Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Clearwater Land Company (CLC) is a Florida corporation which owns, operates, and is the license holder of the Regency Oaks Continuing Care Retirement Community (Retirement Community) and Regency Oaks Nursing Center (Regency Oaks) located in Clearwater, Florida. The Johnson Ezell Corporation is a closely held private corporation owned by two shareholders who are also shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell provides management, financial services, data processing services, collective purchasing, and other aspects of management for CLC. CLC and Johnson Ezell Corporation are affiliates; two shareholders of Johnson Ezell comprise two out of the four shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell is also the contract manager of CLC. Three of the four shareholders of CLC own 100 percent of two other large continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) in Florida. One of these communities, located in Port Charlotte, is known as South Port Square. A second retirement community, Lake Port Square, is in the mid-development stage in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. Typically, CCRCs offer a broad spectrum of services or a continuum of care ranging from independent living apartments, to assisted living, to skilled nursing which often includes home health care. South Port Square has 440 independent living apartments in which the holders of continuing care agreements reside. South Port also has a 120-bed community skilled nursing facility, originally CON approved in 1984. There are 140 additional units of assisted living. The first phase of the 240 independent living units opened in October of 1987, and the second and final phase of 200 continuing care apartments opened in October of 1990. Lake Port Square currently has 200 continuing care apartments with 205 additional apartments currently under construction. Lake Port also has a 60-bed skilled nursing facility which was originally licensed as a sheltered nursing home facility. It is now a licensed community nursing home. Lake Port also has 35 units of assisted living. Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. The Beverly family of companies operates 838 nursing homes in 48 states. It is the largest provider of long-term care services in the country. Beverly Savana Cay Manor will receive substantial financial, managerial, operational and program support from Beverly Enterprises Florida's regional office. These are specific services which will be available to Beverly's proposed project from its parent's Florida regional office: A nurse consultant who is a former director of nursing will monitor the overall performance of the nursing staff and will assist in maintaining quality assurance and proper staffing patterns; a registered dietician will provide consulting dietary services; and a financial consultant will monitor and assist with the orientation of staff on all financial matters, including implementation of the billing system for Medicare and Medicaid. An area manager who is a licensed nursing home administrator will coordinate the support services. Other consulting services available through the Florida regional office include: an activities consultant, a trained social services consultant, a rehabilitation program coordinator, a rehabilitation clinical coordinator, an accounting-finance department, and a quality assurance department that conducts inspections and reviews the facility's compliance with governmental requirements. The regional maintenance department will oversee the care and maintenance of the physical plant. The regional purchasing department coordinates purchases of food, chemicals, and other items more economically purchased in large volumes. The human resources department assists in the implementation of uniform personnel and wage policies, the training of supervisory and managerial personnel, and the monitoring of facility participation in government programs. CLC Project: Regency Oaks CLC filed two CON applications: In CON Application No. 7503 (now withdrawn), it requested approval of a new 120-bed community nursing home through the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 60 community nursing home beds. CLC also filed CON Application No. 7503P, the subject of this de novo review, to convert Regency Oaks Nursing Center's 60 sheltered nursing home beds to 60 community nursing home beds. CLC's project calls for a reclassification of existing services and assets. There is no capital required, no renovation costs, and no new equipment. The project basically involves moving from one state classification category to another, i.e., sheltered nursing home beds to community nursing home beds. The project under consideration involves Regency Oaks Nursing Center, a 60-bed facility which commenced operations and was licensed in August of 1991. Regency Oaks is a part of a 40-acre campus. The Regency Oaks Retirement Community has approximately 200 units located in a separate five-story structure which also commenced operations in August or September of 1991. There are an additional 201 independent living units in a separate phase that is also located in a separate five-story structure on the campus that is currently under construction. When fully developed, the retirement community's independent living units will be roughly equivalent in size and substantially the same as the operations at its sister communities at Lake Port and South Port. Sheltered nursing home beds are often located in a CCRC. A continuing care provider is authorized to provide a certain number of sheltered nursing home beds based upon the number of independent living apartments that are being constructed, operated and licensed pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Chapter 651 first authorized CCRC's to apply for and receive sheltered nursing home beds in 1986. A CCRC is regulated by statute and markets and provides services pursuant to a continuing care agreement in which the continuing care resident is provided with shelter, food, and some element of health care in exchange for a specified lump sum payment of money and the payment of a monthly maintenance or service fee. The business was largely unregulated until major revisions were incorporated into Chapter 651. Pursuant to section 651.118(4), Florida Statutes, Regency Oaks originally applied for and was granted a CON to construct a 60-bed sheltered nursing home based upon the ratio of one sheltered nursing home bed for every four residential units in the retirement community. The prevailing wisdom in the early 1980's, when Chapter 651 was enacted, held that the 1:4 ratio was appropriate. The underlying assumption was the utilization of the sheltered nursing homes by the residents in the retirement community on a 1:4 ratio should result in a fully occupied and financially feasible nursing center. The ratio also ensured that residents could gain access to nursing home care. In the last half of the 1980's the prevailing wisdom held that the 1:4 ratio was still appropriate but only after allowing for several years of "aging in place" by the residents of the retirement community. To provide needed occupancy during the initial years of operation, subsection 651.118(7) allows the sheltered nursing home to admit residents from outside the resident community for a period of up to five years from the date of the issuance of the original license. For the first five years of operation, the nursing home beds are available to residents and nonresidents of the senior living community. However, at the end of the five year period, the nursing home is not allowed to accept any additional patients from outside the senior living facility because residents alone are expected to need the beds. In 1986, CLC had no intention of converting its CON approved beds to community nursing home beds. For several reasons, including the general health of retirement community residents and their willingness to pay for home health services in order to stay in their own apartment, the 1:4 ratio is no longer a reasonable projection of sheltered nursing home bed need. In the last two years at Regency Oaks, there was an average daily census of 3.5 to 5 patients in Regency Oaks originating from the independent living facility. Of the 200 units, an average daily census of 5 patients converts to a 1:40 ratio rather than the 1:4 ratio that was included in the sheltered bed model. Currently over 90 percent of Regency Oaks' patient days are patients who do not live in the senior housing facility. Without the approval of this project, by September 1996, Regency Oaks will no longer be able to admit outside community residents. Based upon current and projected ratios, this will have an impact on the ability of Regency Oaks to continue to operate in an economical and financially feasible manner. CLC's experience at South Port Square illustrates this problem. The first phase of South Port's independent living apartments has been in operation for 7.5 years. Phase Two has been in operation more than 4.5 years. The demographics of the population area served by Regency Oaks and South Port are almost identical. The South Port community has had 7.5 years to "age in place." For the first ten months of South Port's 1994 fiscal year, 27 percent of the patient days of the South Port's 120-bed skilled nursing center were attributable to contractual requirements of residents of the independent living apartments. Twenty-three percent of the patient days were attributable to campus residents (non- contractual) who were either private pay or some other source of payment. At the top end of the scale, Regency Oaks expects to experience between 25 percent to 30 percent, and up to 40 percent, of its admissions from independent living apartments on campus. CLC does not intend to apply for new sheltered nursing home beds to complement the additional 201 independent living units now under construction. According to its qualified health care planning expert, Mark Richardson, at full build-out, CLC will need to hold (at the high end of the range) 30 beds to fulfill its contractual obligations to its life care residents. (Transcript, pp. 332-3) At full build-out, the approximately 400 independent living units will house 550 to 600 residents, all eligible for nursing home care, when needed, under their continuing care agreements. Beverly's Project: New Crown Beverly proposes a new, 120-bed community nursing home in the Seminole Park area of Pinellas County (New Crown) using 66 beds from the fixed need pool and 54 beds made available from the delicensure of its existing Crown Nursing Center (Old Crown). Granted by CON No. 7505, Old Crown originally was constructed as a motel in the 1940's and has been a nursing home since the 1960's. Although Old Crown currently holds a superior license, the facility is outmoded and is reaching the end of its useful life as a nursing home. There is no room to expand or renovate the existing physical plant, and it is perpetually in need of costly repairs. It is not in compliance with modern building codes and is allowed to continue to operate only by virtue of grandfather clauses. Resident rooms are undersized, and corridors are only 5.5 feet wide rather than the 8 feet currently required. Room doors are narrower than those required in new facilities and will not accommodate moveable beds. Bathroom doors will not accommodate wheelchairs, and there is no central air conditioning. The floor plan also is inconsistent with modern nursing home standards. The building is multistory with outside stairs. This configuration is highly undesirable because it restricts the freedom of movement of residents who are physically impaired, makes it difficult to monitor resident movement, requires extra nursing stations, and slows evacuation in an emergency. Old Crown has one four-bed ward and eight three-bed wards. Space limitations at times require that men and women reside in the same ward. There is no room for specialized services such as adult day care, subacute services or separate Alzheimer's care. Nursing stations are undersized and medical/chemical supplies must be kept in an outdoor shed. Laundry space is inadequate, and linens must be stored outside and in hallways. One room serves as the employee break room, the uniform storage room and the beauty parlor. The kitchen is too small and there is inadequate food storage. The dining area is located in the old motel lobby. Outdoor activities must be conducted in the back parking lot and there is no outdoor ambulation/recreation space. There is only one small space for physical, occupational and speech therapy, requiring that therapies sometimes be administered in hallways or bedside. This arrangement is particularly undesirable for residents receiving speech therapy, as they tend to be self- conscious about their inability to speak, eat and swallow. There is only one activities room, and it is located on the second floor. The second floor contains asbestos, and removal would require the evacuation of the entire second floor. In contrast, New Crown will meet or exceed all existing licensure requirements for construction and safety codes. It will contain 53,310 square feet of space on a single story, and is designed to optimize operational efficiency, minimize institutional effects, and emphasize a home-like atmosphere. All areas within the facility will meet federal guidelines for handicapped accessibility and use. Corridors will be 8 feet wide, and the doors to resident rooms will accommodate moveable beds. These features will eliminate the movement, monitoring and safety shortcomings inherent in Old Crown's two- story motel floor plan. There will be plenty of storage, a modern kitchen and laundry facility. Residents at New Crown will reside only in private and double occupancy semi-private rooms. Each room will feature private toilets, telephone, cable T.V., and individual thermostat controls. Homelike furnishings will be used throughout the facility. There will be two large day rooms adjacent to the nursing stations with access to three enclosed outdoor courtyards, a large restaurant-like dining area, a secured patio and an activity room. The day rooms will have aquariums, large screen televisions and VCRs. A large solarium/greenhouse will be located adjacent to the dining area. AHCA's approval of Beverly's application for New Crown is expressly contingent on the approval of expedited CON application 7505 to delicense Old Crown. This CON has been granted. Beverly will not allow operation of the two facilities to overlap. Old Crown will remain fully operational until New Crown is operational and placement is made for every Old Crown resident. Beverly will transfer Old Crown residents to New Crown, and will assist residents who choose not to move to New Crown in making whatever other arrangements the resident chooses. No resident will be "put out on the street." Compliance With The Local Health Plan The Health Council of West Central Florida, Inc. has identified three preferences, the first of which is a preference to new nursing homes which commit to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the "health service area." That relevant average (subdistrict) is 55.32 percent. Beverly commits to 56 percent total Medicaid days for New Crown; Old Crown is at 59.24 percent; and other Beverly facilities have a high record of Medicaid services (nationally at 68.5 percent, and in Florida an average of 66 percent). CLC commits to 31.58 percent, which is a reasonable expectation since the Medicaid days will be generated primarily, if not exclusively, from patients drawn from the community at large and not from the independent living facility. CLC's Regency Oaks market is dominated by residents and potential residents from a narrow service area with higher financial resources than the southern end of Pinellas County. The second allocation factor gives a preference to applicants who propose specialized services, including adult day care, to meet identified needs. Beverly has conditioned its application on the provision of a wide range of specialized services. New Crown will provide distinct subacute care in a 20-bed Medicare certified subacute unit with four ventilator-dependent beds, and comprehensive rehabilitation in a 3,404 square foot physical therapy site with physical therapy gym, hydrotherapy area, "activities of daily living" room and outdoor ambulation court. It also will provide adult day care services in a 987-square foot Adult Day Care Center, Alzheimer's care in an 18-bed Alzheimer's wing that includes separate dining/activity areas and an enclosed courtyard, respite care services, care to individuals with mental disorders, care to individuals who are HIV+ or who have AIDS, and hospice care. Beverly also will make a $10,000 grant to Florida State University School of Nursing for research into gerontological issues in the nursing home environment and will make its facility available to nursing students for clinical rotations. CLC proposes intensive rehabilitation services, respite care, subacute care, hospice care and care to mental health patients. Its current facility has not provided respite care and it does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients. The third local health plan allocation factor gives preference to applicants who demonstrate an intent to serve HIV-infected patients. Both applicants commit to provide AIDS and HIV-positive health care. Beverly has documented its experience with these patients at its Old Crown and other facilities. CLC simply has stated that it does not discriminate in admissions of these patients; it also asserts that it has no idea which, if any, of its patients have been HIV-positive or AIDS patients since that information is not disclosed by the patient. Compliance With The State Health Plan The State Health Plan contains twelve allocation factors. Factor 1 gives preference to applicants locating in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Pinellas County's occupancy rate of 90.23 percent qualifies both Beverly and CLC. Allocation Factor 2 gives preference to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents at the subdistrict Medicaid average. Exceptions are considered for applicants who propose the development of multi-level care systems. The applicants' Medicaid commitments are addressed above in paragraphs 23 and 24. The applicants' experts disagree on whether the Regency Oaks facility is truly "multi-level," as contemplated by the exception. The availability of different levels of care: independent living, assisted living and nursing home, on a single campus does represent a "multi-level" care system. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 3 gives preference to applicants proposing specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Both applicants, as discussed in paragraphs 26-28, above, have described in detail their proposals for specialized services. Beverly's experience in the past and specific plans for discrete subacute, ventilator-dependent and Alzheimer's units lend credibility to its commitment to those specialized services. CLC's commitment is more general. Its proposed staffing is too low to provide the level of care proposed for New Crown's subacute unit, but its staffing would be increased as needed by the patient population. Regency Oaks has 12 Medicare certified skilled nursing beds in the general nursing home population. None can accommodate a ventilator- dependent patient. Allocation 4 encourages a continuum of services, including adult day care and respite care. Both applicants propose to meet this requirement of the State Health Plan. Again, Beverly's commitment is evidenced by a specific description of discrete programs, while CLC's plans are more general. CLC contends that there is "insufficient demand" in the area to support adult day care; Beverly proposes a 987 square foot "Adult Day Care Center" with its own staff, staff office and storage, to accommodate up to 8 guests, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., five days a week. Day care guests will have an individual care plan prepared by professional staff and will have access to the full facility and its recreational, therapeutic and social services. Beverly will implement a respite program at New Crown and has such programs at its other facilities. CLC offers respite care but has never had a respite care patient. Allocation Factor 5 gives preference to applicants proposing facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care. Both applicants qualify for this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Both applicants propose therapeutic programs consistent with Allocation Factor 6. Specialized rehabilitation, restorative care and normalizing training are described in both applications and are committed to by the applicants. Both propose a more aggressive, intensive rehabilitation than other nursing homes in the area. The highest Medicaid per diem rate in Pinellas County is $100.74 (January, 1994). Inflated forward to 1996, the planning horizon, that rate becomes $113.00. New Crown's proposed rate of $100.14, and Regency Oaks' proposed rate of $102.75 (for 1995) do not exceed that highest rate (even when Regency Oaks' rate is inflated 5 percent for 1996). Both applicants are entitled to the preference in Allocation Factor 7. Both applicants qualify for the preference under Allocation Factor 8, as both enjoy the highest (superior) rating. Three of Beverly's four facilities, including Old Crown, currently hold superior licenses, and the fourth has been recommended for a superior license. Regency Oaks was eligible for a superior license shortly after issuance of its original license and actually received the superior license, after some logistical mix-up, in December of 1994. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 9 gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. As a well-run existing facility Regency Oaks maintains appropriate staffing levels. The staffing proposed in its application omits one certified nurse assistant (CNA) on the 11:00 to 7:00 shift. The director of nursing monitors the patient population to assure that staff is added when needed. Beverly's proposed staffing plainly meets or exceeds standards, including statutory and regulatory requirements at all levels. Both Beverly and CLC use professionals from a variety of disciplines and both are entitled to the preference described in State Health Plan Allocation Factor 10. Likewise, both applications describe, and the applicants' experience bears out, a respect for residents' rights and privacy and a well- designed quality assurance and discharge planning program, as required in Allocation Factor 11. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 12 gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average nursing home costs in the district. As conceded by Beverly's expert health care planner, both applicants meet this preference criteria; however, Beverly's proposed administrative costs are lower, and patient costs are higher, than CLC's. Need and the Availability of Alternatives Nursing home occupancy rates in District V, subdistrict 2, Pinellas County, currently exceed 90 percent, and the need for 68 more nursing home beds in this district is undisputed. Evidence in this proceeding also established the need for such specialized services as subacute care (sometimes referred to as "step down" care), adult day care, HIV/AIDS care, Alzheimer's care and mental health care. Both applicants propose to meet a portion of the numerical need: Beverly with 66 new beds; and CLC with 60 beds converted from sheltered to community beds. Beverly's project more closely meets the numerical need; CLC concedes that some, and perhaps as many as 30, of its beds will be utilized by the residents of its independent living community. Both applicants propose outstanding programs for subacute care and other specialized services. As discussed above, Beverly's actual experience lends greater credibility to its commitment. Maintenance of the status quo in either case is not a viable alternative. Old Crown is only 54 beds; as of 1996, none of Regency Oaks' sheltered beds will be available for new community admissions. Without approval of one application or the other, the 68 bed need will remain wholly unmet. Availability of Resources, Including Staffing and Short-Term Funds Regency Oaks maintains a recruitment and staff development program designed to attract pools of qualified applicants for each personnel vacancy which occurs at the facility. This program has been effective in the recruitment and retention of high quality nurses and other professionals. Regency Oaks also maintains effective staff training and competency enhancement programs. The facility has a solid core staff in place. The parties have stipulated that Beverly will be able to hire the staff it needs at the proposed salaries and that Beverly's proposed recruitment plan career ladder, incentives and opportunities for advancement and efforts to recruit disciplines in short supply are reasonable and capable of being accomplished by the applicant. New Crown has the advantage of access to a statewide network of consultants who will draw from the expertise and resources of the Beverly companies. Since Regency Oaks is already built and in place, very little additional financial resources are needed in the short-term. The incremental project costs of $22,000 filing fee and $15,000 in consulting fees have already been expended. Whether it is a "zero cost" project or whether its cost should include the construction of the facility in 1991 for $2,634,441, as suggested by Beverly, CLC has the financial resources for short-term support of the project. Beverly likewise will be able to finance its total project cost of $6,361,751. Beverly's parent company has committed its substantial resources, including $80 million cash on hand, to finance the project. An issue arose in this proceeding regarding Beverly's failure to include on Schedule 2 of its application three nursing home facilities which it acquired on January 13, 1994. Two facilities, Old Crown and Beach Convalescent Center, were transferred to Beverly from its sister corporation, Petersen Health Care, Inc. The third facility, Clewiston Health Care Center, was transferred to Beverly from its "grandparent," Beverly California Corporation. Change of ownership applications addressing the transfers were filed with AHCA on October 15, 1993. CLC contends that these inter-company transfers involved expenditures that were "capital projects" within the meaning of section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore, Beverly should have included them on its Schedule 2. CLC introduced a closing statement and two deeds from the Beach and Old Crown change of ownership files in an attempt to suggest that Beverly had purchased the facilities in exchange for cash payments. Beverly established, however, that it gave no value of any kind in exchange for the transfers, which were accomplished simply by changing the corporate name on each facility's general ledger. Beverly prepared the documents in question only after the AHCA indicated that it would not approve the change of ownership applications until it received closing statements and deeds. No long-term debt was transferred, and each transferred facility had a positive asset value net of accumulated depreciation and amortization. Consequently, the transfers resulted in permanent additions to Beverly's equity (i.e. plant, property and equipment) valued at $3,882,033. Future Beverly audited financial statements will reflect the transfers as additions to paid-in capital. The operational assets of each facility far exceeded the operational liabilities (e.g. accounts payable) of each facility, and Beverly received net working capital in the total amount of $600,116. For reimbursement purposes, the transfers were treated as "related party transfers" and did not result in any change in Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates. Beverly California Corporation paid all the incidental expenses associated with the transfers such as application and legal fees. Beverly would not capitalize these expenses. Contrary to CLC's contention, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) statements 11 and 14 do not require that these transfers be treated as "capital expenditures." FASB Statement 11 deals with accounting for contingencies, and does not offer any insight into the proper characterization of the intercompany transfers at issue here. FASB Statement 14 requires that financial statements of a business enterprise include information about its "segments," i.e., operations representing at least 10 percent of the company's total revenues. There is no evidence that Beverly is a "segment," nor does FASB 14 define "expenditure" or "capital expenditure." FASB Statement 14 mentions capital expenditures only once. Paragraph 27 is titled "Other Related Disclosures." Paragraph 27(b) requires that "information for reportable segments shall be made as follows: . . . Disclosure shall be made of the amount of each reportable segment's capital expenditures, i.e., additions to its property, plant and equipment." (Transcript, pp. 623) This passing reference does not define capital expenditures for all purposes, or require that all additions to plant property and equipment be characterized as capital expenditures. Paragraph 27(b) of FASB Statement 14 merely advises accountants that the financial statement of a company must disclose the capital expenditures --- as opposed to expense items --- that a reportable segment of the company has made. Read in context, the reference to additions to plant, property and equipment is meant only as an example of transactions that, under circumstances not defined in FASB 14, might involve a capital expenditure. In the universe of additions to plant property and equipment, some may involve capital expenditures. However, the transfers here at issue demonstrate that a company can obtain additions to plant, property and equipment without incurring any expenditure at all. FASB Statement 6, at paragraph 66, provides that an increase in the equity of a business entity resulting from the transfer to it of something of value to obtain or increase an equity interest in the entity is considered an investment by owners, not an expenditure by the receiving entity. Health Care Financial Management Association Principles and Practices Board Statement No. 12 similarly would characterize the transfers at issue as equity investments by affiliated companies, not expenditures. This is the proper characterization of the transactions between Beverly and its affiliated companies. The equity contributions of its affiliated companies made Beverly a financially stronger and wealthier entity that was more capable of undertaking the proposed project, and did not involve an expenditure of any kind on the part of Beverly, and therefore cannot be characterized as "capital projects" according to credible, competent expert opinion. AHCA's sample Schedule 2 form does not provide a place to list the receipt of equity, but rather asks only for "expenditures." Had Beverly incorrectly included the transfers as "expenditures" in its Schedule 2, it would have had to show them as negative expenditures, thereby reducing the total amount of reported capital projects and improving Beverly's reported financial position. Upon inquiry, AHCA properly advised Beverly that since the transfers did not involve any expenditures by the applicant, it should not disclose them. Accessibility To All Residents of the Service District Regency Oaks has never turned away a Medicaid or other patient based on payor status and affirmatively accepts patients regardless of ability to pay. Regency Oaks also accepts AIDS/HIV patients, Alzheimer's and other specialty needs patients. Beverly also has this type of "open door" policy. Its experience, however, as discussed above, has been more successful in attracting and serving Medicaid patients and patients with special needs. As an integral part of a beautifully designed, upscale retirement community, Regency Oaks has not drawn the payor mix that Old Crown and its sister facilities have served. As the residents of the independent living units age in place and increase in number with completion of the additional units, accessibility to all residents of the service district is diminished, not enhanced, if the conversion from sheltered to community beds is approved for Regency Oaks. Long Term Financial Feasibility Review of financial feasibility of Regency Oaks is simplified by the fact that it has actual operating experience to support its projections. Opened in Fall 1991, the nursing home, as typically expected, showed losses for the first few years. It turned a profit in 1993. Regency Oaks has the necessary resources to continue to operate the continuing care apartments as well as the nursing home with net operating income, including net operating income from the completion and opening of the new 200 independent living units and further supplemented by the resources of the shareholders of CLC. The four CLC shareholders are personal guarantors on the mortgage indebtedness of all the property at Regency Oaks. Their net worth is in excess of $60 million and cash reserve is greater than $10 million. If the CON is approved and Regency Oaks is permitted to accept community bed patients it will be financially healthy. If, however, the facility is restricted in 1996 and the beds will be filled only from its continuing care units, the nursing home will become financially stressed. Neil Ezell, the corporate representative of CLC and chief financial officer for the Johnson Ezell Corporation, acknowledges the difficulty in making a profit in a smaller 60-bed nursing home because of the high fixed administrative costs. If the high-end estimate that 30 beds will be filled from the continuing care facility is accurate, Regency Oaks will be operating at 50 percent capacity in 1996 or shortly thereafter. The contractual obligations to Regency Oaks residents would still be honored in some fashion, but with substantial difficulty. Absent CON approval, Regency Oaks' cost per patient day will increase and will negatively impact Medicare since Medicare is a cost-based reimbursement system for skilled nursing facilities. Beverly's proposal for a new 120-bed facility at New Crown is financially more efficient than either Regency Oaks or the existing 54-bed Old Crown facility, even considering the $6,361,751.00 total project cost. The old facility is too dated and too small to be efficiently operated much longer. The 120-bed proposal meets the need for new beds and effectively puts to rest the old well-used beds. The patients at New Crown will come from the community at large and will also be transferred from the existing Crown facility. The projected utilization is reasonable and the projected pre-tax net income of approximately $299,000.00 at the end of the second year is likewise realistic. The proposal is financially feasible. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND BALANCING THE CRITERIA Both applicants presented outstanding proposals. There is no question that they have provided, and will continue to provide, superior quality of care in attractive, well-equipped and well-staffed facilities. Beverly's proposal enjoys the financial "economies of scale" advantage of a larger facility; CLC's proposal is financially appealing because it requires little or no additional start-up expenditures. Beverly effectively countered CLC's assertions that the application was defective for failure to include the three recently-acquired facilities as "capital expenditures". Beverly also appropriately addressed CLC's claim that it failed to consider the transfer of Old Crown residents in its projected utilization of beds at the new 120-bed facility. Approval of Beverly's application for 120 beds will not result in approval of an excess of beds left in the fixed need pool. Approval is conditioned on approval of delicensure. The old and new facilities will not be concurrently licensed. It strains common sense to find that the concurrent approval and delicensure process should somehow result in creating a need in some future planning horizon, rather than the immediate planning horizon. Both applicants avow their commitment to serve Medicaid and specialty needs population and to remain accessible to persons regardless of ability to pay. Beverly's commitment is underscored with an existing record of service and with its willingness to accept conditions of approval. More troubling than the Medicaid and special needs accessibility issue, however, is the concern that CLC's existing 60-bed facility at Regency Oaks will, upon conversion, fall substantially short of meeting the need for 68 beds. Its continuing care community is expanding and the demand for nursing home beds by that population will increase. Somewhere between 10 and 30 beds will be filled, leaving only 30 to 50 beds available to the population at large. CLC's financial dilemma is the result of a considered decision to build 60 sheltered nursing home beds to support a 200 unit continuing care facility. The only explanation in the record for exceeding the 1:4 ratio is that initially the plan was for 240 units. Even with 50, rather than 60 sheltered beds, the facility would have problems, since the prevailing wisdom based on actual utilization experience is that far fewer sheltered beds are needed. Although the anticipated financial dilemma will have some impact on Medicare reimbursement in the Regency Oaks' facility, there is no major health care planning impact from denial of the conversion. The impact is facility- specific and was at least partially foreseeable five years ago. That is, the statute, then as now, provided a fixed 5-year period for the use of sheltered care beds by the community at large. Balancing of the criteria and weighing the evidence results in a finding that Beverly's, rather than CLC's, application should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order denying Clearwater Land Company's application for CON #7503P and approving Beverly Savana Cay, Inc.'s application for CON #7508, conditioned upon 56 percent of patient days of care to Medicaid residents, and appropriate specific conditions for a ventilator-dependent unit, respite care, adult day care, Alzheimer's unit, and AIDS/HIV+ care. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Clearwater Land Company's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. and 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. 6. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 9. and 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 72. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. - 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 64. and 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Covered in Preliminary Statement. Covered in Conclusions of Law, paragraph 79. and 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. and 35. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 17 and 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 23 and 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 28. and 40. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in substance in paragraph 37. and 50. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 39. - 55. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 56. and 57. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 47 and 64. 58. and 59. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected, as to the comparative conclusion; otherwise accepted generally. - 64. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 62. - 71. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64, except as to the impact if Beverly is approved. That finding is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. and 75. Adopted generally in paragraphs 64 and 65. Accepted, as to no impact on existing providers; rejected, as to impact by Beverly. Adopted in paragraph 67 (as to Beverly's cost). - 82. Rejected generally as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 10. - 86. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Findings regarding the high quality of care and range of services are addressed above. 95. and 96. Adopted in part in paragraph 37; the one staffing omission was conceded by CLC's director of nursing. 97. - 99. Adopted in substance in paragraph 45. 100. - 117. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 118. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Beverly's Proposed Findings Addressed in Preliminary Statement. and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 9 and 12. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. and 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 70. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 51. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in substance in paragraph 53, although the testimony was related to both Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 56. Adopted in paragraph 57. and 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted generally in paragraph 24. Adopted generally in paragraph 26. Adopted generally in paragraph 27. Adopted generally in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted generally in paragraph 30, although "multi-level" was not defined, and CLC's assertion that it is a "multi-level" facility is generally accepted. Adopted in paragraph 31. - 64. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as to the characterization of CLC's rate; otherwise adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. and 68. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 69. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 38, except as to the conclusion that CLC does not meet the preference. 71. and 72. Adopted in part; rejected in part in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraphs 40 and 75. - 100. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 101. Adopted generally in paragraphs 72 and 73. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Griffin, Esq. Charles A. Stampelos, Esq. MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 600 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esq. Michael Manthei, Esq. BROAD & CASSEL 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 400 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Samuel D. Bunton, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium Building, Ste. 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32309 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Bldg. 3, Ste. 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
The Issue The ultimate issue, by comparative hearing, is which applicant has submitted an application best meeting the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code. STIPULATIONS At the formal hearing, all parties stipulated that, as a matter of law and fact, there are 60 nursing hone beds needed to be allocated to one of the parties in these proceedings; that the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c)(4), (6), (10), and (11) Florida Statutes were not applicable to this case and that the parties need not demonstrate compliance therewith.
Findings Of Fact The stipulations immediately above are adopted in toto as a finding of fact. (See January 30, 1984 Order herein). It is typically more cost-efficient to add 60 beds to an existing nursing home than to construct a free-standing 60-bed nursing home. In comparing competing projects' costs, total cost per bed (including financing, development, and construction costs) is a more accurate indicator of true financial cost of a project than is cost per square foot. Also, cost per bed is more accurate reflection of what the community must pay for a nursing facility than cost per square foot, since cost per bed takes into account the financing, developing, and construction costs. By comparison, BEVERLY's cost per bed is $19,000, FLC's cost per bed is 21,083 and FLNC's cost per bed is .$18,335. 1/ BEVERLY is a for-profit corporation. By its revised CON application, it proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed nursing home, Longwood Health Care Center, located in Seminole County, Florida. BEVERLY has operated the Longwood facility for only 3 years. It is operated under an assumption of lease. Dan Bruns, Director of Acquisitions and Development for BEVERLY, testified that the corporate resolution (B-3) is the authorization for BEVERLY's CON application but that exhibit does not reference the revised 60 bed CON application. Upon the lease terms at Longwood and the corporate resolution, BEVERLY's authority to carry through with a 60 bed addition is suspect. FLC is a six-person investment group which has as yet selected no site and has no firm commitment to a specific site or geographic area within Seminole County for its project. Indeed, the entity which will own the FLC project's physical plant has not yet been created. FLC's revised CON application proposes construction of a 120-bed facility with 60 skilled nursing home beds and 60 beds dedicated for an "adult congregate living facility" (ACLF). ACLFs are exempt from Florida statutory and Florida Administrative Code requirements of qualifying for a CON through Respondent HRS. An effect of this exemption is to make FLC's 60/60 plan generally cost-competitive in light of this order's Fact Paragraph 2, above. 2/ FLC's ACLF portion is designed to comply with all regulations for a skilled nursing facility. FLNC, is a not-for-profit corporation. FLNC is within the health and educational hierarchy of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. Under a recent lease, FLNC is currently operated by Sunbelt Health Care Systems, which operates 26 hospitals and 4 nursing homes, two of which are in Florida. FLNC proposes a 60- bed addition on the same level as its existing 104-bed nursing home in Forest City, Seminole County, Florida. This is to be accomplished by constructing on the north side of the existing nursing home a two story structure with 60 nursing beds on the second floor and the bottom or first floor to be shelled-in space. Shelled-in space in nursing homes is permitted by HRS policy and FLNC proposes this bottom or first floor will be designed to meet all construction and fire codes for a nursing home as well as for an ACLF. Since FLNC's property falts off severely to the north, this proposal constitutes the best and highest use of the property owned by FLNC from an architectural and design point of view. The roofing concept is energy-efficient and the top floor or proposed 60-nursing bed area will be accessible from the existing facility without ever leaving covered or heated space. There will be no significant emergency evacuation problem resulting from this FLNC design and no undue inconvenience to visitors utilizing the parking lot. FLC's and FLNC's proposals have the potential advantage for future "CON competitions" of conversion space if HRS ever allocates more nursing beds to Seminole County in the future. This aspect is immaterial to the issues presented by the present CON applications. BEVERLY is the largest nursing home corporation in the United States and encourages the inference to be drawn that its centralized management has the plus of "corporate giant" purchasing power enabling it to obtain best prices for commodities and to obtain the choicest of staff applicants. FLC asserts similar superiority in national recruitment and hiring practices although upon a much narrower base. Neither of these applicants' assertions was established as a significant variable by competent substantial evidence. FLNC makes no similar assertions. FLC further asserts that it is in an advantageous position with regard to quality of care because it is able to transfer nurses and much of its other staff from facility to facility among its several nursing homes. This assertion has some merit but its financial advantage is offset by FLC's pattern of staffing at a higher level than necessary, the costs of which must eventually be passed on to the patients. As to affirmatively demonstrating superior quality of care, it has limited weight as applied to the facts of this case. BEVERLY's projected total cost for the 60-bed addition is $1,140,000. On a per bed basis, that computes to $19,000 per bed. BEVERLY's total construction cost (including labor, material, contingency, and inflation) is $804,000 but an unknown amount per square foot. By this finding, BEVERLY's premise that its total projected construction cost computes at $50.77 per square foot and the other parties' contention that BEVERLY's cost is $61.84 per square foot are both specifically rejected. 3/ FLC's projected total cost of its facility is $2,300,000. BEVERLY's premise with regard to a contingency fund for FLC was not affirmatively demonstrated, but FLC somewhat arbitrarily allocates 55 percent of its total (or $1,265,000) to the 60-bed nursing home segment. On a per bed basis, this is $21,083 per bed contrary to FLC's assertion of $19,166 per bed. FLC's projected total construction cost of the total proposed facility (nursing wing and ACLF) is $1,488,800, which FLC breaks down as $818,840 or $44.82 per square foot within the nursing home segment/wing. This testimony is, however, somewhat suspect because FLC's architect, Monday, admitted he had not personally prepared these construction costs and because the figure set aside by FLC for land/site acquisition is pure speculation in light of FLC's failure to commit to a specific geographical location. Real property prices and availability are clearly notstatic, known factors, and fluctuations in price have not been adequately accounted for by this FLC estimate. Further, FLC admits its figures on the basis of 55 per cent, are not as accurate as using dollar figures. FLNC's projected total cost for its 60-bed nursing home segment/wing addition is $1,100,113. On a per bed basis, that computes to $18,335 per bed. FLNC's total construction cost is $854,913 or a projected $51.00 per square foot within the new nursing segment/wing addition. FLNC is the only applicant whose projected cost per square foot falls within the HRS' experience concerning average cost per square foot of nursing homes. BEVERLY's premise that FLNC should have allowed a contingency fund for adjustments in design and construction so as to comply with local ordinances, for sewerage connection, for drainage, for retainage walls and for a variety of other purely speculative construction problems which BEVERLY failed to affirmatively demonstrate would inevitably develop from FLNC's existing site or proposed project is specifically rejected. Also rejected hereby is BEVERLY's suggestion that FLNC's method of calculating fixed and moveable equipment costs together somehow camouflages FLNC's construction costs. While that may be the ultimate result of this method in some situations, both HRS regulations and good accounting practices permit fixed equipment to be broken out as either construction or equipment costs. It is not appropriate for the finder of fact to adjust a reasonably allowable calculation of an applicant in the absence of clear evidence rendering such reasonably allowable calculation inappropriate to specific circumstances. BEVERLY provided only an outline of its existing Longwood building on the site. It gives no elevations. (B-13) FLC submitted a schematic drawing (FLC-12) but did not submit a site plan. FLNC submitted both a site plan and a schematic drawing of its existing facility as well as its proposed facility (FLNC-11). Further, FLNC-2 (Table 16) shows FLNC's ancillary areas as adequate and available to that applicant's proposed 60 nursing bed addition. 4/ As stated, BEVERLY did not submit floor or site plans for its existing 120 nursing bed facility. Without such plans, it is difficult to analyze the existing ancillary areas or the proposed room relationships/configuration which will result from construction of the new 60 bed nursing segment/wing. BEVERLY proposes to add 60 beds to the Longwood facility by "repeating" a patient wing. The existing facility currently consists of right and left patient wings branching off from an ancillary area hub. The new 60-bed segment wing is planned to contain 28 semi-private (2 bed) rooms and four private (1 bed) rooms, but since there is no architect's design schematic drawing, blueline, etc., to establish precisely how the rooms will be laid out, to a degree, the configuration must be conjectured on whether a left or right wing is the wing repeated. Because of the lack of a clear architectural plan, there is no resolution of much conflicting evidence offered by BEVERLY's own expert witnesses including total square footage. Also, for its new proposed segment/wing, BEVERLY only submitted a site plan drawing so that particularly wanting is any valid method by which the undersigned may compare BEVERLY's application and proposed plans for its bathroom facilities to be located in the new 60 nursing bed segment/wing proposed for the BEVERLY Longwood facility with bathroom facilities proposed by the other two CON applicants. BEVERLY's architect, Fletcher, testified there will be two central baths in the new wing to serve the private rooms, but even he could not confirm the number of baths in the new wing. Therefore, much information concerning bathroom facilities is missing from BEVERLY's revised application. FLC's nursing home segment will amount to 18,270 square feet of new construction which computes to 305 gross square feet per bed unless the shared ancillary areas are considered. Because ancillary areas must be considered, the foregoing figures are reduced by 5,500 square feet to 12,770 square feet or a low of 212.8 gross square feet per bed in FLC's proposed nursing home segment/wing. FLNC's proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing will amount to 16,763 square feet, or 279 gross square feet per bed. FLNC's existing ancillary facilities will also adequately and efficiently service the proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing. One reason for this is that FLNC's existing ancillary facilities space is excessive by current licensure requirements. For instance, modern regulations require only 9 square feet per bed for the dining area. Due to Hill-Burton grant standards requiring 30 square feet when FLNC's existing facility was built, this and all other existing ancillary areas at FLNC were built considerably larger than if the existing facility were being constructed today solely to comply with HRS licensure requirements. FLNC's proposal takes advantage of this situation to reduce construction costs. FLC's floor plan is a "cookie-cutter" concept already successfully applied by this corporate applicant in several locations. In particular, it differs from BEVERLY's plan (or lack of plan) and FLNC's plan because it contemplates allocating four beds instead of two beds per toilet and provides a communal shower layout for the same four beds. FLNC's application plans contemplate 26 semiprivate (2 bed) rooms and eight private (single bed) rooms. Each room, regardless of designation, will have its own toilet. At FLNC, the maximum number of patients obliged to share a toilet or lavatory will be two. All three applicants meet the state minimum requirements of ratio of toilets to beds, but it is axiomatic that the two persons per toilet ratio as apparently proposed by BEVERLY and as definitely proposed by FLNC is a preferable factor in rating quality of care than is the four persons per toilet proposed by FLC. FLC's plan is less desirable for encouraging privacy, dignity, and independence of nursing home patients than are the other two plans. BEVERLY's proposed wing will be 100 per cent financed by a bank letter of credit with an interest rate of 13 percent over 20 years, however, this letter only references BEVERLY's original 120 new-bed CON application and is silent as to its subsequent (revised) 60-bed application. In short, its financing commitment is dependent upon BEVERLY's being named the successful CON applicant. FLC's financing situation involves a combination of equity and bank financing and is not firm. Its investment group will seek a loan for 90 percent of the amount needed from Barnett Bank. Financing is not solidly committed as to loan amount, loan term, or interest rate and is therefore inadequate. Analyses of "creditworthiness" of an applicant and "financial feasibility" pronouncements by a lending institution do not equate with a firm commitment to loan amount, term and interest. FLNC's financing is guaranteed up to $1,300,000 by a letter of commitment from the Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists at 12 per cent interest for 20 years. The background of FLNC's relationship with this denominational financial "parent" provides an encouraging prognosis for long range as well as immediate success and stability of FLNC's project if it is the successful CON applicant. The projected Medicaid and Medicare utilization figures of all three of the applicants contain elements of speculation. 5/ Moreover, after a facility has been opened for 5 or 6 years there is a greater incentive to seek private pay patients because the reimbursement is higher than Medicaid. However, the actual commitment figures provided by the parties does provide a valid comparison factor. BEVERLY's commitment to Medicare is 2 percent. BEVERLY has not committed and is not prepared to commit a specific percentage of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation. Although BEVERLY's application projects 33 percent Medicaid in the second year of operation, its Director of Acquisitions and Development, Dan Bruns, could not definitely commit to continue admission of 83 percent Medicaid beds in the 120 + 60-bed configuration using Longwood. FLC has committed 10 percent of the total stipulated 60 beds to Medicare., FLC has committed 52 percent of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation, but in light of FLC's withdrawal from Medicaid participation at one of its facilities and subsequent transfer of Medicaid patients, FLC's commitment here may be viewed as revocable as well. Although FLNC does not project strong Medicare involvement, FUN will be Medicaid and Medicare certified and has committed 50 per cent (50 percent) of the beds in the total facility [existing beds (104) + proposed beds if it is the successful CON applicant (60) for a total commitment of 164/2 = 84 beds] to Medicaid participation. FLNC intends only to enlarge Medicare beds in its existing 104 bed facility. FLNC intends to seek Veteran's Administration Certification. Moreover, FLNC's existing facility was principally funded with Hill-Burton grant money and FLNC annually repays its original loan through delivery of free service to indigent persons. Among the three applicants, FLNC's Hill-Burton obligation, enforced by financial considerations, demonstrates both a strong (14 years) "track record" of FLNC's accessibility to the medically indigent and traditionally underserved in the community as well as a strong indicator of continued accessibility to this segment of the community. FLNC has the lowest charge rate of all three applicants while spending more dollars on patient care than the respective averages of the other two applicant's facilities and this ratio is significant in assessing and comparing both quality of care and availability to the medically underserved of the Seminole County "community." BEVERLY's existing Longwood facility has been a BEVERLY operation less than three years (since August, 1982) and has had a "standard" rating up through the date of hearing. FLC plans to construct an entirely new facility and so has no current license to review. All of its existing homes have standard ratings. FLNC's existing facility has been operating 14 years and has had a "standard" or equivalent rating except for a three months "conditional" rating before return to "standard". BEVERLY staffs all of its beds for skilled patients and commingles its skilled and intermediate patients. FLC staffs all its beds for skilled patients. Although HRS encourages "higher" staffing, this policy can increase costs to patients. FLNC's plan is to create a discreet intermediate wing which, although licensed for skilled beds, will be primarily used for intermediate level patients. Except as indicated infra geographic location of BEVERLY's Longwood facility and of FLNC within Seminole County is not a significant variable. FLC cannot be compared geographically because it has not yet selected a site. FLC proposes one administrator for the combined ACLF and nursing home. The administrator's salary will be allocated between the ACLF and the nursing home. FLC does not specify the proportion of salary attributable to the ACLF. FLNC has had the same administrator for fourteen years BEVERLY's Longwood facility and FLNC have established monthly in- service training for staff members. All three applicants project in-service training and volunteer activity programs if granted the CON. FLC has demonstrated its other existing nursing homes have the most varietal and aggressive patient activity programs utilizing outside community volunteers This and its in-service programs are part of an internal quality control system labelled "Quest for quality". FLC also embraces the idea of using numerous visiting contract consultants in a variety of disciplines such as psychology and nutrition. FLC nursing homes also are active members of a number of national quality control professional groups. By contract, the Orange County Board of Education uses FLNC's existing nursing home as a laboratory for nurses' aide training for the Apopka High School. Also, FLNC permits use of its existing facility as a laboratory for the geriatric training program of Florida Hospital's Licensed Practical Nurse School. These programs could be extended to include the proposed segment/wing and are symbiotic relationships significantly benefiting the quality of care of nursing home patients as well as the student interns. FUC participates with HRS in a program for those adjudicated to do community service in Seminole County. BEVERLY's recent creation of an assistant to the president slot to oversee quality of patient life is commendable, but located at the highest corporate level, and in another state, this benefit will be somewhat diluted at the point of delivery in Seminole County, Florida. This individual's first responsibility is to the corporate shareholders not to a specific nursing home's patients and staff. As to all three applicants, administrative complaints by themselves are both irrelevant and immaterial to this de novo proceeding. Particularly, complaints are immaterial unless they result in an adjudication. Dismissals and settlements without adjudication or admission of guilt are of no probative value. Moreover, in light of testimony of the HRS licensure representative that there is no nursing home in Florida which has not been cited at least once, deficiency ratings brief in duration in proportion to many years of operation are of little significance or probative value. 6/ BEVERLY and FLC contended that FLNC's affiliation with the Christian religious denomination of Seventh Day Adventists somehow diminishes FLNC's application. This position was not established by direct credible evidence on any of the strategic tangents it took at the formal hearing. Admission data provided for the existing FLNC facility indicates that whether measured by policy and statistics or by admissions, FLNC is not restricted by religious faith or affiliation. By this finding of fact, a convenient "draw" of FLNC from a nearby Seventh Day Adventist retirement center has not been ignored nor has evidence that many of the admissions drawn from this retirement community appear to be "repeaters" at the existing FLNC nursing home been ignored, but this corollary may be attributed to the natural proclivity of the retired and elderly to account for a large percentage of the nursing home beds consumed in any locality, and upon this analysis the 15 per cent to 20 per cent (15-20 percent) draw of FLNC from this source could be as much geographically as religiously induced. Failure to repeat attempts at placement of patients at FLNC color the credibility of the testimony of most witnesses who infer a religious barrier to placement of patients at FLNC. Teresa S. Shaw is Director of Social Services, Florida Hospital, Altamonte. In light of that acute care hospital being Part of the Seventh Day Adventist faith's health and educational hierarchy, somewhat greater weight might be placed on her analysis if she felt religion played a part in FLNC's acceptance or rejection of patients. However, she testified she did not know of FLNC's affiliation. This, together with the actual admissions data provided by FLNC, supports this finding of no religious barrier. Unavailability of beds at FLNC has no probative value for charges of religious discrimination either. 7/ Suggestions that the Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions against consumption of animal-protein and caffeine and against tobacco-smoking in its nursing homes somehow reduces the quality of nursing home care at FLNC are rejected as unproved. First, it was never established that smoking benefits quality of care, but in any case, FLNC, like all certified nursing homes, complies with the requirement of providing a smoking area. Second, consumption of caffeine and animal-protein can obviously create numerous health and sanitary problems for those incontinent patients who often comprise a large percentage of any nursing home population. Third, it was never established that caffeine or animal-protein benefits the quality of nursing home care. Moreover testimony of FLNC's administrator clearly indicates that at FLNC patients' diets are established by the attending physician and that patients' families may bring in items not normally served by FLNC if this supplementation is permitted on the diet prescribed by the attending physician. It is the physician, not the nursing home, that has ultimate dietary authority.
Recommendation After considering all submissions of counsel, and upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law determined after reviewing those submissions, it is, RECOMMENDED: That HRS issue a certificate of need for a 60-bed addition to FLORIDA LIVING NURSING CENTER, INC's Seminole County facility, with total project cost not to exceed $1,100,113.00 and area not to exceed 16,763 square feet and deny the other applications. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of May, 1985.
The Issue Whether petitioner should be granted a certificate of need to build a 120- bed nursing and extended care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application be denied for failure to meet licensing criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Originally, each Petitioner filed an application for a Certificate Of Need for the construction and operation of nursing home facilities in Broward County as follows: HCR - 120 beds, Richmond - 240 beds, Health Quest - 180 beds, and FPM - 240 beds. The applications were reviewed by Respondent comparatively and competitively, and they were denied in a State Agency Action Report on August 12, 1982 solely on the basis that there was no need for additional nursing home beds in Broward County. The formal hearing thereafter requested by all Petitioners was continued several times due to scheduling conflicts and due to the expected promulgation of a new methodology by which the need for nursing home beds is computed. As a result of Respondent's Quarterly Census Report dated November 30, 1983, Respondent determined that in fact there was a need for an additional 101 nursing home beds in Broward County. Accordingly, just prior to the formal hearing and by letter dated January 4, 1984, Respondent's attorney invited each Petitioner to amend its application for the purpose of being eligible to receive a Certificate Of Need for those 101 beds. Each Petitioner so complied. At the final hearing, each Petitioner proceeded on both its original application and its amended application. In spite of the singular ground for denial of each application contained in the State Agency Action Report, Respondent's attorney contended from the inception of this proceeding and into the final hearing that whether any of the applications met all statutory and rule criteria for approval was disputed by Respondent, including the financial feasibility of each proposed project. According to Respondent's only witness, Thomas F. Porter, however, all four applications meet all statutory and rule criteria for approval including financial feasibility. Accordingly, the only facts to be determined herein will relate to the issue of the number of beds needed. Since Respondent stipulated that 101 beds were available to be awarded to one of the applicants in this proceeding (Tr. 17, 36-40, 952), the threshold issue is how many beds in excess of 101, if any, are needed in Broward County. Respondent uses the most recently available information in analyzing applications for nursing home beds, including the Quarterly Census Report which it publishes, and a mathematical methodology contained in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the purpose of which methodology is to project the need for nursing home beds on a three year basis to determine the availability of those beds for award to Certificate Of Need applicants in relation to a projected need. The methodology contains several steps. The first part of the methodology projects the number of beds that will be needed based upon an adjustment of a standard of 27 beds per thousand for the population aged 65 and over to reflect the percentage of those in poverty in the HRS district in relation to those living in poverty in the state. The second part of the methodology contains the present and prospective occupancy rates. Before any of the new beds which are determined to be needed can be added, the average occupancy rate for existing homes must exceed eighty five Percent (85), as the rule is applied to Broward County, the only county in Florida constituting its own HRS district and having no sub-districts. Furthermore, the second part of the formula provides that no additional beds which have been determined to be needed can actually be added if, theoretically, the prospective occupancy rate after the beds are added will be reduced below eighty percent (80 percent). Respondent's determination as to the number of beds needed and the number of beds available for Certificate of Need applicants according to "part two" of the formula is based on its Quarterly Census Reports. The November 30, 1983 Quarterly Census Report revealed that 1,419 community nursing home beds (4,058 needed beds, less 2,789 existing and 300 previously approved but not constructed beds) will be needed in Broward county in 1986, the horizon year for these applicants. The occupancy rate of existing nursing home beds for the six months preceding that report was 91.5 percent. According to that report, since the prospective occupancy rate is 80 percent for Broward County, then the addition of more than 101 beds at the present time will theoretically reduce the prospective occupancy rate below 80 percent. Under normal circumstances Respondent will issue Certificates of Need in accordance with the need methodology set forth above. However, Respondent has discretion to approve applications for nursing home beds which do not conform to the need methodology if the existence of special circumstances can be proven. Special circumstances do exist in Broward County which warrant a determination that more nursing home beds are needed than is demonstrated by a strict application of Respondent's need methodology. One of those special circumstances is the existence in the district comprised of Broward County of an older population than in the other districts in Florida. Broward County's 65 and over population is fairly typical of Florida at the present time, but there is a significant difference in the proportion of the population which is 75 and over and which will be 75 and over in the near future. In 1980 Florida as a whole had 6.5 percent of its 65 and over population in the 75 and over category which was projected to increase to 9 percent by the year 2000. By contrast, according to studies performed by Dr. Robert Weller, in Broward County 35.4 percent of the 65 and over population was 75 and over, and by 1986 this number was projected to increase to 53.6 percent. This difference was classified by Dr. Weller as "very meaningful" to the point where he would be very "uncomfortable" with any attempt to plan for Broward County using statewide averages. This large difference in the composition of the elderly population of the state as a whole and Broward County is a significant special circumstance because the older the population the greater the demand for nursing home beds. In fact, the big predictors of need for nursing home beds are illness and age. The average age of entry into a nursing home is 81. While the population group of 85 and older utilize nursing home beds at a rate 15 times greater than the 65 and older group, the over 75 age category constitutes 70 percent of all nursing home users. Respondent's need methodology does not make an adjustment for differences in the 65 and over category between the various districts. This failure to adjust for an older population may not significantly affect districts with more normal population composition, but since Broward County's population departs substantially from the norm, it is an essential consideration. The failure to consider this situation results in a gross understatement of need in Broward County. Diagnostically Related Groups (hereinafter "DRG") regulations are amendments to the Social Security Act effective in 1983 which alter the method by which hospitals will receive reimbursement for Medicare patients. Under the DRG regulations, which hospitals are required to adhere to by the end of 1984, reimbursement for Medicare patients will be based upon an established length of stay for each type of illness. For example a hospital might be reimbursed for an eight day hospital stay for a coronary by-pass operation whether the patient actually stays in the hospital for seven or for 12 days. The effect of the DRG regulations is the earlier discharge of many patients in need of intensive nursing care. Every expert witness and professional administrator opined at the hearing in this cause that DRG regulations will result in an increased demand for nursing home beds. In addition to the effect the DRG regulations will have in a normal situation, the characteristics of the Broward County will accentuate this effect. The nationwide average for percent of Medicare funding in acute care hospitals is approximately 50 percent while the average for Broward County in last 12 months ranges from 53 percent to about 64 percent. The characteristics of Broward's elderly population also increases the effect of the DRG regulations because the population in Broward County is older than that in the remainder of the state. A study of the effects of the DRG regulations on the need for additional nursing home beds was recently conducted for Palm Beach County. That county has a high percentage of elderly (although not as high as Broward) and a high percentage of Medicaid funding. That study indicated that the DRG regulations would increase demand there by about 225 to 300 beds. Theodore J. Foti, an expert in health planning, utilized the Palm Beach study to estimate that from 325 to 400 additional beds are needed in Broward County to compensate for the DRG regulations alone. In Broward County there are three facilities which Respondent counts as nursing home facilities but which do not provide nursing home services. The Daystar Nursing Home, which contains 44 beds, is a Christian Science facility which does not provide the level of care associated with nursing homes. The Manor Oaks facility, which contains 116 beds, has a hospital license as an extended care facility and is a licensed specialty hospital, not a nursing home. St. Johns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, which contains 100 beds, is a specialty hospital. Respondent includes the 340 beds in these facilities in computing the total of existing nursing home beds. Since these facilities are not truly nursing homes, they are displacing beds which normally provide nursing home services. The need methodology, therefore, does not include the true number of existing nursing home beds in Broward County, and, therefore, even if all other data used in the methodology be accurate, the bed need as determined by the methodology is understated by 340 beds. Barbara Palmer is employed by Respondent in its Office of Aging and Adult Services. Her job duties include writing proposed rules, manual material and legislative budget requests for Respondent's program known as Community Care for the Elderly (hereinafter "CCE"). CCE services include case management as well as CORE services, adult day care, chore, emergency alert response systems, home delivered meals, home health aid, medical transportation and personal care. Each of these programs is generally designed to provide services to the clients in the client's home. None of these services are provided to persons who are already in nursing homes. In order to compute need for CCE services, Palmer and Respondent rely on research by Dr. Carter Osterbind which identifies the incidence of "homebound" and "bedfast" individuals in the population aged 65 and over. Respondent defines bedfast as a person who, because of physical or other infirmities, remains in bed and is incapable of being in any other place. Similarly homebound individuals are those who cannot leave their homes without assistance. Respondent routinely uses Osterbind's 8 percent incidence factor to calculate the percentage of the population in the State of Florida 65 and over that can be characterized as homebound and bedfast. Subject to revisions, Palmer prepares the budget proposal for Aging and Adult Services which is then approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for submission to the Governor and which then becomes Services for part of the Governor's budget request which is ultimately submitted to the Legislature. Palmer uses two documents to prepare her budget request: Dr. Osterbind's paper "Older People in Florida" and "Florida Decade of the 80's", a technical appendix provided by the Office of the Governor as a reference for population statistics for use in developing legislative budget requests. Using these two documents, a projected need is compared with the historical data of how many people have been served with the money which was received in a previous budget year. By subtracting the historically met need from the projected need, Palmer arrives at the projected unmet need, which is presented in a table depicting the total number of homebound and bedfast clients who will not receive services. Palmer also uses a factor, developed by Respondent's Community Care for the Elderly Program, to determine how many individuals, but for the fact that their need is going to be met, are at risk of institutionalization. Respondent's Office of Evaluation has developed and published a 42 percent factor and utilizes it as a basis to determine how many of those persons in a category whose needs will be unmet because of lack of budget dollars in the future will actually end up in nursing homes if more dollars are not appropriated. In other words, Respondent utilizes a document promulgated in 1981 by its Office of Evaluation which indicates that a 42 percent factor should be applied to an 8 percent statewide percent of the population 65 and older to determine how many are at risk of institutionalization in a nursing home, and this methodology has been used routinely by Respondent to prepare Respondent's budget requests through 1985. Palmer's approach in preparing the budget request has a purpose of persuading the Legislature that unless money is provided, 42 of all homebound and bedfast individuals will have to be institutionalized but for provision for home health care services. Palmer's last budget request shows that in the decade of the 80's Respondent expects a 69.8 percent increase in the population group 65 and over. The 10 year plan for CCE and CORE services gives the estimated percentage of need which Respondent intends to meet with CCE and CORE services for various budget years through 1990. Respondent will only provide those services to 23.84 percent of those persons needing them in 1985-86 and only 26.48 percent in 1986-87. Estimated unduplicated clients that will be served in those same years are 41,448 and 47,869 respectively. Expert witness, Michael Schwartz, used Respondent's population figures for Broward County and Respondent's methodology according to Palmer to determine how many of those individuals aged 65 and over in Broward County will be homebound and bedfast in the planning horizon year of 1986. Multiplying the number of homebound and bedfast by the percentile of persons that are at risk of institutionalization yields the figure of 9,760 persons for the horizon year. The number of persons projected by Respondent's Office of Aging and Adult Services to actually receive the CCE-CORE services in that horizon year is 3,956. Thus, the number of individuals unable to obtain those services and needing a nursing home bed in that year will be 5,802. These people will need nursing home beds for an average length of stay of two and one-half years (national average). The current inventory of nursing home beds in Broward County, including approved but not built beds, is 3,089. When the existing inventory is subtracted from the number of needed beds, as computed by the Aging and Adult Services methodology, the net need is an additional 2,715. Thus, when Respondent's methodology for determining the need for nursing home beds in the absence of alternatives of CCE and CORE services is applied to Broward County for the year 1986, it yields a need for 2,715 beds in addition to existing and approved beds to accommodate the homebound and bedfast who will not receive those services. However, when Respondent's methodology in Section 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is applied to Broward County for the year 1986 it yields a need for 1,419 beds in addition to existing and approved beds. Yet, when the theoretical prospective occupancy feature contained in that rule is applied to Broward County, only 101 beds are needed to be built in time for service in 1986. It is noteworthy that the formula used by Respondent to induce the Legislature to fund programs for the diversion of the elderly from nursing homes yields double the need for nursing home beds in Broward County in 1986 than use of the formula established by Respondent to evaluate applications for new nursing home beds. Schwartz identified the reason for the difference: The CCE funding formula takes into account those below the poverty level as well as those above the poverty level in determining the number of people who are at risk of institutionalization unless CCE services are provided. However, Respondent's bed need methodology uses a poverty ratio (number of impoverished in the county relative to number of impoverished in the state) to adjust the statewide standard of 27 beds per thousand downward to 15.5 beds per thousand in Broward County. Since the first part of the bed need methodology only measures nursing home bed need for the impoverished (by adjusting 27 beds per one thousand by a poverty ratio) while the formula used by Aging and Adult Services contemplates all persons at risk of institutionalization, whether impoverished or not, and since the Aging and Adult Services methodology yields a higher need figure, tie difference between the two figures must represent the extent to which private pay patients (not impoverished) are using, and will continue to use, nursing home beds in Broward County to the exclusion of Medicaid patients. Utilizing the first part of the bed need methodology, Respondent has determined that Broward County will need a total of 4,508 beds in 1986 and that, when licensed and approved beds are subtracted, 1,419 additional beds will be needed. However, the second part of the methodology which purports to determine the prospective utilization of nursing home beds limits the number of beds which can be added to 101. The premise behind the prospective utilization test is that the addition of more than 101 beds will result in the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County being reduced below 80 percent. Because of the particular situation existing in Broward County this premise is not valid. In November 1983, Richmond's newly-constructed Sunrise facility had 120 beds in service, but Respondent counted all 240 approved beds as being in service for determining its occupancy rate. These 240 beds were, therefore, occupied at a rate of 24.4 percent. In November 1982, the occupancy rate for nursing homes in Broward County was 89.8 percent, while a year later after including all 240 licensed beds in Richmond's Sunrise facility, the occupancy rate had only fallen 3 points to 86.7 percent. Expert witness Schwartz concludes that if 240 beds can be added In Broward County and only drop the occupancy rate from 89.8 percent to 86.7 percent, then certainly more than 101 beds can be added before the occupancy rate will drop below 80 percent. He further concludes that when One examines what actually happened in Broward County rather than what could theoretically happen, the prospective utilization test may well be a valid predictor of future occupancy rates under normal circumstances, but it fails to be in Broward County. Rather, Schwartz concluded that approximately 1,000 nursing home beds can be added in Broward County without lowering the occupancy rate below 80. Expert witness Theodore Foti explained the effect of Respondent's bed need methodology when applied to Broward County. The methodology is based on the premise that the only people who need nursing homes in Florida are the impoverished since the standard 27 beds per one thousand is adjusted only by the poverty ratio. However, nursing home providers prefer private patients because they pay more. In Broward County there are facilities that only accept private pay patients. The provider receives about 25 percent more profit than he would if he had two individuals to care for in the same room when the difference between private and semi-private rates and the decrease in staffing that is possible with the lesser number of patients are taken into consideration. Because of the shortage of supply and the ever-growing demand in Broward County, it is economically beneficial to a 60 bed nursing home for example to take 20 beds out of service and operate with 40 beds because the owner can increase the rates and lower the costs simultaneously. According to Foti, a review of the occupancy rates in Broward County shows that beds in certain facilities have been taken out of use over a period of time by those facilities. Those providers have chosen to serve primarily the private paying individual since it is to their financial benefit to do so. The corresponding result is that the demand for nursing home beds by the medicaid recipient cannot be satisfied because the private pay patient has "squeezed out" the Medicaid patient. The existence of this phenomena in Broward County rises to the level of an exceptional circumstance since Respondent uses a formula to prescribe prospective occupancy rates which are directly controlled by the number of beds that the existing owners place in service or take out of service. Considering the "private pay phenomena" in Broward County, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in Broward County is the lowest in the state, and considering that the number of beds per 1,000 in the state is the lowest in the country, Foti calculates a need currently in Broward County to be an additional 800 beds as a minimum figure even without considering the DRG regulations which clearly will accentuate that need. Respondent's witness Porter acknowledged that Respondent would look favorably upon applications for Certificates of Need for additional beds in an area where indications are that Medicaid patients are being denied access to beds although Respondent's bed need methodology simultaneously shows that no new beds are needed. He explained that as an extenuating circumstance if there is evidence that a particular population group is being denied access and that Respondent would look favorably upon applications proposing substantial Medicaid beds (such as those under consideration herein) if accessibility for Medicaid clients is limited. He further acknowledged that the Medicaid program office of the division of Adult and Aging Services would be an appropriate authority upon which he would rely in making such a determination. He further acknowledged that the accessibility to Medicaid beds would be increased in Broward County by issuing Certificates of Need with a Medicaid bed condition attached to them since the Medicaid utilization rate has been increasing in Broward County even though the total number of beds has remained constant. Lynn Raichelson as the supervisor of Respondent's Adult Payments Unit for Broward County is responsible for gathering data reflecting the number of people placed in Medicaid beds during the month in Broward County for Medicaid payment purposes. Both her reports admitted in evidence and her testimony at the final hearing noted an overall difficulty in finding placements in Broward County for Medicaid patients. Her reports indicate a number of entries where all Broward County and Dade County nursing homes were contacted but there were no nursing home beds available. The number of days for placement ranged from 23 to in excess of 83 days. Most of the patients were in acute care hospital beds while awaiting nursing home beds. Several health care professionals testified as to the actual need in Broward County as opposed to the projected need based upon Respondent's mathematical formula. One hospital administrator had no problem placing private pay patients but found that Medicaid placements are extremely difficult to make in Broward County. His hospital alone holds 8 to 12 patients on any given day who should have been discharged into a nursing home. The executive director of the North Broward Hospital District which encompasses three hospitals encounters difficulty in placing Medicaid and Medicare patients in nursing homes in Broward County since the nursing homes are at full operational occupancy. Approximately 25 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals in the District are referred to and placed in nursing homes. Of this 25 percent, the District encounters difficulty in placing 10 to 15 percent of the patients. The problems persist year round but are especially difficult during the winter "peak" season. Alan Mahar is the administrator of the Primary Health Care Division of the Health and Public Safety Department for Broward County. He was the supervisor of nursing home placement from 1975 to 1981 when Broward County was making nursing home placements. Between June 1981 and September 1983 he participated in a Medicaid demonstration project called Pentastar which was sponsored by Respondent's District 10 Aging and Adult Program Office. The purpose of the project was to determine if an alternative existed to keep persons out of nursing homes. An important part of the program was the identification of persons aged 60 and over who were potentially at risk of being placed into a nursing home within one year. Those enrolled in the program had to qualify for Medicaid payments. Although he expected he would need to interview approximately 300 to find 150 persons for the program, everyone he interviewed qualified. At the conclusion of the program, none of the persons who received services through pentastar were any less at risk than they were before those services commenced. Services under that program terminated in September 1983. Since Broward County does not have a publicly operated nursing home, Mahar experienced extreme difficulty in placing Medicaid patients and found that it frequently took weeks and sometimes months to find an available nursing home bed for a Medicaid patient. Mahar's opinion that there is not a sufficient number of beds available to Medicaid patients in Broward County is also based on his identification of the trend over the last three years he has been involved in auditing Medicaid matching funds. The money which Broward County has been paying for hospital care for Medicaid persons has almost doubled in the last three years, while the Medicaid match money for nursing home care has gone up only 15 or 20 percent during that same period. The poverty ratio included in Respondent's bed need formula results in an underestimation of bed need for wealthy counties such as Broward County where the majority of nursing home patients are private pay patients. Broward County is the wealthiest county in the state and has the lowest Medicaid usage in the state. The poverty ratio results in a calculated bed-need ratio in Broward County of 15.5 beds per thousand whereas the statewide need ratio is 27 beds per thousand. There is overwhelming competent substantial evidence to show an actual need for community nursing home beds in Broward County currently and in 1986 for in excess of the 780 beds Petitioners collectively seek herein. Substantial competent evidence was presented to show several special circumstances, and respondent's sole witness acknowledged that one of those was sufficient for the grant of all applications filed by the four Petitioners in this cause. The overwhelming need proven herein was uncontroverted by Respondent, and the special circumstances prohibit Respondent from applying the bed need methodology in Broward County at this time. In view of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, there is no need to determine which of the applicants herein is best qualified for the award of the 101 beds in issue in this cause. Additionally, the evidence in this record is insufficient to proclaim any of the applicants to be best qualified. At the final hearing there were a few attempts at a comparative analysis, and none was credible. The attempts at comparative analysis simply resulted in a further substantiation of the fact that all of the applicants are equally qualified. Respondent's witness gave his personal opinion that one of the applicants was preferable but was unable to assign any weight to any of the factors utilized in reaching that individual opinion. Rather, the one factor that he did testify to at length in the hearing as the most important - accessibility by Medicaid patients - was the one item that that applicant would not guarantee. HCR's application for the 101 beds indicated that it would not commit to the number of Medicaid patients that it would serve. In short, the testimony at the hearing and the evidence presented provide very little basis, if any, for choosing one applicant over another. Rather, all applicants meet all criteria, and the need for the number of beds originally requested clearly exists.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that a Final Order be entered: Granting to Richmond Healthcare, Inc. a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America a Certificate of Need 120 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; Granting to Health Quest Corporation a Certificate of Need for 180 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application; and Granting to Federal Property Management a Certificate of Need for 240 beds in Broward County in accordance with its original application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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: Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire 1107 South East Fourth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jean Laramore, Esquire and Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601-1568 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Lewis State Bank Building, Suite 464 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
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
