service. The DHRS also crosses district boundaries when looking at need for other "regional" types of services such as cardiac catherization and open heart surgery. In reviewing applications for certificates of need, the DHRS does not base its determination on a single statute or rule criterion. It uses a balancing process and considers all of the criteria in an effort to arrive at a reasonable judgment. The DHRS considers other evidence of need in addition to any indications of need found by strict application of the formulas. It is the policy at the DHRS not to do health planning on the basis of national statistics. This is because Florida's population differs in composition from the average of the national population. Florida has a large elderly population. It also has large population growth. The Florida population is less stable and more dynamic than the national population. DHRS tries to use local measures or statewide measures. Strong community support is not one of the statutory criteria for determining need for a health care facility. In determining bed need for psychiatric hospitals it is the policy of the DHRS not to consider the differences in medical opinion with regard to which of several approaches to the treatment of psychiatric patients may be the best form of medical treatment for psychiatric patients who require hospitalization. Findings required by subparagraph 1 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. A less costly, more efficient, and more appropriate alternative would be to postpone the construction of any facilities such as those proposed by this applicant until such time as existing facilities offering the same or similar services have much higher occupancy rates. Findings required by subparagraph 2 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. Existing inpatient facilities providing similar services are not being used in an efficient manner because they all are experiencing low utilization rates. Approval of Charter's proposed facility would cause use of existing facilities to become more inefficient. Findings required by subparagraph 3 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. The best alternative to new construction at this time is no construction at this time, due to the underutilization of existing same or similar facilities. The best alternative in the future would appear to be to prefer conversion of underutilized med/surg beds if DRG-generated occupancy trends for those beds continue to cause those beds to be underutilized. Findings required by subparagraph 4 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. Patients will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. Existing facilities providing the sane or similar inpatient care are underutilized and have more than adequate unused capacity. Rejected proposed findings of fact I have rejected substantially all of Charter's proposed findings based on the testimony of the "community support" witnesses. This rejection is based largely on the fact that those findings are irrelevant to any determination of a need for the facilities proposed by Charter. Further, with but few exceptions, the "community support" witnesses appeared to be distinctly uninformed about either the details of the Charter proposal or details regarding the current availability of inpatient psychiatric services for children and adolescents in Broward County. Finally, most of the testimony of these witnesses relating to need for the proposed facility was contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Included within the appellation "community support" witnesses are: Marie Reynolds, Toni Siskin, Barbara Myrick, James Deleo, Sally Cresswell, Marjorie Miller, Susan Buza, Barbara Mitchell, Anne McKenzie, and Sharon Solomon. I have rejected substantially all of Charter's proposed findings based on the opinion testimony of Mr. Fred Follmer. Mr. Folmer's estimates and projections are totally lacking in credibility. As became most evident during the devastating cross-examination, Mr. Follmer did not have information he needed to make his projections, he ignored or overlooked information he did have, he relied on information about matters which are not analogous to the subject proposal, and some of his explanations of the basis for his projections are simply illogical. With regard to the issue of whether existing inpatient psychiatric programs for children and adolescents are similar to or different from the programs proposed by Charter, I have for the most part discounted the testimony of the Charter witnesses about the "uniqueness" of the Charter programs and have tended to credit the testimony of witnesses who are personally involved in the delivery of inpatient psychiatric services to children and adolescents in Broward County. This is due in large part to the fact that Charter's witnesses did not do a very extensive job of describing the nature of the programs it proposes to offer through Dr. Schwartz' group, and particularly did not come forward with any convincing evidence of the "uniqueness" of the proposed programs. I am persuaded by the testimony on behalf of the Petitioners and Intervenor that the proposed programs are not unique. I have not made any findings based on the testimony about Charter Barclay Hospital in Chicago because that testimony is lacking in relevancy in view of the testimony in the record about Charter Glade Hospital in Ft. Myers, Florida. To the extent of any differences in Charter's experiences operating a Chicago hospital and a Ft. Myers hospital, the latter is much more relevant to any expectations or projections regarding a Broward County hospital. For the following reasons, I have not made any findings regarding the need for Charter's proposed services based on the testimony of Dr. Luke. First, Dr. Luke's conclusions are irrelevant because they purport to measure need for services having an average length of stay of 120 days based on statistics regarding numbers of admissions lasting 91 days or more. The persuasive evidence is to the effect that the most likely average length of stay at Charter's proposed facility would be similar to the average length of stay of existing facilities treating acute adolescent patients -- a length of stay substantially less than 91 or 120 days. Second, Dr. Luke's conclusions were based on a number of assumptions which were either not shown to be valid or which were shown to be contrary to the persuasive evidence. Dr. Luke assumed an unrealistic average length of stay. Dr. Luke disregarded the manner in which the DHRS interprets and applies the travel-time standard in the applicable rule. Dr. Luke assumed the OGME admission rates are valid predictors for Broward County, but I am not convinced that they are, particularly in light of the DHRS policy of attempting to use local or statewide indicators rather than national indicators Dr. Luke assumed incorrectly that there are no long-term psychiatric beds in Broward County. Finally, Dr. Luke assumed incorrectly that the Charter proposal would provide a treatment program which is not presently available in Broward County. A major portion of the need analysis expert testimony in opposition to Dr. Luke was that of Mr. Konrad. While there are some areas of Mr. Konrad's testimony that are a bit problematic, I am persuaded on the whole that Mr. Konrad's opinions are better founded than those of Dr. Luke and have resolved most differences in their opinions in favor of the testimony of Mr. Konrad. As a final matter in this regard, it should be noted that there was an enormous amount of testimony which was the foundation for an enormous number of proposed findings that are "subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary." I have rejected all of those proposed findings because they are Immaterial and irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying in its entirety Charter's application for a certificate of need for a 60-bed psychiatric hospital. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Gilroy, Esquire Department of HRS 1321 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel and Hoffman Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric B. Tilton, Esquire Post Office Box 5286 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Morgan L. Staines 2204 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, California 92705 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Glen A. Reed, Esquire Richard L. Shackelford, Esquire BONDURANT, MILLER, HISHON & STEPHENSON 2200 First Atlanta Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30383 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Based upon an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, and a later addendum, petitioner received Certificate of Need Number 1460 in February of 1981 granting the petitioner the authority to construct 126 additional general medical/surgical beds but to only license and operate 72 of such beds. The instant proceeding involves petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to license and operate the remaining 54 beds which have been previously constructed under Certificate of Need Number 1460. St. Joseph's Hospital is a 649-bed full service major referral hospital in Hillsborough County owned and operated by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny. Its services include a comprehensive community mental health center, a comprehensive pediatric unit with 88 beds, a radiation therapy center, a 60- bed community cancer center, cardiac catheterization, cardiac surgery and a large and active emergency room. It serves a considerable number of indigent patients and participates in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Petitioner is now requesting permission to license the regaining 54 beds which were authorized to be constructed pursuant to Certificate of Need Number 1460. The project involves no additional construction or renovation inasmuch as all 126 beds previously authorized have been completed. No capital expenditure will be required in order to place the 54 beds into operation. If the Certificate of Need is granted, petitioner intends to create two specialty medical/surgical units: a 32-bed cardiac surgical unit to accommodate patients from the open heart surgical program and a 22-bed medical unit for psychiatric patients requiring medical treatment. There currently are no other beds available in the hospital to convert for use for the psychiatric patient or for the cardiac surgical unit. Petitioner has been operating, on occasion, at occupancy levels in excess of 90 percent. At times, it has been necessary to place non-emergency patients in the emergency room and have them remain there until beds become available. There are sometimes up to 40 patients on the waiting list for elective surgery. Due to the shortage of empty beds, petitioner cannot now admit new members to its medical staff. Steady operation of the hospital at occupancy levels exceeding 90 percent can have an adverse effect upon the efficiency of the nursing staff and the quality of care offered to patients. Because the bulk of projected growth in Hillsborough County is expected to occur in the center and northwestern area of the county, it is anticipated that the pattern of utilization of petitioner's facility will continue. While the licensing of the 54 additional beds involves no capital expenditure on petitioner's part, it is estimated that, if petitioner is not permitted to license these beds, a total yearly loss of over $3.8 million will be experienced. This figure is the sum of lost net revenues from the beds in the amount of $87,339 and lost net ancillary revenues in the amount of $2.36 million, as well as the absorption of $232,750 in yearly depreciation costs and $1.14 million in committed indirect costs. Petitioner anticipates a loss per patient day, calculated at 100 percent occupancy, of $16.82 if the licensing of the beds is not approved. This would result in an increase of current patient charges by 9.1 percent in order to maintain petitioner's budgeted profit margin. Petitioner is located in HRS District VI which, at the time of the hearing, was composed of Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Some 81 percent of all beds in the District are located in Hillsborough County. As of the time of the hearing, the District had 3,899 licensed acute care beds, with 606 additional beds having been approved but not yet operational. The generally accepted optimum utilization rate for acute care beds is 80 to 85 percent. For District VI, the overall utilization rate is below the optimum level. In Manatee County, utilization of acute care beds is at 78.3 percent. In Hillsborough County, the utilization level is at 77.4 percent, with the major referral hospitals experiencing a higher level of utilization than the smaller community hospitals. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, contains the governing methodology for determining acute care bed needs of the various Districts. Applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in a District will not normally be approved if approval would cause the number of beds in that District to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed. Application of the Rule's formula to District VI results in a total acute care bed need of 3,622 projected for the year 1988. Given the 4,505 existing and approved beds in the District, there are 883 excess beds in District VI under the Rule's formula methodology for projecting need. The 1982 Health Systems Plan adopted by the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency makes no bed need projections for other specialty medical/surgical beds," but shows no need for medical/surgical beds. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, provides that other criteria may result in a demonstration of bed need even when the formula approach illustrates no need for beds. When additional beds are approved pursuant to other criteria, those beds are counted in the inventory of existing and approved beds in the area when applying the bed need formula to review future projects. The formula methodology does account for the inflow and outflow of patients in a specific area. While Rule 10-5.11(23) permits the Local Health Councils to adopt subdistrict bed allocations by type of service, the Council for District VI had not adopted its local health plan as of the date of the hearing in this matter. The Rule itself simply addresses the need for general acute care bed needs in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to license 54 acute care medical/surgical beds be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of November, 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 10th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire David Pingree Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein Secretary One Houston Center Department of Health and Suite 1600 Rehabilitative Services Houston, Texas 77010 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is 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 and 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. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether either applicant's request for a CON for IRTP beds should be granted. LORTC's allegation that La Amistad plagiarized portions of another PIA facility's CON application was deemed at hearing to be irrelevant. Likewise, it was determined at hearing and in a post- hearing order entered on November 1, 1988, that the sale of La Amistad to UHS of Maitland, Inc. had no material bearing on the La Amistad application under review here. In the parties' prehearing statement filed on September 26, 1988, the following were agreed: Consideration of the applications at issue is governed by the statutory criteria contained in section 381.705, Florida Statutes and Rule 10- 5.011(1)(b)(1)-(4), Florida Administrative Code. These criteria are either satisfied or are inapplicable: Section 381.705(1)(g), (h), (only as to the following clauses: "the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service district; the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes if such services are available in a limited number of facilities"), (j), Florida Statutes (1987) As to LORTC, the parties stipulated that the criteria in Section 381.705(1)(h) as to availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures is satisfied. This is not a stipulation that the application satisfies the financial feasibility criterion contained in Section 381.705(1)(i). Rule 10-5.011(1)(b)(4)(b) , Florida Administrative Code. Each applicant argues that its application, and not that of the other, should be approved. HRS and West Lake both argue that neither application should be approved.
Findings Of Fact La Amistad is a not-for-profit corporation providing a variety of mental health services to children, adolescents and young adults on campuses in Maitland and Winter Park, Florida since 1970. At the time of hearing La Amistad operated 27 licensed IRTP beds at its Maitland campus. At the time of hearing La Amistad had a contract to sell its residential treatment program, including the beds that are the subject of this proceeding, to Universal Health Services, Inc. The contract was entered into after this CON application was filed. LORTC is a wholly owned subsidiary of PIA, Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA), which in turn is wholly owned by NME Hospitals, Inc. PIA owns or operates approximately three residential treatment centers (RTCs) and 58 psychiatric hospitals throughout the country, including Laurel Oaks Hospital in Orange County, Florida, an 80-bed licensed hospital providing short term psychiatric and substance abuse services to children and adolescents. HRS is the state agency charged with the responsibility of implementing and enforcing the CON program, pursuant to Section 381.701-381.715, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, West Lake, is an 80-bed licensed psychiatric hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. West Lake has allocated 16 beds to its children's program and 24 beds to its adolescent programs. West Lake is licensed for both long and short-term psychiatric beds. THE APPLICATIONS La Amistad's application requests the conversion of 13 existing beds (currently licensed as child caring beds) to licensed IRTP beds, the demolition of several old buildings and the construction of a new building which will contain a total of 16 IRTP beds. The 13 additional beds would bring La Amistad's IRTP total to 40 beds. The total project cost of La Amistad's proposal is $500,000.00 or $38,462.00 per bed. La Amistad's Maitland facility is located in a residential area and is itself designed to be residential in nature, rather than institutional. The patients prepare their own food under the supervision of a dietician and other staff. They also do their own housekeeping. La Amistad is not a "locked unit". A maximum of 16 patients reside in each "house" on the La Amistad campus. The houses are staffed on a 24-hour a day basis. Like other similar facilities, La Amistad utilizes a multi-discipline team approach to treatment. That is, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and other staff work together. The treatment team meets weekly to discuss the program and treatment of each patient. Family members may visit and stay at the campus on weekends. Families are encouraged to participate in the treatment process. La Amistad has a full-time school on campus with teachers provided by the Orange County School System. The average length of stay for patients is in excess of Il to 12 months. This is consistent with HRS' understanding that 9-14 months is an average length of stay for an intensive residential treatment program. LORTC's application is for CON approval of a 40-bed IRTP located on the grounds of its existing freestanding psychiatric hospital, Laurel Oaks. The facility is currently under construction and will be operated as a residential treatment center if its IRTP CON is denied. LORTC anticipates serving two out of three of the following groups: adolescents who need long-term care, older children (8 years to 13 years) who need long-term care, and chemically dependent adolescents. The projected average length of stay is 120 days, which stay is consistent with that of other PIA residential treatment centers in Florida. The LORTC facility will be "locked". Meals will be prepared at Laurel Oaks Hospital and will be transported in some, as yet undetermined, manner to the separate building. The geographical area in which LORTC will be located is not residential. The capital cost of the 40 bed facility is projected at $3,291,000.00. The funds, provided by the parent company, NME, will be expended, regardless of CON approval. LORTC also uses a multi-discipline team approach to treatment. Each patient's treatment program will consist of psychiatric support services, educational services and family services. Students will attend academic classes four hours a day at the facility. THE APPLICABLE DISTRICT PLAN AND STATE HEALTH PLAN The District Seven Health Plan does not address needs, policies, or priorities for IRTP facilities for children and adolescents. The State Health Plan addresses very generally the need for mental health and substance abuse services. Goal 1 seeks to: "Ensure the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to all Florida residents in the least restrictive setting." Goal 2 seeks to: Promote the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health and substance abuse treatment and preventive services". Goal 3 seeks to: "Develop a complete range of essential public mental health services in each HRS district." (Laurel Oaks Exhibit #20). The applications neither violate nor materially advance these goals. In both instances the beds will exist for the provision of mental health services, with or without the certificate of need. La Amistad's proposal clearly presents a "less restrictive alternative" to the more institutional psychiatric hospital. Laurel Oaks is also an alternative, although more institutional than homelike in character. NEED, INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF LIKE OR ALTERNATIVE SERVICES AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY IRTP beds are a statutorily defined class of specialty hospital beds: Intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents means a specialty hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which provides 24-hour care and which has the primary functions of diagnosis and treatment of patients under the age of 18 having psychiatric disorders in order to restore such patients to an optimal level of functioning. Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes. Because an IRTP is a hospital, a certificate of need is required. This alone distinguishes an IRTP from a residential treatment program (RTP). In spite of its name, HRS considers an IRTP as a service that is less intensive than a long or short term psychiatric hospital. Generally, the RTP and IRTP have a longer average length of stay than a psychiatric hospital and provide a more homelike setting. No HRS rule further defines the IRTP, and as evidenced by the La Amistad and LORTC proposals, the projected average length of stays vary widely (120 days for LORTC, versus 12-14 months for La Amistad). Long term psychiatric hospitals have an average length of stay of over 90 days. West Lake has treated adolescents in its psychiatric beds as long as a year, although this has not occurred recently. HRS has no rule methodology for calculating the need for IRTP's. However, HRS considers there is a need for at least one reasonably-sized IRTP in each HRS service district. In HRS district VII there are currently two IRTPs: Devereaux, a 100-bed facility in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, licensed on February 26, 1988; and La Amistad, with 27 IRTP beds in Orange County, licensed in August, 1988. Although HRS clearly does not limit its approval to only one IRTP per district, it has a policy of waiting to see what the need and demand are before it authorizes an additional program with a CON. Its deviation from this policy regarding approval of the La Amistad beds was adequately explained as a settlement based on the acknowledgment of a prior administrative error. Utilization of the Devereaux beds was not a consideration in that unique case. HRS also uses as a reasonable non-rule policy the requirement that existing programs be 80 percent occupied before additional programs are authorized. This is modeled after the promulgated rule in effect for long-term psychiatric beds. At the time the applications were considered, La Amistad was not licensed and Devereaux had a less than 50 percent occupancy. Conflicting evidence was presented with regard to the accessibility of both La Amistad's 27 beds and Devereaux' 100 beds. Devereaux is approximately one to two hours from the three counties identified as LORTC's primary service area: Seminole, Osceola and Orange. LORTC argues that families who need to actively participate in the patients' treatment are discouraged by the travel distance. However, Laurel Oak Hospital currently refers patients to its sister facilities in Manatee and Palm Beach counties, which are more distant than Devereaux. No patient origin studies of Devereaux were done and LORTC's expert in health and planning conceded that it takes a while for people to become aware of a new facility and its services, and a new facility can stimulate patient migration. The credible weight of evidence is that a travel time of two hours or less would not significantly influence decisions to use the facility. La Amistad is noted for its treatment of schizophrenics. It sponsors seminars attracting participants from a wide geographical area. It does not, however, limit its beds to patients with that diagnosis. In the past approximately 48 percent of La Amistad's beds (its entire facility, not just the IRTP beds) have been utilized by schizophrenics. This does not alone evidence non-accessibility of its IRTP beds. The statutory definition of an IRTP, cited in paragraph 17, above, is broad enough to include the type of care provided in long-term psychiatric hospitals, such as West Lake. The programs described in the applications of both LORTC and La Amistad are similar to the programs currently operated at West Lake for children and adolescents. The multi-disciplinary team monitors the patient's progress with a goal toward reintegration into the community. The patients attend school and receive a wide variety of therapies, with varying intensity: individual and group counseling, activity and occupational therapy, family therapy, vocational planning, and the like. When the patient is admitted, an evaluation is done to determine an anticipated length of stay. Some require a shorter stay, with more intensive therapy; others are more appropriately treated for a longer period, with less intensity. West Lake's program is not full. There are myriad alternative programs for the treatment of children and adolescents in the tri-county area. Seagrave House, the Charlie Program and Boystown are residential programs for children and adolescents who may have received treatment in a hospital but who are not ready to return home and could progress further in a residential program. Mainstream, a partial hospitalization program, is also available to this age group. A partial hospitalization program provides structured daytime treatment with the same therapies offered in a hospital or full residential program, but the patients are able to return home at night. Other existing facilities and programs available in the service district include Parkside Lodge, the Care Unit, the Center for Drug-free Living, Glenbeigh Hospital and Rainbow. Laurel Oaks has referred patients to Rainbow, a residential treatment program for youths with substance abuse problems. La Amistad presented anecdotal testimony from its clinical and other staff regarding the numbers of patients they could refer to La Amistad if the application were approved. In no instance did these witnesses eliminate the other available programs as appropriate alternatives. Several other witnesses testified on behalf of LORTC regarding the need for additional long-term treatment programs for children and adolescents. It is clear, however, that these individuals from the Orange County Public Defender's office, the Orange County Public Schools and the Seminole County Mental Health Center were descrying the need for services for economically disadvantaged youths and those without insurance. Neither La Amistad nor LORTC propose to materially serve that population. Medicaid funds are not available to licensed speciality hospitals and both La Amistad and LORTC will serve patients referred and paid for by HRS, with or without an IRTP CON. The projected percentage of non-pay patient days in both applications is negligible. Any consideration of alternatives in this case must consider the alternatives of the applicants themselves. In both cases, the beds will be available with or without the CON, and the treatment programs are substantially the same with or without the CON. Denial of these applications will not decrease the potential supply of beds in District VII. Indeed, LORTC candidly argues that it is asking only that HRS assist in enhancing financing access to its beds, that CON approval and subsequent licensure will provide increased access to patients with insurance which will not reimburse non- hospital based care. LORTC, and to a lesser degree, La Amistad, insist that approval will positively impact access for privately insured patients. The weight of evidence does not support that basic contention in this case. PIA's non-hospital RTCs in Palm Beach and Manatee County claim to have a 60-70 percent commercial insurance pay or mix. LORTC projects only 67 percent commercially insured patients after its first year of operation. This does not represent an increase. According to its financial experts La Amistad is not projecting any increase in insurance reimbursement because of licensure as an IRTC. Two trends in insurance reimbursement practices were described at length in this proceeding. First, companies are willing to negotiate an "out-of- contract" reimbursement when a non-covered facility is able to show that its services are more appropriate and in the long term, more cost effective than the covered services for a particular patient. Second, insurance companies are carefully scrutinizing long term treatment reimbursement and are limiting coverage in expensive residential programs. Neither trend weighs in favor of approval of these applications. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES Nursing costs in health care institutions usually comprise more than 50 percent of the operating costs. It is the largest single budget item in a hospital or health care facility. Throughout the country and in District VII, there is a shortage of nurses and trained allied health personnel. Although Laurel Oaks Hospital is staffed, maintaining its staff of registered nurses is a day-to-day problem. West Lake also experiences difficulty in maintaining qualified staff. No doubt LORTC, with aggressive recruitment will initially attract the personnel it needs. Financial incentives will have to be provided and West Lake's problems will be exacerbated. The additional costs will be passed on to the consumer, thus perpetuating the upward inflation spiral of health care costs. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND EFFECTS ON COMPETITION La Amistad states it intends to finance $450,000.00 of its $500,000.00 total project cost through bank loans, fund raising efforts and personal commitments from board members. Its pro forma, as corrected and updated at the hearing is reasonable, based upon the facility's actual experience in staffing and filling beds. However, the ability of the applicant itself to complete construction for the replacement beds is questionable in light of an admission at hearing by Walter Muller, M.D., the founder and Medical Director of La Amistad. Dr. Muller conceded that one of the reasons for the sale to Universal Health is to obtain adequate funds for the new building. (transcript pages 271-272). LORTC contends that no capital expenditure is relevant here as the facility is being constructed as a non-hospital RTC. For the transfer to IRTC status no additional expenses will be incurred. Regardless of the validity of that contention, the parties have stipulated that funds are available for capital and operating expenditures. LORTC's pro forma is reasonable based on the extensive experience of its parent company with similar facilities, the RTCs in Manatee County and Palm Beach County, and Laurel Oaks Hospital. That experience has not been tested in an area, where, as here, there are existing unfilled IRTPs. As provided in the discussion of need, above, LORTC cannot dismiss West Lake, Devereaux, La Amistad and other facilities offering similar programs. LORTC did not establish conclusively that it could maintain its projected utilization in the face of the potential draw of those other facilities. PIA has been highly successful in marketing its services in the past. If its success prevails and LORTC proves financially feasible, there is substantial evidence that it will be at the expense of West Lake, Devereaux, and the others. There is no evidence that LORTC or La Amistad evaluated the impact of their proposals on other service providers in the area. OTHER REVIEW CRITERIA, INCLUDING QUALIFY OF CARE Both applicants enjoy a reputation for providing good quality mental health services and there is no substantial evidence that this quality will deteriorate if the applications are approved. No competent evidence was presented regarding the failure of either applicant to meet the remaining relevant criteria.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: East Pasco Medical Center (EPMC) is a non-profit 85-bed acute care hospital facility located in the East Pasco subdistrict of HRS District V. There are only two hospitals in the subdistrict -- EPMC in Zephyrhills and Humana in Dade City, which is approximately ten miles north. Humana is a 120- bed acute care hospital facility. Both facilities offer the same services and share the same medical staff. On or about September 17, 1987, EPMC submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add 35 medical/surgical beds via a fourth floor addition to its existing facility. Its existing 85 beds are located in private rooms, and it is proposed that the additional 35 beds will also be placed in separate rooms. The application submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) projected a total project cost of $4,531,000. This figure was revised at the hearing to a project cost of $2,302,900. With regard to acute care services, the State Health Plan seeks to assure geographic accessibility. All residents of East Pasco County currently have access to acute care hospital services within the travel times suggested by the State plan. The State Health Plan also seeks to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services by attaining an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent. The District V Local Health Plan emphasizes that additions to inpatient acute care beds in a subdistrict should not be considered unless a numeric bed need is shown and certain occupancy thresholds have been met. The recommended occupancy thresholds for medical/surgical beds are 80% for the subdistrict and 90% for the facility seeking to add beds. Application of the bed need methodology contained in HRS's Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, indicates a numeric need for 57 additional acute care medical/surgical beds in the East Pasco subdistrict for the planning horizon period of July, 1992. The rule provides that HRS will "not normally approve" additional beds unless average occupancy in the subdistrict is greater than 75 percent. However, the rule permits HRS to award additional beds when there is a calculated need, notwithstanding low occupancy in the subdistrict, if the applicant had a minimum of 75% average occupancy during the 12 months ending 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m)7.e., Florida Administrative Code. The rule also permits HRS to award additional beds where the calculated numeric need substantially exceeds the number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict and there is an access problem related to travel time. For the relevant time period, the acute care occupancy rate for the East Pasco subdistrict was below 75% percent. Indeed, over the past few years, the average occupancy rate in that subdistrict has been 54 to 58 percent. Humana only operates at about a 55% occupancy. The East Pasco subdistrict does experience seasonal fluctuations in medical/surgical occupancy, with the season for high occupancy beginning in late October and ending in mid- to late April. In addition to tourists, it is expected that the revival of the citrus industry in East Pasco County will bring more migrant pickers to the area during the peak season months. The seasonal increase in occupancy directly corresponds with a large increase in seasonal population, particularly in the Zephyrhills area. The Zephyrhills area population is much older than the Dade City population and is also much older than the State average. The HRS acute care bed need rule includes considerations of seasonal peak demands. When considering both hospitals in the subdistrict, there has been a decline in peak seasonal occupancy rates over the past few years. While the population of the East Pasco subdistrict has grown, and is expected to increase by approximately 7,200 in 1992, there is a trend of declining utilization in the subdistrict. This decline is due to increased used of outpatient services and shorter lengths of hospital stay attributable to the current reimbursement system. The medical/surgical use rate fell from 454 patient days per 1,000 population in 1986 to 414 patient days per 1,000 population in 1988. There was a similar decline in the acute care use rate. Assuming a constant medical/surgical use rate, the projected demand for 1992 would be 2,980 additional medical/surgical patient days in the subdistrict according to population projections, and about 4,267 incremental patient days according to local health council projections. EPMC's Letter of Intent to add 35 additional beds was filed in mid- July, 1987. Its acute care occupancy rate for the period of April, 1986 through March, 1987 was 75.3 percent. Occupancy at EPMC from May, 1986 to April, 1987 was 73.6%; occupancy from June, 1986 through May, 1987 was 73%; and occupancy from July, 1986 to June, 1987 was 72.2 percent. EPMC does experience periods of high occupancy during the peak season months. High occupancy levels have a greater impact upon smaller hospitals due to their lesser degree of flexibility. On occasion, during the winter months, EPNC is required to refuse admittance to patients due to crowded conditions within its facility. Patients are sometimes transferred or referred to other facilities, including Humana, although the necessity for such transfers or referrals is occasionally due to a lack of intensive or critical care beds as opposed to a lack of medical/surgical beds. During the periods of time when EPMC had high occupancy levels, beds were available at Humana. EPMC's current payor mix includes a high level of Medicare (over 60%), and it is committed, through both its Christian mission and an agreement with the County, to treat indigent and Medicaid patients. The actual amount of indigent or charity care provided by EPNC was not established. In any event, EPMC desires to increase its bed size in order to help maintain a proper payor mix at the hospital so as to ensure the financial survival of the hospital. It is felt that a greater number of beds, given the rise in population, and particularly elderly population, would allow EPNC to serve a greater number of private and/or third party insurance paying patients. While the evidence demonstrates that EPMC may operate with a less favorable payor mix than Humana, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that EPMC will suffer financial ruin without additional beds. Likewise, it was not established that the patients which EPNC must turn away in the winter months are consistently paying patients. Increasing the number of beds at EPNC to 120 beds does not necessarily mean that its profitability would be improved. Volume and payor mix are the most critical factors in determining whether a hospital will be profitable. There is currently a nursing shortage throughout the nation. Rural areas, such as the eastern portion of Pasco County, experience even greater difficulty in attracting nursing personnel to the area. Due to the shortage of nurses, as well as the seasonal demand, EPMC is required to use contract care nurses throughout the year. While it would prefer to employ its own nursing staff, EPMC will use contract staff due to the seasonal variations in its nursing requirements. The use of contract or registry nurses costs 50% to 60% more on a daily basis; however, lower occupancy during the off-peak months does not justify year- round employment for as large an in-house nursing staff. For its proposed 35 beds, EPMC projects nurse manpower requirements as follows: 1 nurse manager, 4.2 R.N. charge nurses, 15.1 R.N. staff and 14.1 L.P.N. staff, for a total of 34.4 full time equivalent nursing positions. The recruiting efforts of EPNC to fill these positions will include advertising, visiting nursing schools and colleges, utilizing student nurses at the hospital and use of the Adventist Health System international network. Humana currently has 15 vacancies, or 12 to 13% of its nursing staff. Humana's nursing salaries have increased 20% over the past eighteen months. As noted above, EPNC and Humana compete for the same nursing personnel. Humana's personnel director believes that if EPNC increases its nursing staff by 34 FTEs, Humana's nursing staff will be approached to fill those positions. As a consequence, Humana will experience additional nursing shortages and will be required to further increase salaries. It is proposed that the project cost of adding 35 beds to EPMC will be financed with 100% debt financing through a bond issue. The financing will be part of a much larger bond issuance intended to finance several other projects within the Adventist hospital system. No evidence was adduced that such a bond issuance had been prepared or approved, and there was no evidence concerning the other projects which would be financed in conjunction with this project. In 1987, EPNC was carrying about five million dollars of negative equity. The hospital is currently greater than 100% financed. As noted above, the original Certificate of Need application filed with HRS listed the total project cost to be $4,531,000. In its response to omissions, EPMC stated that the construction cost would be $175 per square foot. In the updates submitted at the hearing, EPNC proposed a project cost of $2,302,900, which included a construction cost of $85 per square foot. A more reasonable cost for the addition of a floor to an existing facility would be $125 per square foot, plus an inflation factor of 6% and architectural and engineering fees of 6 to 7%. The proposed equipment list submitted by EPNC fails to include major equipment items such as an overhead paging system, a nurse call system, examination room equipment, medication distribution equipment, bed curtains, shower curtains, patient and staff support lounge items, and IV pumps. EPNC's updated equipment cost budget fails to include tax, freight, contingency and installation costs. The projected equipment costs should be tripled to adequately and reasonably equip a 35-bed nursing unit. The projected utilization and pro formas submitted by EPMC are not reasonable and were not supported by competent substantial evidence. EPMC's projected utilization for the proposed 35-bed unit is 8,950 patient days in the first year of operation and 9,580 in the second year of operation. Applying the current use rate to the population projections submitted by EPMC's expert in demographics and population projections produces only about 2,980 additional patient days in the year 1992. Given the fact that EPMC's current market share is approximately 54%, there is no reason to believe that Humana would not absorb at least some of those projected additional patient days. There are many months of the year in which additional patient days could be filled within the existing complement of 85 beds at EPNC. Depending upon the ultimate cost of the project, the break even point for financial feasibility purposes would be approximately 3,500 to 4,000 patient days. The concept behind a pro forma is to develop a financial picture of what operations will be in the first two years of operation. EPMC stated its revenues and expenses in terms of 1988 dollars and used its current revenue- to-expense ratios for projecting operations four years into the future. This is improper because gross revenues are going up, reimbursement is not increasing as rapidly and expenses, particularly salaries and insurance, are increasing. In addition, EPMC's projected 1992 salaries in several categories were less than they are currently paying for such positions. EPMC currently provides good quality of care to its patients. The only future concern in this realm is the fact that in the winter months, its intensive and critical care unit beds are often full and there is no room for additional patients. Additional medical/surgical volume from the proposed 35- bed unit would lead to additional intensive and critical care bed demand.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of East Pasco Medical Center for a Certificate of Need to add 35 acute care beds to its existing facility be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 30th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. (Case No. 88-1227) The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner: Third sentence rejected as not established by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to the ultimate resolution of the issues. Rejected. The Personnel Director of Humana presented testimony in this proceeding. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. 16. Second sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. A18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 20. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 27 and 30. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as immaterial to the issue of need in the year 1992. First sentence rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. First and third sentences rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 37 and 38. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 44. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Accepted only if the factors of volume and payor mix are also considered. Partially rejected as speculative and not supported by competent substantial evidence. All but first two sentences rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 58. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 60. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 62 - 67. The actual figures regarding total costs, projected utilization and those figures utilized in the pro formas were not established by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the findings regarding the financial feasibility of the project are rejected. 71. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 74. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 77. Rejected as an improper factual finding and contrary to the evidence. 78 and 79. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Respondent: 2 and 6. Partially accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19(a) Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. 56 - 58. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. Intervenor: Second sentence accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. Third sentence rejected. Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. First sentence rejected, but this does not preclude a consideration of such a period. Third sentence rejected as not established by the greater weight of the evidence. 31. Second sentence rejected as speculative. 40 and 41. Accepted as factually correct, but not included due to the showing of unused capacity within the East Pasco subdistrict. 55 and 56. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. 63 and 72. Same as above with regard to second sentence. 92. Rejected as an overbroad statement or conclusion. 97. Second sentence rejected as overbroad and not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: E.G. Boone and Jeffrey Boone 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 323a2 James C. Hauser Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact By application dated September 28, 1988 respondent/applicant, Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. (SFRMC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeking the issuance of a certificate of need (CON) authorizing the expenditure of approximately $19.98 million to construct a new three story clinical and ancillary services building at its facility located in Fort Myers, Florida. After the application was filed, and certain additional information was provided by SFRMC, HRS issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on January 13, 1989 advising that it intended to issue SFRMC a CON. On February 3, 1989, HRS published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to grant the CON. After learning of this action, petitioner, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee), filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to contest the proposed agency action. That prompted this proceeding. The state agency action report, which is a part of this record, reflects that the applicant proposes to: ... add 4 additional operating rooms to the existing 11; 16 new cardiac surgery recovery beds to the existing 16; and 8 new CCU beds to the existing 8 (by conversion of med/surg beds) in a new three story building that will be a replacement/expansion to the existing facility. The requested project will not constitute an increase in the licensed beds of the applicant's facility. The proposal does not request approval of any new services or change in the total number of beds that are licensed for the applicant's facility, but it does include redesignation of 8 existing medical/surgical beds to add to the 8 additional CCU beds requested. New space for Central Supply Services, as well (as) new and additional administrative, staff support areas, land public areas have been planned. (Emphasis added) These changes were sought by SFRMC to meet "(t)he need and demand for Cardiac services (that have) increased dramatically over the last seven years due to the community's growth, technological advancements and changing clinical practices." According to the allegations in the petition, Lee operates a health care facility in Fort Myers, Florida, which is in the same health planning district as SFRMC. The petition goes on to aver that Lee provides a wide range of medical services and programs, including cardiac surgery and recovery, cardiac catheterization laboratories, CCU, and non-invasive diagnostic cardiology services as proposed in SFRMC's application. The petition alleges further that, due to the sheer size of the project and the "substantial change" in services that will occur, Lee is entitled to a hearing. Based upon these considerations, Lee alleges that its open heart surgery program will be substantially affected if the CON is issued. HRS has authorized Lee to operate an open heart surgery program. However, by stipulation dated March 28, 1988 in DOAH Case No. 87-4755, it has agreed not to begin this program until at least April 1, 1990. If approved, SFRMC's building addition would not be completed until May 1, 1990, or one month after Lee's program begins. The application reflects that SFRMC will increase its total square footage by 25%, operating room capacity by 57%, and SICU capacity by 64%. In all, the project will add approximately 68,000 square feet to the facility complex. In addition, operating expenses associated with the project will total in excess of $28 million per year. Finally, utilization of existing facilities will be enhanced by the new addition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center's motion to dismiss the petition of Lee Memorial Hospital be GRANTED and that Lee's petition for formal administrative hearing be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of April, 1989.
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 Whether the application of Delray Community Hospital for a certificate of need to add 24 acute care beds meets, on balance, the applicable criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") administers the state certificate of need ("CON") program for health care services and facilities. In August 1994, AHCA published a numeric need of zero for additional acute care beds in District 9, Subdistrict 5, for southern Palm Beach County. In September 1994, NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delay Community Hospital, Inc. ("Delray") applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to add 24 acute care beds in District 9, Subdistrict 5, for a total construction cost of $4,608,260. AHCA published its intent to approve the application and to issue CON No. 7872 to Delray, on January 20, 1995, in Volume 21, No. 3 of the Florida Administrative Weekly. By timely filing a petition, Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc. ("Bethesda"), which is located in the same acute care subdistrict, challenged AHCA's preliminary decision. Bethesda also filed a petition challenging Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code, the acute care bed need rule, which resulted in a determination that the need methodology in the rule is invalid. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. AHCA and NME Hospital, Inc., DOAH Case No. 95-2649RX (F.O. 8/16/95). Delray and Bethesda are in a subdistrict which includes five other hospitals, Wellington Regional Medical Center ("Wellingon"), West Boca Medical Center ("West Boca"), Palm Beach Regional Medical Center ("Palm Beach Regional"), J. F. Kennedy Medical Center ("JFK"), and Boca Raton Community Hospital ("BRCH"). The hospitals range in size from 104 to approximately 400 beds. Wellington, West Boca, and Palm Beach Regional have fewer, and Bethesda, JFK and BRCH have more than Delray's 211 beds. Bethesda, located in Boynton Beach, is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO") for the maximum time available, 3 years. Bethesda has 330 beds, and offers obstetrics, pediatrics, and emergency room services. An average of 10 patients a month are transferred, after their condition is stabilized, from the emergency room at Bethesda to other hospitals, and most are participants in the Humana health maintenance organization ("HMO"), which requires their transfer to an Humana- affiliated hospital. Approximately one patient a month is transferred for open heart surgery or angioplasty after stabilization with thrombolitic therapy at Bethesda. Bethesda has a 12-bed critical care unit, a 12-bed surgical intensive care unit, and a telemetry or progressive care unit. From October to April, Bethesda also opens a 10-bed medical intensive care unit. Even during this "season," when south Florida experiences an influx of temporary winter residents, Bethesda's critical care beds are very rarely full. Only one time during the 1994-1995 season was a patient held overnight in the emergency room waiting for a bed at Bethesda. Only diagnostic cardiac caths are performed at Bethesda due to the absence of back-up open heart surgery. Delray is located on a medical campus with Fair Oaks Hospital, a 102 bed psychiatric facility, and Hillhaven Convalescent Center, which has 108 beds. Delray is physically connected to Pinecrest Rehabilitation Hospital, which has 90 beds. The campus also includes a medical mall, with outpatient services, a home health agency, and medical office buildings. Delray has a medical staff of 430 physicians. Delray is a for-profit hospital owned and operated by NME Hospitals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises, which after merging with American Medical International, does business as Tenet Health Care Corporation ("Tenet"). Tenet owns, operates, or manages 103 facilities, including Fair Oaks and Pinecrest Rehabilitation Hospital. Delray owns Hillhaven Convalescent Center, but it is managed by the Hillhaven nursing home management company. NME Hospitals, Inc., also owns West Boca Medical Center, which is approximately 10 to 12 miles from Delray. South Florida Tenet Health System is an alliance of the Tenet facilities, which has successfully negotiated managed care contracts offering the continuum of care of various levels of providers within one company. AHCA published a numeric need of zero for additional acute care beds in the southern Palm Beach County subdistrict, for July 1999, the applicable planning horizon. Delray's application asserts that special circumstances exist for the approval of its application despite the absence of numeric need. AHCA accepted and reviewed Delray's application pursuant to the following section of the acute care bed need rule: (e) 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 a net need for beds is shown based on the formula described in paragraphs (5)(b), (7)(a), (b), (c), and (8)(a), (b), (c), and provided that the hospital's average occupancy rate for all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 75 percent. The deter- mination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate made available by the local health council two months prior to the begining of the respective acute care hospital batching cycle. The need methodology referred to in the special circumstances rule indicated a net need for 1442 additional beds in District 9. All parties to the proceeding agree that the net need number is unrealistic, irrational, and/or wrong. That methodology was invalidated in the previously consolidated rule challenge case. Delray also met the requirement of exceeding 75 percent occupancy, with 75.63 percent from January through December 1993. In 1994, Delray's occupancy rate increased to 83 percent. In 1993, occupancy rates were 55.6 percent in District 9 and 52.5 percent in subdistrict 5. At individual hospitals, other than Delray, occupancy rates ranged from lows of 25.5 percent at Wellington and 35 percent at Palm Beach Regional to highs of 58 percent at BRCH and JFK. A study of four year trends shows declining acute care occupancy at every subdistrict hospital except Delray. Delray points to occupancy levels in intensive care units as another special circumstance for adding new beds. Currently, Delray has 8 beds in a trauma intensive care unit ("TICU"), 8 in a surgical intensive care unit ("SICU"), 7 in a critical or coronary care unit ("CCU"), 7 in a medical intensive care unit ("MICU"), and 67 beds in a telemetry or progressive care unit ("PCU"). For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1994, occupancy rates were 80 percent in the PCU, 91 percent in CCU, and 128 percent in SICU. If the CON is approved, Delray plans to allocate the 24 additional beds to increase the PCU by 10, CCU by 7, and the SICU by 7 beds. Expert testimony established 75 percent to 80 percent as a range of reasonable occupancy levels for intensive care units. A PCU, telemetry, or step down unit serves as a transition for patients leaving ICUs who require continued heart rate monitoring. PCU staffing ratios are typically 1 nurse to every 4 patients. CCU is used for patients who have had heart attacks or other serious cardiac problems and continue to need closer personal monitoring. SICU is used primarily for post-surgery open heart patients. The TICU is used for patients with neurological injuries and those in need of neurosurgery. When the ICUs are full, overflow patients are placed in holding areas of the ICU, the emergency room ("ER"), telemetry unit, or in a medical holding unit behind the emergency room. During the season, from November to April, from 20 to 55 patients are in holding areas, most of whom would otherwise be in an ICU or PCU bed. Critical care nurses are moved to the holding areas to care for critical patients. Additional staffing requirements are met, in part, by using contract nurses from an agency owned by Tenet, called Ready Staff. Other temporary or traveling nurses go through a three day orientation and are paired with regular staff mentors. Traveling nurses have three to six month contracts to work at various hospitals throughout the county, as needed. Intensive care nurses are cross-trained to work in any of the ICUs, but the same nurses usually are assigned to open heart and trauma patients. Since May 1991, Delray has been the state-designated level II trauma center for southern Palm Beach County, as is St. Mary's Hospital for the northern areas of the County. Trauma patients are transported by ambulance or helicopter, and treated in two designated trauma rooms in the emergency department. The state designation requires Delray to have one of its eight trauma surgeons, trauma nurses, anesthesiologists, and certain other ancillary services available in the hospital at all times. Delray also must have a bed available in its TICU. CON Review Criteria By supplemental prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that Delray's CON application includes the information and documents required in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes. The parties also stipulated that the project is financially feasible in the short term, and that proposed construction costs and methods, and equipment costs are reasonable. Based on prehearing stipulations, the statutory review criteria in dispute are as follows: 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans; 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, and adequacy of other hospitals; 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(c) - quality of care at other hospitals and the applicant's ability to provide and record of providing quality of care; 408.035(1)(h) - availability of critical care nurses; and 408.035(1)(i) - long term financial feasibility. State and District Health Plans The 1993 Florida State Health Plan has a preference for approving additional acute care beds in subdistricts with at least 75 percent occupancy, and at facilities equal to or in excess of 85 percent occupancy. Subdistrict 5 and Delray do not meet the preference. See, Finding of Facts 9 and 10. The state health plan also includes a preference for hospitals which are disproportionate share Medicaid providers. Delray does not meet the preference, and notes that 70 percent of its patients are over 65 years old and entitled to Medicare reimbursement. In fact, there are no disproportionate share providers in the subdistrict. Delray meets the state plan preference for proposing a project which will not adversely affect the financial viability of an existing, disproportionate share provider. The state health plan also has four preferences related to emergency services, for accepting indigent patients in ER, for a trauma center, for a full range of ER services, and for not having been fined for ER services violations. Delray meets all four preferences related to emergency services. The 1990 District 9 Health Plan, with a 1993 CON Allocation Factors Report, favors applicants who serve Medicaid/Indigent, handicapped, and underserved population groups. In 1992 and 1993, approximately 2.5 percent of the patients at Delray were in the Medicaid program. Delray also provided 3 percent indigent and charity care for 1993. The hospital's 1992 financial reports do not indicate that it provided any indigent or charity care. In 1993- 1994, Delray had the lowest percentage of Medicaid and charity patients at a state designated level II trauma center. AHCA proposes to condition approval of CON 7872 on Delray's providing 2.4 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and 1 percent of total annual patient days to charity care, as projected by Delray in Table 7 of the application. Under the district health plan, priority is given for applicants who document cost containment. One example of cost containment, according to the plan, is sharing services with other area hospitals to enhance efficient resource utilization and avoid duplication. Delray describes its patient- focused care model as an example of cost containment. In response to rising labor cost, the underutilization of certain required categories of employees, and the large number of staff interacting with each patient, Delray created the model which emphasizes cross-training of staff to work in teams led by a registered nurse. Delray has not proposed sharing services with other hospitals, and has not documented cost containment as that is described in the district health plan. Availability, Accessibility, Efficiency and Adequacy of Other Hospitals Additional acute care beds at Delray will not meet any demonstrated numeric, geographic, or financial need. Acute care beds are available in adequate numbers in the subdistrict. Roughly half, or 800, of the subdistrict's 1700 beds were empty most days in 1993 and 1994. Bethesda's expert in health care planning and financial feasibility testified that some available, more appropriate alternatives to the approval of additional beds at Delray are the transfer of patients to other subdistrict hospitals, including Tenet's West Boca, the transfer of unused bed capacity from one area of the hospital to another, or the transfer of unused bed capacity from West Boca to Delray. Bethesda also contends that Delray could find alternatives to placing outpatient surgery and outpatient cardiac cath patients in inpatient beds from four to twenty-three hours for observation and care. In support of Delray, AHCA's expert testified that institution-specific demand, in Delray's case, has reached the level of community need, because other subdistrict hospitals are not adequate or available to treat the type of patients treated at Delray. All of Delray's patients come from areas of the county which overlap the service areas of other hospitals, which shows the absence of any geographic access barriers. A diagnostic related group, or DRG, analysis shows that most of the categories of diagnosed illnesses or injuries treated at Delray are also treated at other subdistrict hospitals. The DRGs exclusively treated at Delray are related to trauma. Others treated in the subdistrict only at Delray and JFK are related to angioplasty and open heart surgery. Of the state level II trauma centers, Delray reported the highest percentage, 96.5 percent, of discharges of all patients were urgent or emergent cases. By comparison, the lowest were 65.6 percent at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa and 66 percent at West Florida Regional Medical Center, and the next highest was 94.2 percent at Bayfront Medical Center. Bethesda's expert suggested that the number was too high and could result from miscoding. Approximately 70 to 90 trauma patients are treated each month at Delray and approximately 50 percent of those are admitted to the hospital. One Bethesda witness, a doctor on the staff at both Bethesda and Delray, testified that he was called in once when Delray refused to go on "by-pass status," to send an incoming trauma patient to St. Mary's, knowing the patient was likely to need a CT scan. At the time, Delray's main scanner inside the hospital was inoperable or undergoing repairs. The patient who arrived by helicopter was taken by ambulance to another scanner on the campus, approximately 1000 yards away from the hospital. The same doctor also complained that ER patients who are upgraded to trauma status cannot be downgraded by trauma surgeons. There was no evidence how often the inside CT scan is unavailable and, consequently, no showing that altering this practice would result in an appreciable decline in the demand for trauma services at Delray. Similarly, there was no evidence of any impact on hospital admissions resulting from upgrading emergency patients to trauma patients. Trauma victims seldom require open heart surgery. Therefore, a different category of patients served only in the subdistrict at JFK and Delray is open heart surgery patients. Because of its location in an area with a large population over age 65 and due to the services it provides, one Delray witness described Delay, as a "cardiac" hospital. Delray has no pediatric or obstetric services. The percentage of residents over 65 in Delray's service area is about 35 percent, in contrast to a statewide level approaching 20 percent. Delray began an open heart surgery program in August, 1986. There are now approximately 50 cardiologists on staff, 19 performing cardiac catheterizations ("caths") and angioplasties, and three performing open heart surgeries. In fiscal year 1993, approximately 1900 cardiac caths, and 450 open heart surgeries were performed at Delray. In fiscal year 1994, that increased to approximately 2100 patients cathed and 540 open heart surgeries. Through April 1995, or 11 months into the fiscal year, there were approximately 2300 caths and 526 open heart surgeries. The cath labs are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, within forty-five minutes notice. By comparison, the cath lab at Bethesda operates on weekdays until 3:30 p.m. Ten to twelve physicians use Delray's two cardiac cath labs and a third overflow lab, if needed. The cath labs at Delray and Bethesda are considered "open" because any qualified staff physician is eligible to receive privileges to use the lab. A backlog occurs in the Delray cath lab when critical care beds are not available for patients following caths. Delray has three open heart surgery operating rooms and three open heart surgeons, with the capacity to perform 1000 open heart surgeries a year. Within the subdistrict, approximately 11 miles from Delray, JFK also provides cardiac cath, angioplasty, and open heart surgery services. JFK has 369 beds and is equipped with two cardiac cath labs, each with the capacity to accommodate 2000 procedures a year. In fiscal year 1994, approximately 3200 caths were performed at JFK. The cath lab is "closed," meaning JFK has entered into an exclusive contract for services with one group of invasive cardiologists. JFK's medical staff has relatively little overlap, approximately 10 to 15 percent, with the medical staff at Delray. Across all patients and all diagnoses, there is also relatively little geographic overlap. JFK, by and large, serves the central area and Delray serves the southern area of Palm Beach County. The average census in thirty critical care beds at JFK was 16.5 patients in 1994, and 18.4 in the first six months of 1995. A high range of 70 percent to 80 percent occupancy in JFK's critical care beds is reached during the peak season. Although JFK's thirty critical care beds are not officially divided into different types of intensive care services, a de facto designation has developed. Depending on the patient mix, the same 16 beds are generally used for cardiac critical care. The average daily census for cardiac critical care was 13.4 in March 1994 and 23.4 in February 1995. Overall, there is no excess capacity in the district in critical care beds during the height of the season. The average occupancy of all critical care beds in southern Palm Beach County was 104 percent in February 1992, 98 percent in February 1993, and 93.5 percent in February 1994. Open heart surgery and angioplasty are more frequently than not scheduled up to a week ahead of time. Most cardiac patients can be admitted to any emergency room and stabilized with thrombolytic therapy before transfer to another hospital for an angioplasty or open heart surgery, without compromising their conditions. However, at Delray, cardiac patients are more likely to be emergent or urgent cases, remaining in the hospital for stabilization, scheduled for surgery within 24 hours, and remaining in SICU an average of forty-eight hours following surgery. The older patients are more difficult to transfer because they tend to have more consulting specialists on the staff of the hospital in the service area where they reside. Transferring open heart surgery patients from Delray to JFK is not beneficial as a health planning objective during the season, when JFK operates at reasonable levels of 70 percent to 80 percent occupancy in critical care beds and exceeds the capacity of its de facto cardiac critical care beds. Delray's emergency department can accommodate 23 patients at one time. Over the past three years, ER visits have increased by approximately 1,000 each year. Approximately 20 percent to 25 percent of patients treated in its emergency room, excluding trauma patients, are admitted to Delray. During the winter season, there are also more emergency room patients who do not have local physicians, most complaining of cardiac and respiratory problems. By federal law, certain priority categories of emergency patients must be taken to the nearest hospital. Federal law also prohibits patient transfers to a different hospital unless a patient's medical condition is stable, the patient consents, and the other hospital has an available bed and a staff doctor willing to take the patient. Patient condition and consent are major factors preventing transfers of elderly residents of the Delray service area to other hospitals. Delray also reasonably expects an increase in patients due to an increase in its market share, managed care contracts, and population in its service area. Managed care contracts, usually for 3 year terms, are not alone a reliable basis for making long term community health planning decisions. Combining trends in growth, population aging, declining lengths of stays in hospitals, market share and the greater consumption of inpatient services by people over 65, however, Delray reasonably expects an incremental increase of 1667 discharges by 1999. At 80 percent occupancy, the incremental patients attributable to population growth alone, according to Delray's expert, justifies an additional 34 beds. For a substantial part of 1994, ICU, CCU and medical/surgical beds at Delray exceeded reasonable occupancy standards. In the first four months of 1995, medical/surgical occupancy levels ranged from 96.7 percent to 119.4 percent. Given those levels and the projected growth, transfer of beds from medical/surgical units is not a reasonable option for increasing the supply of critical care beds. Delray is small when compared to all other high volume open heart surgery and level II trauma hospitals in Florida. Another option suggested by Bethesda's expert was the transfer of beds from West Boca to Delray. Because the beds have already been built, a transfer would not reduce capital or fixed costs at West Boca. The only effect that was apparent from the evidence in this case would be a statistical increase in subdistrict utilization. In addition, with 171 beds, West Boca is relatively small and in a growing area of Palm Beach County. Bethesda's contention that Delray could stop using inpatient beds for the four to twenty-three hour outpatients was not supported by the evidence. There was no showing that the physical plant or space exists for the construction of observation beds near an ambulatory surgery center. Given the testimony that all hospitals use inpatient beds for certain outpatients, and that Delray averages five to seven outpatients in inpatient medical/surgical beds at any time, there is no evidence of a practical alternative with any significant impact on the overcrowding at Delray. Bethesda also challenged the need for critical care for fractures, cellulitis, and fever of unknown origin, which were among the diagnoses listed for patients in the ER hold. However, Bethesda's expert also acknowledged that some patients in ER hold at Delray were waiting for medical/surgical beds not only ICU beds. Patients are placed in holding areas whenever assignment to an appropriate bed is not possible within thirty minutes of the issuance of orders to admit the patient. Delray proved that it is unique in the subdistrict in treating trauma patients and cardiac patients in a service area with minimal geographic and medical staff overlap with that of JFK. The transfer of such patients to other hospitals in the subdistrict is often not practical or possible. Delray also demonstrated that other subdistrict hospitals are not available alternative intensive care providers when their ICUs are also full or over optimal levels of occupancy, during the season. In addition, the demographic characteristics of Delay's service area support projected increases in inpatient days due to increased market share, population aging and growth. All of these factors indicate that Delray cannot, as Bethesda suggests, control its own growth, transfer, or redirect patients. Quality of Care and Availability of Critical Case Nurses Delray is JCAHO accredited. There is no evidence that quality of care affects hospital utilization in southern Palm Beach County. Open heart surgery mortality rates from 1990 to 1994 were 1.9 percent at JFK and 3 percent at Delray, but the data is not adjusted to take into consideration "case-mix," meaning the severity of illnesses, and is, therefore, meaningless as a comparison. A 1994 Medicare case mix index report shows Delray treating the sickest patients followed by JFK, then Bethesda. The sicker, older patients, exert more pressure on ICUs. Because ICU nursing ratios are one-nurse-to-one-patient or, more typically, one-to-two and PCU ratios are one-to-four, PCUs provide a step down from ICUs. PCU beds are used for patients who no longer need ICU care, but require more intense monitoring than that provided on the medical/surgical floors with nurse/patient ratios of one-to-twelve or one-to-twenty. In PCU or telemetry beds, radio signals transmit data to heart monitors. However, if PCU beds are not available, patients are left in the ICUs longer than necessary, aggravating the backlog cause by crowded ICUs. Critical care is a resource-intensive service, and Bethesda argues that Delray cannot increase the service because of the shortage of critical care nurses in Palm Beach County. However, the testimony presented by Bethesda is not consistent. Bethesda's expert in critical care nursing and critical care unit management testified that vacancies are difficult to fill, that there is a shortage of critical care nurses, but that Bethesda does not experience a shortage of critical care staff. There is no explanation why Bethesda has no shortage, but Delray would if its CON is approved. Delray's director of neuroscience and critical care testified that she maintains a file of available critical care nurses and can recruit the additional staff needed due to Delray's competitive salaries and benefits. Long Term Financial Feasibility There are no revenues or expenses during construction of the 24 beds, just construction costs. After the beds are in service, Delray projects net income of $1,951,164 in 1997 and $2,003,769 in 1998. In projecting revenues and expenses for the beds, Delray used its historical percentages of patients in each unit receiving a particular type of care and the historical cost of that care, and assumed that the same breakdown in the 24 new beds. Using the historical financial experience, Delray constructed a pro forma for the 24 beds, with an expected average daily census of 21.6 patients. If the 24 new beds are used only for existing holding area patients then, as Bethesda contends, Delray's pro forma should show a shift of revenues and expenses to the new beds, and the same amounts deducted from the remainder of the hospital. Delray already charges holding area patients based on the intensity of nursing care provided, even though the patients are not physically located in an ICU. The ER hold patients accounted for 2,210 patient days in 1994, which are reallocated to ICU beds in the pro forma. However, Delray also projected an incremental increase of 7,865 patient days which, contrary to Bethesda's claim, does not include or double- count the ER hold patient days. Of these, 54 percent of incremental patient days are projected to be in the ICUs or PCU. The additional patients will, therefore, spend 46 percent of total patient days in medical/surgical beds. Routine revenue estimates of $492 a day in year one were criticized as too low for the projected 54 percent ICU/46 percent medical/surgical mix. However, $492 a day is a reasonable estimate of incremental routine revenues for the hospital as a whole. In 1994, patients at Delray spent 44 percent of total days in medical/surgical beds as compared to the projection of 46 percent for new patients. There is no material variation from 44 percent to 46 percent, therefore $492 a day is a reasonable projected incremental routine revenue. Delray has demonstrated, in an incremental analysis, the financial feasibility of adding 24 critical care beds for existing and additional patients. Delray has also considered the financial impact of additional patients in all categories of beds. Although criticized by Bethesda for this approach, Delray explained that a critical care bed generates revenues from a medical/surgical bed when patient's condition is downgraded. The financial analysis is reasonable, particularly since Medicare pays a flat rate by DRG regardless of how a patient's total days are divided between ICUs and medical/surgical beds. Bethesda questioned whether the use of new beds for new patients will eliminate the use of holding areas. The movement of patients in and out of ICUs will be enhanced by having more ICU and PCU beds, even if the additional beds do not eliminate entirely the use of holding areas during the peak season. Projected average occupancies are expected to reach 98 percent in March 1997 and 1998. Delray also demonstrated that the share of its projected increased admissions which would have otherwise gone to Bethesda is approximately 150 patients, representing a net decline in revenue to Bethesda of approximately $257,000, in comparison to Bethesda's net income of $9 million in 1994. Bethesda also will no longer receive a county tax subsidy of $1 million in income and $3.5 million in restricted funds, after 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing Certificate of Need 7872, approving the addition of 24 acute care beds, to NME Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Delray Community Hospital, conditioned on the provision 2.4 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and 1 percent of total annual patient days to charity care. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 7th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0730 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Bethesda Memorial, Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 2, 7, and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 23 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 21. 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. 8,9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. 10. Accepted except first sentence in Findings of Fact 15. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15-18. 15-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 23-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 and accepted in Findings of Fact 23-25. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 27. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 38-43. 31-32. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 43. 33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. 34-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37. 37(1). Accepted in Findings of Fact 40 and 41. 37(2). Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. 37(3). Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 43. 38-39. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 40 and 40-48. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 40 and 41. 49-51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 41. Rejected in Findings of Fact 38-42. 54(A). Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. 54(B). Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 33. 54(C). Rejected 54(D-E). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 54(F). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 54(G). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 38. 54(H). Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. 54(I). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 54(J). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 54(K). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. 54(L). Rejected as speculative in Findings of Fact 35. 54(M). Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 34. 54(N). Conclusions rejected. See Findings of Fact 16. 54(O-P). Conclusions rejected. See Findings of Fact 24. 54(Q). Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 54(R). Conclusions rejected. See Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. 62-63. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 27-29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23, 27 and 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35-37. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. 79-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 28. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and rejected in Findings of Fact 35. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 94-98. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 29. 99-100. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28 and 29. 101. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 102-104. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27, 28 and 35. 105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 106-107. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. 108-111. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. 117-122. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5 and 35. Rejected in Findings of Fact 37. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 44. Respondent, AHCA, Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13 and 25. 5-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 1 and 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9 and 34. Respondent, NME, Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. 6-10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. 13-14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-13 and 23-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5, 12 and 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13, 23 and 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11-12 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14 and 34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. Rejected. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 36. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12 and 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 36-43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 12. 44-50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 22 and 23-29. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Accepted except last sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 55-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 22 and 33. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31. 68-72. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 30. 73-76. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted, except last phrase in Findings of Fact 15-20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 22-34. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. 83-86. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12 and 35-37. 87-89. Accepted in Findings of Fact 35-37. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38 and 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 41. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 38. 95-99. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 38-42. Accepted, except first sentence, in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 44. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. 102-104. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 19. 105-106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 107-108. Issue not reached. See Findings of Fact 14. 109-114. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 44. COPIES FURNISHED: John Gilroy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire W. David Watkins, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire C. Gary Williams, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact I The Parties Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc., (Charter) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation, founded in Macon, Georgia in 1969. The parent corporation operates approximately 92 hospitals throughout the country, including Florida. Most of its hospitals are psychiatric or substance abuse facilities. Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) is a 1,119- bed, nonprofit medical system comprised of four divisions. In downtown Orlando it operates a 630-bed tertiary care hospital and a 255-bed Arnold Palmer Hospital for women and children. A Sand Lake campus is located 10 miles southwest of Orlando, off I-4, and includes medical/surgical beds and 32 licensed short-term psychiatric beds. ORMC's St. Cloud Campus in Osceola County, south of Orlando, includes 84 medical/surgical beds. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the certificate of need program pursuant to Sections 381.701-.715, F.S. Psychiatric Institute of Orlando, Inc., d/b/a Laurel Oaks Hospital, (Laurel Oaks) is a subsidiary of P1A Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises (NME). P1A owns approximately 50 psychiatric hospitals throughout the county, including (30-bed Laurel Oaks, in southwest Orange County, a short-term psychiatric and substance abuse facility for children and adolescents Health Management Associates, Inc., (HMA) is a health management company which owns or operates 16 hospitals in the southeastern United States, including four psychiatric hospitals in Florida. HMA's Crossroads University Behavioral Center is a 100-bed free-standing psychiatric hospital in northeast Orange County. Its 60 adult beds and 40 adolescent beds opened in January 1989 as a licensed long-term facility, but it has been operating continually as a short-term facility. The Applications Charter proposes to develop a new free-standing 60- bed psychiatric hospital (40 beds for adults, 10 beds for adolescents and 10 beds for children). It plans a wide range of treatment modalities utilizing a multi-disciplinary team approach, tailored to the age and needs of the patient. Although no specific site has been selected, several have been identified in southwest Orange County. Charter anticipates the total cost for the project will be $7,783,000. Charter's patients will be primarily commercially insured (71%), with 15% Medicare and 4% indigent. Charter has committed to serve this share of indigent for the first two years of operation. As a specialty hospital, Charter is not eligible to accept Medicaid patients. ORMC proposes to build a 60-bed free-standing facility on a 7.2 acre site within 40 acres it already owns at Sand Lake and adjacent to its existing Sand Lake Hospital, for a total project cost of $6,678,935. No new licensed beds are required as ORNC will transfer its 32 short term beds from the sixth floor of the Sand Lake Hospital and will convert 28 of its licensed medical/surgical beds from its downtown hospital. The 60 beds will consist of 30 adult and 30 adolescent short term beds. Since the existing 32 beds are primarily adult beds, ORMC's project will be adding adolescent beds to the inventory in District 7. Proximity to Sand Lake Hospital will facilitate shared services, including engineering, dietary and laundry. ORMC also expects the joint use of therapists at its psychiatric facility and its existing brain injury rehabilitation unit at Sand Lake. Because the facility will be added to ORMC's general hospital license, it can and will accept Medicaid patients. ORMC has committed to serve 20% Medicare, 8% Medicaid and 8% indigent patients. ORMC will likely seek an outside management firm to operate its psychiatric facility. The Review On August 23, 1988, HRS published a need for 140 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. Its SAAR issued in January 1989, recommended approval of a total of 137 beds. When the SAAR was amended in March 1989, to include the Charter approval, the total surged to 197 approved beds. Even after First Hospital withdrew its application for 55 beds, the total approved exceeded the published need for the 1993 horizon year by two beds. Numeric Need The short-term psychiatric bed need rule is found at Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) , F.A.C. "Short-term" is defined as an average length of stay of 30 days or less for adults, and 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. A favorable need determination will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to sub-paragraph (1)(o)4 of "the rule". Rule 10-5.011(1)(0)4, F.A.C. provides as follows: Bed allocations for acute care short term general psychiatric services shall be based on the following standards: A minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health These beds shall be designated as short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. 20 short term inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 population may be located in specialty hospitals, or hospitals holding a general license. The distribution of these beds shall be based on local need, cost effectiveness, and quality of care considerations. The short term inpatient psychiatric bed need for a Department service district shall be projected 5 years into the future based on the most recent available January or July population estimate prior to the beginning to the respective batching cycle. The projected number of beds shall be based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District under Paragraph 10-5.011(1)(m). The net need for short term psychiatric beds shall be calculated by subtracting the number of licensed and approved beds from the number of projected beds. The population estimates are based on population projections by the Executive Office of the Governor. Occupancy Standards. New Facilities must be able to project an average 70% occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60% for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80% occupancy rate for adult beds and 70% for children and adolescent short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds for the third year of operation. No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75% for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70% for the preceding 12 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75% or greater for the preceding year. Unit size. In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. The parties do not dispute that application of the formula yields a need for 140 beds, the total published in the applicable fixed need pool. Nor do the parties dispute that the occupancy standard was met, since HRS uses the lower standard of 70% as a threshold for determining whether need should be published. The parties agree that approval of both Charter's and ORMC's applications results in an excess of two beds over the published need. There is substantial dispute as to whether that excess is justified, and as to the composition of the beds as "speciality hospital" or "general hospital" beds. The only provision in agency rules or policy for exceeding bed need calculations is when "not normal" or "special" circumstances exist in the District. HRS' Policy Manual for the Certificate of Need program, dated October 1, 1988, provides in Section 9-6 B. (3): If a qualified applicant exist but the proposed project exceeds the beds or services identified in the fixed need pool, the department may award beds or services in excess of the pool when warranted by special circumstances as defined in rule 10- 5.011(1)(b), 1-4, F.A.C. and, specifically for nursing homes Rule 10-5.011(1)(K)2.j. F.A.C. (Laurel Oaks Exhibit #10, P. 9-2) The referenced sections of Rule 10-5.011(1)(b), F.A.C., relate to the enhancement of access--primarily economic access and access by underserved groups. Access is addressed in Part VII, below. No evidence was presented regarding special problems of access in District 7. Rather, HRS asserts that its excess approval was based on "rounding up" the numbers of beds, and on the favorable occupancy rates in the district. In its SAAR, HRS calculated the following occupancy rates by age cohort in the district: Adult 75.8% Child/Adolescent 74.8%; and in Orange County: Adult 57.4% Child/Adolescent 100. The adult rate is therefore slightly above the 75% minimum in the district, and substantially below the minimum in Orange County. The child/adolescent rate is above the 70% minimum in both the district and county. HRS appropriately does not utilize occupancy in beds other than licensed short term psychiatric bed in calculating its rates as it would be difficult to compute the number of available beds (medical/surgical, long term psychiatric, etc.). The rule specifies that a minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population "should" be allocated to hospital1s holding a general license and that .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in either speciality hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. Of the 140 beds needed in District 7, 75 may be located in a speciality hospital under this formula. 30 speciality beds were awarded to West Lake and are unchallenged. The Charter application for 60 speciality beds exceeds by 15, the 45 speciality beds left to be allocated. The State and Local Health Plans The State Health Plan is dated 1985-1987. Goal 1 is the only portion of the plan that is relevant in this review. It essentially reiterates the need methodology described above, regarding the .35 beds per 1000 population and the 70% and 75% annual occupancy thresholds. The applicable local health plan is the 1988 local health plan for District 7. This plan divides the district into "planning areas": Brevard, Osceola, Seminole and Orange -- the four counties within the district. Planning areas, unlike subdistricts, are more in the nature of guidelines and do not carry the same legal weight as subdistricts. Both applicants are committed to submit data to the local health councils, as provided in recommendation #2. Both applicants have committed to provide a fair share of care to the underserved, although ORMC's commitment is substantially greater and has a proven record to support it. Recommendation #5 provides that no new short-term psychiatric or substance abuse beds shall be approved until all existing beds in the planning area are operating at or above 75% occupancy for the most recent twelve months for which data is available from the local health council. This criteria is barely met when adult and children/adolescent occupancy is combined, and is not met by the occupancy rate for adult beds in Orange County. Financial Feasibility The pro formas of both applicants, which are no more than best guess estimates, are generally reasonable, based upon the experience of the applicants' existing programs. Charter's proposal makes no provision for management fees, although such fees are remitted to the parent company by its subsidiaries and are reported to the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Charter anticipates that it would not incur additional corporate overhead to support this facility if it is built. In recent years ORMC's psychiatric unit has lost money in its operation when overhead is factored into the cost. Its Program Director, Jeffrey Oppenheim, reasonably anticipates the new facility will make a profit, as it will serve a better mix of age cohorts and will offer a more desirable setting than its limited facility now located on the sixth floor of a medical/surgical hospital. The financial feasibility of both applications depends on the programs' ability to attract patients. That ability is not seriously questioned. Both applications have substantial experience in operating financially efficient health care programs. Quality of Care and Accessibility No evidence was presented to challenge either applicant's ability to provide quality care. Nor, however, was the quality of care of existing alternative programs at issue. Geographic access in District 7 is not a problem, and none suggests that the access standard in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., F.A.C., is not met (travel time of 45 minutes or less for 90% of the service area population). Charter's inability to provide Medicaid services and its time-limited commitment to serve even 4% indigents amount to only minimal contribution to the economically underserved population. In the past, ORMC has been a receiving facility for Baker Act patients and it anticipates it will again when the psychiatric program has its new quarters. It is only one of two hospitals in Orange County eligible to provide Medicaid services and is the fifth highest provider of charity and Medicaid in the State of Florida, according to Medical Health Care Cost Containment Board data. Impact on Existing Facilities and Competition Positive competition among providers already exists in District 7. There are eleven existing short term psychiatric programs in the four-county area, including both speciality and general hospitals, and adult, children and adolescent programs. Only three obtained an occupancy rate of more than 75% for the fiscal period ending June 1988. The Availability of Health Manpower There is a shortage of nurses, qualified social workers and counsellors in District 7. HMA has experienced problems in recruiting staff at its Orlando facility. Competition for these staff has caused salaries to rise, and consequently the cost of providing services has risen. Turnover results when staff are attracted to new facilities, causing training problems and affecting quality of care. Charter has the corporate resources to conduct effective recruiting, but has no experience recruiting in the Orlando area. ORMC, a large diverse facility, with good opportunity for lateral and upward mobility, has experienced few problems staffing its programs. The Availability of Alternatives Eight of eleven District 7 short term psychiatric facilities have operated below 75% occupancy in the last two years. These under-utilized facilities are plainly alternatives for new projects proposing the same services. Neither applicant is proposing novel or innovative services in psychiatric care. That licensed long term psychiatric facilities such as HMA, are operating short term programs does not justify the approval of new short term beds, but rather suggests these programs could be converted, with little or no capital outlay, into short term programs. Conversion of under-utilized acute are beds to short term psychiatric beds is also an alternative in District 7. Acute care bed occupancy rates in each county of District 7 failed to reach 60% in the most recent 12-month period of available data. The criterion of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.f., F.A.C. favors the conversion of under-utilized beds in other hospital services unless conversion costs are prohibitive. There has been a trend in the last several years away from inpatient care and toward less restrictive treatment modalities. Both applicants acknowledge this trend with their inclusion of partial hospitalization programs in their plans. ORMC has no reasonable alternative to building a new facility if it is to maintain its inpatient psychiatric program. There is an increasing demand for the medical surgical beds it currently occupies on the sixth floor of Sand Lake Hospital. There is no appropriate space in its downtown facilities. Balancing the Criteria Comparative Review and Summary As reflected above, not all of the relevant statutory and rule criteria have been met by these applicants. There remains, however, the planning horizon numerical need for additional short term psychiatric beds. While that need could likely be met with the utilization of beds that are not licensed for the provision of short term care, such a solution frustrates state licensing requirements. Three alternative dispositions exist: to deny both ORMC and Charter applications, leaving an unmet need in this cycle for 86 beds; to grant one application only; or to approve both and exceed the need by two beds. HRS argues that the two-bed difference is of little consequence and that the excessive number of specialty beds if Charter is approved is irrelevant, as no general hospital is currently competing for the beds. It is not possible to conjecture that appropriate general hospital applicants will participate in a near future cycle, but it is certain that if those beds are awarded in this cycle to a specialty hospital, they will not be available in a future cycle. Nothing requires that all beds identified in a fixed pool must be awarded in that cycle. The converse follows when, as here, other considerations weigh against approval of additional beds. Between the two applicants, ORMC more consistently meets the rule and statutory criteria. Although it still proposes a substantial capital outlay, (ORMC) relies on conversion of existing licensed beds and results in less impact on other existing programs. Its contribution to the underserved population is more substantial; it proposes more needed adolescent, rather than adult beds; and it does not violate the .15/.20 general hospital, specialty hospital bed balance. That balance needs to be maintained in this case to insure competition among Medicaid providers. In summary, the evidence supports approval of ORMC's application and denial of Charter's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered denying CON number 5691 to Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc.; and granting CON #5697 to Orlando Regional Medical Center. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NO. 89-1358,89-1366.89-1368,89-2039 & 89-2041 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6.-17. Adopted in statement of the issues. 18. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. 19.-36. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 6. 37. Addressed in paragraph 30. 38.-5O. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 36. 51.-57. Rejected as unnecessary, except at summarized in paragraph 7. 58.-6I. Adopted in paragraph 16. 62.-69. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the methodology in the rule. 70. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 71.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. "Not normal" does not include high occupancy rates in several facilities. 79.-8I. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. 82.-83. Rejected as immaterial. The evidence in this case supports maintenance of the balance, notwithstanding past practice. 84. Adopted in paragraph 15. 85.-103. Rejected as unnecessary. 104. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. 105. & 106. Adopted in paragraph 22. 107.-109. Adopted in paragraph 23. 110. & 111. Rejected as unnecessary. 112. & 113. Adopted in paragraph 24. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 116.-149. Rejected as unnecessary. 150. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 26 and 29. 151.-161. Rejected as unnecessary. 162.-164. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. 165.-171. Rejected as unnecessary. 172. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 173.-180. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 181. Adopted in paragraph 5. 182.-190. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 43. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 193.-198. Rejected as unnecessary. 199. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 200.-206. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. 210.-213. Rejected as unnecessary. 214. Adopted by implication in paragraph 33. 215.-218. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. & 221. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 222. Adopted in summary in paragraph :28. 223.-238. Rejected as unnecessary. Orlando Regional Medical Center Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 9. 3.-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Adopted in summary in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as ummaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 15. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 22.-24. Adopted in summary in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 15 and conclusion of law #7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. 29 & 30. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 23. 36 & 37. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 11 and 33. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 11. 41 & 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 26. 48.-52. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (the finding as to no alternatives). The finding regarding Park Place is unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 36. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. 63.-66. Rejected as unnecessary. 67. Adopted in paragraph 47. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1. & 2. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 6. and 9. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 36. 7.-9. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 30 and 34. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The policy is found in HRS' Policy Manual. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 26 & 27. Adopted by implication in 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 33 & 34. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 46. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, and immaterial (as to the ratio). Rejected as contrary to the definition "not normal" and immaterial. 38 & 39. Rejected as argument. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as unnecessary. 43 & 49. Rejected as argument. Laurel Oaks Hospital Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. & 9. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. 10. Adopted in paragraph 18. 11.-21. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The term is "should", not "shall". Adopted in paragraph 15. 36 Adopted in paragraph 13. 37.-40. Adopted in paragraph 16. 41 & 42. Adopted in paragraph 18. 43 & 44. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 45.-47. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. 48 & 49. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 52 - 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55 & 56. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. 57.-61. Rejected as unnecessary or argument. 62.-65. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 23. 66 & 67. Adopted in paragraph 22. 68. Adopted in paragraph 23. 69.-72. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 73 & 74. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 75. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 76.-78. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 30 and 31. Adopted in paragraph 37. 82.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86. Adopted in paragraph 30. 87 & 88. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 and 39. 92.-95 Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 101-112. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 35. 116-121. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Health Management Associates1 Inc:. (HMA) 1. & 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 15 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 18. 20 Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 21. 23 & 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 & 26. Adopted in paragraph 5. 27.-51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52. Adopted in paragraph 35. 53.-55. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 James M. Barclay, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer, Harbert & Bates 225 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly First Florida Bank Building, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32401 C. Gary Williams, Esquire R. Stan Peeler, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Brennan, Jr., Esquire Bonner & O'Connell 900 17th street, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben & Culpepper 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Miller, General Counsel HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
