Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty XII, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in November, 1982 seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. The original estimated cost of the project was $3,108,000; however, due to the passage of time since the original filing, petitioner now anticipates the cost to be $4,488,000. The proposal will be financially guaranteed by Health Quest Corporation, a corporation with principal offices in South Bend, Indiana. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action advising petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The proposed agency action was not introduced into evidence, but based on the stipulation of the parties, the denial was apparently predicated upon the lack of need for any additional beds in Broward County, Florida. The determination of need for nursing home beds is made pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Under the formula contained in that rule, only 101 additional nursing home beds were needed in Broward County, Florida, at the time of final hearing. However, HRS recently granted this allocation of beds to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in DOAH Case No. 83-882, Final Order entered on April 4, 1984. Accordingly, no need for any additional beds exists at the present time under the rule. Petitioner principally contended that non-rule factors must be considered in evaluating its application because Broward County is not "normal" within the meaning of the rule. In this regard, it offered evidence to show that Broward County has the fewest beds per capita of the eleven service districts in the state, that the county has a relatively low use of nursing home services by its indigent population, and that the county has a greater number of Medicaid patients per 1,000 indigent elderly than other counties. From this, it concluded that Broward County is abnormal to the extent that more nursing home services must be made available to the elderly indigent. However, these factors are incorporated within the rule and accordingly taken into account when determining need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty XII for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HEALTH QUEST REALTY XII, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1892 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
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 approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 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 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 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 NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 14, 1983, seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Pasco County, Florida. An amendment of an undisclosed nature was filed by FCC on August 22, 1984, but did not change the number of beds applied for. After reviewing the original application, HRS issued its proposed agency action on February 28, 1984, in the form of a state agency action report in which it advised petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The transmittal letter denying the application offered the following reasons: The nursing homes in Pasco County are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner as demonstrated by an annual occupancy rate of 90.7 percent from March through September, 1983. However, there are 240 nursing home beds that have been approved but have not been constructed at the present time. These beds, when added to the existing nursing home bed supply in Pasco County, will serve to maintain a reasonable subdistrict occupancy level through 1986. The basis for the above decision is contained in the State Agency Action Report. The service area in which FCC proposes to construct its new facility is the Pasco County subdistrict of HRS District 5. In order to determine need, HRS has adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, which contains a formula (or methodology) for determining need at both the district and subdistrict level. Under that formula, HRS is required to utilize the "most recent 6 month nursing home utilization in the subdistrict." In this regard, HRS prepares on an on-going basis an internal document entitled "Quarterly Report" which contains the latest available data over a six-month period. In this proceeding, HRS used a report containing data for the period October, 1983 through March, 1984. This was the most current and complete available data at the time of hearing. According to the methodology in Rule 10-5.11(21), there is a gross need in District 5 for 5,331 nursing home beds. However, there are presently 7,322 licensed and 791 approved beds in the District. Therefore, this results in an excess of 2,782 nursing home beds through the year 1987. In the event there are excessive beds on a district-wide basis, the rule provides a means for establishing a need on a subdistrict level under certain conditions. Additional beds can be added within the subdistrict if the licensed beds in the subdistrict have an average current utilization of 90 percent or higher. If they do not, additional beds cannot be authorized even if a mathematical need is shown under the rule methodology. FCC has computed need requirements for the subdistrict by eliminating the beds of two nursing homes just opened within the last six months, and by using census figures for the month of June, 1984. Based upon these calculations, it results in a need for 99 additional beds and a current utilization rate of 95.7 percent, which exceeds the 90 percent threshold requirement. However, the rule makes no provision for the use of more current data on a selective basis, or the exclusion of such beds from the calculation. FCC also contends Pasco County has an "abnormal" situation caused by an excessive availability of beds in neighboring counties (Pinellas and Hillsborough). It also points out that Pasco is far below the state average for beds per 1000 elderly population. But, again, these factors are taken into account in the agency's rule, and do not constitute special circumstances that would require an exception to the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Pasco County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John F. Gilroy, Legal Intern P.O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300 David Pingree, Secretary Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to construct a 90 bed long term skilled facility near a hospital complex on University Boulevard in Jacksonville, and to offer beds to medicare patients immediately upon opening the facility Only one of the four existing nursing homes on the east side of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville has medicare certification. The existing nursing home in Jacksonville with the greatest number of vacant beds does not yet have medicare certification. Petitioner submitted its application for certificate of need on July 1, 1977. Between July 1, 1970, and July 1, 1977, overall occupancy of available nursing home beds in Jacksonville was between 95 and 97 percent. In April of 1977, Riverside Nursing Home had made 58 new beds available, 95 percent of which were occupied within two and a half months, in August of 1977, Riverside Nursing Home made an additional 58 now beds available. The following month 94.4 percent of the beds at Riverside Nursing Home were occupied. On September 19, 1977, a new 180-bed nursing home, Turtle Creek, opened its doors. At the time of the hearing, 82 of Turtle Creek's beds were occupied, although Turtle Creek, which is located on the northern periphery of Jacksonville, had not received medicare certification. Notwithstanding the filling of these new beds, the number of patients in other Jacksonville nursing homes did not decline appreciably. At the time of the hearing, 90.3 percent of all nursing home beds in Jacksonville were occupied, and all authorized beds were available for occupancy. It takes approximately 22 months after the start of construction to make a nursing home like petitioner proposes to build ready for occupancy. Stays in hospital beds are three or four times more expensive than stays in nursing home beds. At the time of the hearing, some medicare patients were staying in hospitals up to a week and a half after their physicians had authorized their discharge to a nursing home, because beds in medicare certified nursing homes were unavailable. This situation should be ameliorated, at least temporarily, if Turtle Creek obtains medicare certification before its beds are filled by non-medicare patients. On the other hand, social workers employed by Memorial Hospital and Riverside Hospital testified to recently increased numbers of persons requiring placement in nursing homes, upon discharge from their respective hospitals. In the four to six months next preceding the hearing, the number of persons requiring nursing home care when discharged by Memorial Hospital doubled. At the time of the hearing, persons otherwise ready to be discharged from hospitals remained hospitalized for lack of available beds in medicare certified nursing homes. Proximity of nursing homes to their residents' families and friends facilitates visiting, which has a beneficial effect on the health of persons confined to nursing homes. The southeast section of Jacksonville, in which petitioner proposes to construct a nursing home, has a large and growing population. Turtle Creek, which has the biggest block of vacant nursing home beds in Jacksonville, is 15 miles north of petitioner's proposed site. Relevant portions of the 1977 State Medical Facilities Plan (the Plan) were received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 6. The Plan utilizes projected population increases in Duval County in projecting how many nursing home beds will be necessary in order to accommodate everybody who will need one, at a 90 percent occupancy rate. On this basis, a projected need by 1982, of 1,845 nursing home beds for Duval County was incorporated into the Plan. After adoption of the Plan, but before August 10, 1977, the 1,845 figure was changed to 1,921 at the instance of Lloyd Bulme end Ronald Fehr Floyd, employees 01 the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida Area 3, Inc. (HSA). At the time of the hearing, 1,912 or 1,914 nursing home beds, all that had been authorized, were available for occupancy in Duval County. While embodying projections as to how many nursing home beds would be needed in the future so as to assure a 90 percent occupancy rate, the Plan provides for the possibility of error in these projections. Specifically, the Plan allows for the consideration of "extenuating and mitigating circumstances," including "availability": Availability In those instances whereby a capital expenditure/certificate of need proposal is made for a new or expanded facility and whereby it can be demonstrated and documented by the applicant and verified by the HSA and/or OCMF that: similar facilities in the documented service area have been utilized at an optimum rate (85 percent occupancy for acute general hospitals and 90 percent occupancy for nursing homes) for the previous 12 month period; and, there exists a current, unduplicated waiting list within the documented service area for the services to be offered by the new or expanded facility; these factors will be considered in making a determination on the capital expenditure/ certificate of need proposal. Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. In applying the Plan's 90 percent optimum rate formula, the Office of Community Medical Facilities "would certainly consider the open beds, the occupancy during the preceding twelve months of the open, available for use beds, tempered certainly by beds which have been approved but are not yet available." (T1231) Fifty-nine of the nursing home beds in Jacksonville require "[m]odernization," according to the Plan. Petitioner's application for a certificate of need was initially reviewed by a committee" of the HSA. On August 25, 1977, the Health Needs and Priorities Committee voted to recommend approval of petitioner's application, on condition that Jacksonville's nursing homes' occupancy rate not fall below 90 percent for four months once all the authorized nursing home beds became available for occupancy. This consideration was consistent with the local Health Systems Plan's requirement of 90 percent or better occupancy, calculated the basis of all authorized beds, for four months preceding the grant of a certificate of need for additional nursing home beds. Before the Executive Committee of the HSA acted on the Recommendation of the HSA's Health Needs and Priorities Committee, HSA staff were advised by the Office of Community Medical Facilities in Tallahassee that "December 19, 1977 . . . . [was] the latest possible time for a decision Petitioner's exhibit No. 17. Inasmuch as Turtle Creek began operation on September 19, 1977, only three months before "the latest possible time for a decision," there was not to be a four months' trial with all authorized beds available, before HSA's Executive Committee passed on petitioner's application. Instead, HSA staff calculated the occupancy rate by adding all existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville, and all other authorized nursing home beds expected to become available in Jacksonville, and dividing the sum into the number of occupied nursing home beds in Jacksonville less the number of occupied beds in Regency House Center (because the HSA staff did not have Regency House Center "patient data." Petitioner's exhibit No. 6.) This calculation yielded an occupancy rate of 84.4 percent for the four months preceding the date on which petitioner filed its application. Because 84.4 percent was less than 90 percent called for by the Health Systems Plan, the HSA's Executive Committee disapproved petitioner's application. Subsequently, the Office of Community Medical Facilities also acted unfavorably on petitioner's application, for reasons which the evidence adduced at the hearing did not make entirely clear. The foregoing findings of fact should be road in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastmam, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla 1st DCA 1976) , which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for certificate of need. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 77-2243 Paragraphs one, two, five, six, seven, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately report the evidence adduced at the hearing and have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraphs three and four and most of paragraph nineteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact are actually proposed conclusions of law. Paragraph eight of petitioner's proposed findings of fact overstates slightly the number of existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville. The discrepancy between the Health Systems Plan and the State Medical Facilities Plan was 146 beds for the entire area. Paragraph twelve of petitioner's proposed findings or fact has been largely rejected. The evidence did not establish that all 35 beds at Regency House Center were probably full. The charges to the state plan were apparently called to the attention of federal bureaucrats in Atlanta. (T254) Paragraph fifteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact overstates slightly the number of existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville; end is otherwise supported only by the speculative testimony of one witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esq. Rogers, Towers, Dailey, Jones & Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Broward, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), for a certificate of need to construct a 120- bed nursing home in Broward County, Florida. After reviewing the application, respondent issued its proposed agency action in the form of a letter dated January 28, 1983 denying the application on the ground no need for 120 additional nursing home beds was demonstrated under the existing bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. The parties now agree, and have so stipulated, that a numerical need for 101 nursing home beds exists in Broward County at the present time. They have also agreed that petitioner meets all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need for those 101 beds. There are four other pending applications, including a second one by petitioner herein, for nursing home beds in Broward County. These applications were evaluated and denied by HRS in an earlier batching cycle than that of applicant. However, their final hearing was not conducted until after the hearing in this cause. Despite a contention by HRS counsel that under HRS policy or practice an earlier applicant has first priority over a later applicant to any available beds, there was no evidence to support that policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need be granted in part and that it be authorized to construct a 101-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nonprofit corporation located in Lehigh Acres, Lee County, Florida, with a membership of approximately 900 persons. The association's goals are to insure that quality health care services, including, but not limited to, long-term care services, are available to that community. The Community Health Association, Inc., was preceded by a non-profit corporation known as Lehigh Acres General Hospital, Inc. This corporation managed and operated the Lehigh Acres General Hospital, located in Lehigh Acres, Florida. In June, 1981, the corporation sold its license to operate this acute care hospital to Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). HCA took over management of the facility July 1, 1981. HCA is currently leasing the facility from Community Health Association, Inc. HCA applied for and received a Certificate of Need to construct a new hospital in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Construction of this hospital is underway and is to be completed on or about January 1, 1984, at which time HCA will turn the old hospital facility back to Community Health Association. At the time of the licensure sale by Community Health Association (Lehigh Acres General Hospital, Inc.) to HCA, the Lehigh Acres General Hospital operated an 88-bed acute care facility which had utilized, since 1970, 20 of the 88 beds as nursing home beds. In July, 1981, Community Health Association, Inc., filed a letter of intent with Respondent for a 60-bed nursing home to be operated in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Respondent advised Community Health Association, Inc., that its application for a CON was premature due to the pending CON issued to HCA to construct a hospital in Lehigh Acres. In early 1982, Community Health Association, Inc., employed Herman Smith & Associates, of Chicago, Illinois, health care consultants, to perform a long-term study concerning need for a nursing home or nursing home beds in the Lehigh Acres area. On the basis of its study, Herman Smith & Associates recommended that Petitioner seek authority to provide 110 nursing home beds in two phases. The first phase of the project would involve converting the 1970 wing of the previous hospital building for use as a 50-bed nursing unit at a cost of approximately $350,000. The second phase consisting of construction of a 60-bed addition, costing $1,380,000 for 15,527 square feet, would be completed in early 1985. The sale of the license to HCA brought Petitioner $1,000,000. These funds will cover the first phase and part of the second phase costs. Petitioner's prior experience in health care delivery and its community support, along with these financial resources, will enable it to construct and operate the proposed nursing facility. There are no existing or approved nursing homes or nursing home beds to be located in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Except as noted below, all existing and approved nursing home beds are located in western Lee County in Ft. Myers, Cape Coral or in other communities located approximately 30 minutes or more by automobile from Lehigh Acres. Upon completion of construction and abandonment of the old Lehigh Acres hospital building by HCA, the new hospital will discontinue the 20 nursing home beds currently operated. Approximately 75 percent of this hospital's patients are Lehigh Acres residents, with few if any patients from Ft. Myers or western Lee County. All the nursing home referrals from the new hospital will be required to leave Lehigh Acres unless Petitioner's proposed nursing home is constructed. Petitioner filed a letter of intent with Respondent, followed by an application for a CON on or about October 1, 1982, proposing the project as recommended by Herman Smith & Associates. Following the submission of the instant application, Respondent adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which became effective on November 9, 1982. That rule establishes the "Methodology to Determine and Calculate the Need for Community Nursing Home Beds" in a service district. About January 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that its application for a 110-bed nursing home in Lehigh Acres was denied as not consistent with the Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., nursing home bed need methodology. Respondent's State Agency Action Report stated that "A need does not exist to add nursing home beds in Lee County through 1985. There are 347 approved but not constructed beds in the county. The bed need methodology produces an excess of 494 nursing home beds in the county through 1985." The State Agency Action Report reflected 970 existing and approved nursing home beds in Lee County. The report also projected a need for 1,400 community nursing home beds for the year 1985 in Lee County. The testimony of its author established that the same portion of the rule applied to 1986 protected population figures would yield a need for 1,522 beds in Lee County in 1986. At the time Petitioner's application was evaluated by Respondent, nursing homes in Lee County had an average 95.8 percent occupancy rate. Based on the application of the current utilization formula contained in Chapter 10-5.11(21), F.A.C., Respondent calculated that 494 excess nursing home beds in Lee County are licensed or approved. Projected population of persons age 65 and over living in Lee County in 1985 is 60,463 and ir 1986 is 65,708. The application of these population figures to the formula contained in Ch. 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., yields a nursing home bed need in Lee County for 1985 of 1,400 and for 1986 of 1,522. As noted above, there are currently 970 licensed and approved nursing home beds in Lee County. The "Nursing Home Plan Component" of the Local Health Plan of the District Eight Health Council of Sarasota, Florida, of which Lee County is a portion, adopted June 29, 1983, indicates a need for 501 additional beds in Lee County for the year 1986. In applying Rule 10-5.11(21), F.A.C., Respondent's determination was subject to two errors. The first, a mathematical error, caused a miscalculation of beds which could be added in Lee County using current patient count data and avoid falling below the desired 80 percent occupancy rate. The formula, properly applied, indicates there would be 239 excess beds rather than the 494 shown in the State Agency Action Report. The second error concerns Respondent's failure to reconcile and compare the determinations made under the need methodology contained in paragraph (b) of the rule and other portions of the rule, particularly the current utilization sections contained in subparagraphs (d) and (f). Section 10-5.11(21)(f), F.A.C., stated that "consideration of applications for additional nursing home beds will be premised on both the projected need for new bed capacity and current utilization." (emphasis added) The requirement for additional nursing home beds based on the projected need for new bed capacity, as well as current utilization, establishes a need for the 110 beds proposed by Petitioner. Further, the proposed location is consistent with the goal of accessibility and community need in Lehigh Acres.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald A. Labasky, Esquire Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 318 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James M. Barclay, Esquire DeparLment of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about January 7, 1981, HCM was issued CON No. 1616, authorizing construction of a 78-bed nursing home facility to be located in Lee County, Florida. HCM has commenced construction of this project on a 120-bed frame. Subsequently, HCM applied to HRS for a CON for an additional 42 nursing home beds to be added to the above-described project. By letter dated April 28, 1983, HRS informed HCM of its intent to deny HCM's application for the additional 42 nursing home beds on the grounds that the proposed project was not consistent with the nursing home bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Lee County has been established as a specific subdistrict of HRS District VIII for determination of nursing home bed need. Rule 10-5.11(21)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The record in this cause establishes a percentage of 8.61 of elderly living in poverty in Lee County, as compared to a percentage of 12.70 statewide. There exists a statewide bed need of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population age 65 years and older. Finally, a population of 65,703 is projected for Lee County in 1986. When these factors are combined in accordance with the need methodology formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), a need of 1,203 community nursing home beds is established for Lee County in 1986. When this same calculation is made districtwide, using a projected 1986 population for District VIII of 201,392 age 65 and older, a need for 3,686 community nursing home beds results. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 748 existing licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County, and an additional 222 such beds which had previously been approved by HRS. When the total of 970 existing and approved beds are subtracted from the 1986 projected bed need in Lee County, a net bed need of 233 beds results for 1986. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 3,335 existing licensed community nursing home beds in District VIII, and an additional 1,337 which had been approved. The total of 4,512 existing and approved community nursing home beds in District VIII exceeds the need in District VIII according to the requirements of Rule 10-5.11(21) by 824 beds. Where, as here, the evidence establishes that a subdistrict indicates a need for additional bed capacity, but the district as a whole shows no additional need, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(f)2, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a current utilization threshold of 90 percent or higher in the subdistrict. In this case, the evidence establishes that the appropriate current utilization rate for Lee County is 91.5 percent. In addition, Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires a prospective base rate of utilization of 80 percent when the need methodology indicates a subdistrict need and the lack of need in the district as a whole. The evidence in this cause establishes an average Lee County patient census of 684, and 970 currently licensed and approved community nursing home beds which must be factored together with HCM's request for an additional 42 beds. When the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(g) is applied to this data, the prospective utilization rate is 67.6 percent, which fails to meet the threshold 80 percent requirement contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2. HCM apparently does not contest the results of the application of the bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), but instead argues that the results of the formulae should not be applied to its application because of the existence of exceptional circumstances in Lee County. In this regard, HCM adduced testimony attempting to establish an historical imbalance between the number of community nursing home beds located in Lee and Sarasota Counties, purportedly necessitating the placement of Lee County residents receiving Medicaid or assistance from the Veterans Administration 70 to 100 miles from their families, or continuing hospitalization of those patients in a more costly acute care facility. It is specifically concluded, that the record in this cause fails to contain any competent, credible evidence to establish that Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County have been so historically underserved as to merit the granting of the 42 additional nursing home beds requested by HCM. Further, even if this were not the case, HCM has failed to establish that the 222 additional community nursing home beds approved for Lee County will not adequately serve the interests of Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County in 1986. Rule 10-5.11(21) purports on its face to account for the needs of the elderly over 65 years of age living in poverty, and this record contains no showing that the rule in any way underestimates that need.
