Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The semi-annual census report by DHRS for District. III dated December 1, 1984, (Exhibit 23) indicated a need for 615 additional nursing home beds for the January 1985 review cycle. Although this report cautioned that changes in reporting and pending litigation or appeals could change the count of approved beds, nevertheless, most of the applicants for beds in the January 1985 batching cycle relied on this report as the basis for their applications. At the time this report was submitted, District III was subdivided into seven sub districts, and the need for each sub district was separately listed. Prior to the completion of the review of the applications in the January 1985 batching cycle, some 500 nursing home beds in District III were allocated to applicants in earlier batching cycles whose applications had been denied for lack of need, and who were in the process of appealing those denials. Many of these applications had been updated and those beds were issued by DHRS pursuant to its then-current policy of issuing beds on a first come-first served basis. As a result, only some beds were allocated to those applicants in the January 1985 batching cycle before the pool of available beds was depleted. Furthermore, rule changes became effective before the January 1985 batching cycle applications were reviewed which eliminated sub districts in District III. Largely because of the allocation of beds to applicants in earlier batching cycles, but also due to population based changes in District III, the bed need methodology, using data current at the time of the hearing and computing need to January 1988, shows there will be an excess of 342 nursing home beds in District III in 1988. (Exhibit 33) Eustis Limited Partnership The initial application of Eustis was for 8 additional beds which involved construction costs. The amended application which was considered in this hearing is for three (3) beds with costs allocated only for the equipment and furniture needed to add a bed to three existing rooms. As amended, Eustis' application is very similar to the application of Oakwood Nursing Center who was granted a CON for the addition of three (3) beds without construction costs. At the time Oakwood's CON was granted, DHRS was in the process of granting CONs for 103 beds. At the time Eustis submitted its application, all of the 615 beds initially available had been dispensed and there was no need for additional beds. At this hearing, Eustis produced no evidence to show a need for the three (3) beds for which Eustis applied. The evidence submitted by Eustis primarily showed that by simply adding a bed to three existing rooms, the cost per bed added was far less than would be the cost of constructing new facilities. Inverness Convalescent Center (ICC) ICC proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County at a cost of $3,400,000. (Exhibit 15) Citrus County has four licensed nursing homes with a total of 430 beds and an average occupancy rate of less than 90% during the last reported six-month period. (Exhibit 17)- During the last quarter of 1985, the occupancy rate in Citrus County nursing homes was the lowest of the planning areas in District III, and in the first quarter of 1986, it was second lowest. ICC contends the need formula doesn't apply to their application because they propose to serve special needs of the elderly, such as institutionalized patients, head trauma patients, etc. However, the only testimony presented indicating a need in Citrus County for such special services came from ICC owners and employees who live in New Jersey. ICC further contends that since there are less than 27 nursing home beds in Citrus County per 1,000 residents over age 65, that an additional nursing home is needed in Citrus County. However, the 27-beds per 1,000 population is but one factor considered in determining need for nursing home beds. In short, ICC presented no evidence to show that need exists in Citrus County for the proposed facility. Beverly Enterprises Beverly's application is for a CON to add 60 beds to an existing 120-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, at Suwannee Health Care Center. This facility was opened in 1983 and reached full capacity in seven to nine months. There are two nursing homes in Suwannee County; Suwannee Health Care Center, (HCC) and Advent Christian Village, Dowling Park (ACV). The latter is a church owned retirementc ~B community of 550 residents which provides a continuum of care on five levels. Although Advent Christian is not licensed as a life care community, it gives priority of admission to its 107 licensed nursing home beds to residents of the life care community. As a result, there are few vacancies available for persons living outside the retirement community. Advent - Christian has a waiting list of 32 on the active waiting list and ~20 on an inactive waiting list. People on waiting lists are told the wait is from one to five years for admission. Suwannee HCC has an occupancy rate approaching 100% and a waiting list of approximately 50. As a result, the vast majority of Suwannee County residents needing nursing home care are sent to a nursing home outside Suwannee County, usually in Gainesville, some 65 miles from Live Oak. The planning area in which Suwannee County is located, formerly sub district 1 in District III, has five nursing homes with an average occupancy rate for the last three months of 1985 and the first three months of 1986, ranging from 96.91% to 99.75%. During the first three months of 1986, the occupancy rate of three of these nursing homes was greater than 99%' one as 98.7% and the lowest, Advent Christian, was 96.91% (Exhibit 17). The patient mix at Suwannee ACC is over 80% Medicaid and approximately one-third black. The black population is about 30% of the total population in Suwannee County. Suwannee HCC has had several superior ratings (Exhibits 9, 10), takes patients in order on the waiting list regardless of whether they are Medicaid or private pay, and has a very good reputation in the area for service. DHRS personnel who approve Medicaid placement of patients, hospital employees who have the duty of placing patients in nursing homes, nursing home personnel, and private citizens with relatives in nursing homes, all confirmed the critical access problems of Suwannee County residents for local nursing home placement. Live Oak residents, for example, who need placement in a nursing home are usually sent outside Suwannee County, have their names added to waiting lists at nursing homes in Live Oak, and nursing homes closer to Live Oak than the nursing home in which they are placed, and move to the closer nursing home when a vacancy occurs. As a result, most of the vacancies at Suwannee HCC are filled by patients who were, first transferred outside Suwannee County for nursing home placement, and got on the waiting list at Suwannee HCC. There are very few patients from Suwannee County who are initially placed in a Suwannee County nursing home. Southern Medical Associates (SMA) SMA proposes to construct and operate a free standing, 60-bed, skilled nursing home in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida, at a cost of $1,692,400. (Exhibit 19) When SMA's application was submitted the computation of bed need in Suwannee County under the sub district rule in effect when the application was submitted, showed 30 beds needed in Putnam County. This calculation included 36 beds earlier approved but not yet licensed. At the time of this hearing those approved 36 beds had been revoked by reason of not beginning construction in a timely fashion. The medical consultant who reviewed these applications and prepared most of the State Agency Action reports, (Exhibit 30) initially recommended that SMA'S application be granted. The two existing nursing homes in Putnam County have an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent for the latest reported 3 month period. (Exhibit 17) 85 to 90 percent of these patients are Medicaid patients. The one nursing home in Palatka, Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, is a 65-bed nursing home with an occupancy rate in excess of 99 percent for the past year, and on the date of hearing had 18 people on the waiting list for a bed. The turnover in this nursing home is about 50 percent each year, with most vacancies resulting from the death of a patient. Two HRS employees whose job it is to determine eligibility of residents of Putnam County for Medicaid reimbursement for nursing home care, testified that they very, seldom see a patient go to Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, that over half of the patients they qualify for eligibility are sent out of the county, and of those placed in the county, almost all are placed at Lakewood Nursing Home which is located 18 miles from Palatka. The only hospital in Putnam County discharges 5 to 6 patients per month who need additional nursing care after discharge. Most of these patients are sent to nursing homes in St. Augustine, Florida, a few are sent to Lakewood, but for very few is a bed available in Palatka.
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 14, 1983, seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Pasco County, Florida. An amendment of an undisclosed nature was filed by FCC on August 22, 1984, but did not change the number of beds applied for. After reviewing the original application, HRS issued its proposed agency action on February 28, 1984, in the form of a state agency action report in which it advised petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The transmittal letter denying the application offered the following reasons: The nursing homes in Pasco County are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner as demonstrated by an annual occupancy rate of 90.7 percent from March through September, 1983. However, there are 240 nursing home beds that have been approved but have not been constructed at the present time. These beds, when added to the existing nursing home bed supply in Pasco County, will serve to maintain a reasonable subdistrict occupancy level through 1986. The basis for the above decision is contained in the State Agency Action Report. The service area in which FCC proposes to construct its new facility is the Pasco County subdistrict of HRS District 5. In order to determine need, HRS has adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, which contains a formula (or methodology) for determining need at both the district and subdistrict level. Under that formula, HRS is required to utilize the "most recent 6 month nursing home utilization in the subdistrict." In this regard, HRS prepares on an on-going basis an internal document entitled "Quarterly Report" which contains the latest available data over a six-month period. In this proceeding, HRS used a report containing data for the period October, 1983 through March, 1984. This was the most current and complete available data at the time of hearing. According to the methodology in Rule 10-5.11(21), there is a gross need in District 5 for 5,331 nursing home beds. However, there are presently 7,322 licensed and 791 approved beds in the District. Therefore, this results in an excess of 2,782 nursing home beds through the year 1987. In the event there are excessive beds on a district-wide basis, the rule provides a means for establishing a need on a subdistrict level under certain conditions. Additional beds can be added within the subdistrict if the licensed beds in the subdistrict have an average current utilization of 90 percent or higher. If they do not, additional beds cannot be authorized even if a mathematical need is shown under the rule methodology. FCC has computed need requirements for the subdistrict by eliminating the beds of two nursing homes just opened within the last six months, and by using census figures for the month of June, 1984. Based upon these calculations, it results in a need for 99 additional beds and a current utilization rate of 95.7 percent, which exceeds the 90 percent threshold requirement. However, the rule makes no provision for the use of more current data on a selective basis, or the exclusion of such beds from the calculation. FCC also contends Pasco County has an "abnormal" situation caused by an excessive availability of beds in neighboring counties (Pinellas and Hillsborough). It also points out that Pasco is far below the state average for beds per 1000 elderly population. But, again, these factors are taken into account in the agency's rule, and do not constitute special circumstances that would require an exception to the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Pasco County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John F. Gilroy, Legal Intern P.O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300 David Pingree, Secretary Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On or before July 15, 1985 Petitioner timely filed an application for a certificate of need (CON No. 4179) to add 42 beds to an existing nursing home in Lee County, Florida. Petitioner's application was denied by Respondent, subject to the right to a hearing, by letter dated December 6, 1985 for the sole stated reason that: Application of Chapter 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to Lee County shows no need for additional beds in the County through 1988. The letter further states that the "basis of the above decision" is contained in the State Agency Action Report. Petitioner timely sought a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing concerning Respondent's notice of its intention to deny this application. The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation on December 3, 1986 which states that the only statutory criteria at issue in this proceeding are those contained in Sections 381.494(6)(c)1, 2 and 12, as well as the criterion at Section 381.494(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, insofar as it relates to the need for the proposed additional nursing home beds. Further, the parties stipulated that the only rule criteria at issue are found at Rules 10-5.11(1), (3) and (6), as well as the criterion at Rule 10-5.11(5), Florida Administrative Code, insofar as the long-term financial feasibility of the project is related to the need for the services being proposed. It is readily apparent that the parties have stipulated to issues in this proceeding which may be beyond the scope of the sole reason for denial of this CON application set forth in Respondent's letter of December 6, 1985. The parties' stipulation has been accepted, however, and will therefore define the issues to be determined in this case. Petitioner has an existing 78 bed nursing home in the vicinity of Ft. Myers, Florida. This is located in Respondent's District 8, Subdistrict Lee- County. Previously, Petitioner received approval to construct 120 beds at this facility but was only licensed to use 78 beds. In fact, Petitioner has already constructed, equipped and furnished the additional 42 beds, and now seeks approval to use these beds. No additional capital expenditures would be necessary to place these beds in service. The methodology for calculating need for community nursing home beds is set forth in Rule 10-5.l1(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code. As more particularly set forth in Findings of Fact 7 through 23, this methodology can be summarized as follows: Determine the planning horizon to which an application is directed. Determine the district's age adjusted number of beds in the horizon year by applying the current bed rates for population age groups 65-74 and 75 + to the district's horizon year population. Determine the gross allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by multiplying the district's age adjusted number of beds by the ratio of licensed beds in the subdistrict to licensed beds in the district, and also by the ratio of the average occupancy rate in the subdistrict to .90. For purposes of this calculation in this case, licensed beds are determined as of June 1, 1985 and occupancy rates are those that existed from October, 1984 to March, 1985. Determine the net allocation of beds to the applicable subdistrict by subtracting the total number of licensed beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing plus 90 percent of approved beds in the subdistrict at the time of hearing from the subdistrict gross allocation. The first step in calculating need pursuant to Respondent's methodology set forth in Rule l0-5.11(21)(b)1-9, Florida Administrative Code, is to establish a planning horizon. Subparagraph (b) of the rule states: the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds three years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10. (Emphasis supplied.) The Respondent interprets this to mean that the planning horizon is established by counting three years into the future from the filing deadline, established by rule, for a particular application. This is a reasonable interpretation and is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule. Thus, in this case the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is addressed is July 15, 1988. The next step in applying the need methodology is to determine what is meant by "current population" as that term is used in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)2. The Respondent interprets this to mean the population current on the application filing deadline which in this case was July 15, 1985. This is also a reasonable construction of the rule, and is therefore accepted. However, the Respondent further contends that the "current population" estimates to be used in applying the rule methodology are those that were available from the Office of the Governor when this application was submitted, and that more recent updates of those estimates should not be considered. Since all population estimates and projections are only approximations, rather than actual counts, it is more reasonable to use updated revisions of "current population" which may be available at the time of hearing. These are still estimates of the population current as of the date an application is filed (in this case July, 1985), but they can reasonably be expected to be more accurate than the prior estimate. In the same manner, estimates of the planning horizon year population (July, 1988) available at the time of hearing should also be used rather than July, 1985 estimates of that population. Respondent's interpretation which is hereby rejected and which would require the use of population estimates available when the application was submitted, excluding all revisions and updates, is not set forth by rule. Additionally, Respondent offered only the testimony of its consultant, Joyce Farr, to explicate this "incipient policy" but she was neither involved in, nor part of, the decision making process which lead to this announced policy. Further, the position advocated by Farr is at variance with Respondent's prior application and interpretation of its rule, and is contrary to the interpretation used when Petitioner submitted this application. At the time of hearing, Farr did not know of any Final Order of Respondent, nor was any policy memoranda introduced, which set forth and adopted the interpretation she espoused as Respondent's policy. The only explanation offered for her interpretation was that she had been told by her supervisor that Respondent would take this position in all cases as a result of the Recommended Order in Case Number 86-0051, dated October 10, 1986, but not yet acted upon by Respondent at the time of hearing. No other evidence was presented by Respondent in support of Farr's interpretation, or to otherwise explicate this non-rule policy. Before applying the need methodology rule, a determination must also be made as to how "occupancy rates" will be measured, as used in Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)4. As recently as May 8, 1986, Respondent's Administrator of Community Medical Facilities concurred in an interpretive memo prepared by Reid Jaffe, consultant supervisor, which indicated that at the time of hearing the latest available six months occupancy rates would be used. Yet, at hearing Joyce Farr again announced a change of policy to freeze everything, including occupancy rates, to the time of the original application. Under this interpretation, "occupancy rate" in this case would be based on the six months' data for October, 1984 through March, 1985. Petitioners urge the use of "occupancy rate" data from April, 1986 to September, 1986, the latest six months' occupancy data available at the time of hearing. The interpretation announced by Farr at hearing is reasonable, and although in apparent conflict with the interpretive memo dated May 8, 1986, it is consistent with the plain meaning of Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 which requires the review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle (in this case July, 1985) to "be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle" (October, 1984 through March, 1985). Petitioner's position regarding the data to be used in determining "occupancy rate" is therefore rejected as contrary to, and inconsistent with, the plain meaning of the applicable rule. Next, the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation must be determined. The district licensed bed figure is explained by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and- LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Petitioner urges that licensed beds be based on June, 1986 data and Respondent urges data from June 1, 1985. Petitioner's position is again contrary to the plain meaning of the rule, and is therefore rejected. For purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4, LB and LBD are determined as of June 1, 1985. Petitioner contends that its 78 community nursing home beds previously authorized by CON 1616 were licensed on May 31, 1985, and should therefore be counted as "licensed beds." Respondent's witness testified that these beds were actually licensed on June 3, 1985, and therefore should not be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of applying subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 of the need methodology calculation in this case. Petitioner has the burden of proof, but has not offered competent substantial evidence to support its position. It has not established that these 78 beds should be considered "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraphs (b)2 and 4 since it has not been established that they were actually licensed on or before June 1, 1985. The provisions of Rule l0-5.1l(21)(b)1-4 and 7 can therefore be applied to calculate gross bed need for Lee County using July 15, 1988 as the applicable planning horizon, updated estimates of "current population" for July 15, 1985 and for the planning horizon which were introduced by Petitioner, the "occupancy rate" as determined by data from October, 1984 through March, 1985 which was introduced through exhibit by Respondent, and the number of "licensed beds" in District 8 and the Lee County subdistrict on June l, 1985, as also introduced through exhibit by Respondent. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive BA, the current bed rate for the age group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph (b)2 of Rule 10-5.11(21) as follows: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The district licensed bed figure (LB) is then defined by subparagraph (b)7 as follows: Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle should be based upon the number of licenses (sic) beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding that cycle; applications - for the January batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of December 1 preceding that cycle. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)2 to this case produces the following calculation: BA = LB / (POPC + (6 x POPD) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + (6 x 79,661) BA = 4,005 / (131,642 + 477,966) BA = 4,005 / 609,608 BA = .0065698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the current bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph (b)3, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0065698 BB = .0394188 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 (b)1 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 . . . Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)1 to this case produces the following calculation: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) A = (142,791 x .0065698 + (90,467 x .0394188) A = 938.10831 + 3,566.1006 A = 4504 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community home beds" (gross bed need in this case). This calculation is defined by subparagraph (b)4 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 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 rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle . . . . The subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is defined, consistently with LB, by subparagraph (b)7, supra. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph (b)4 to this case produces a gross need in July 1988 of beds, as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA = 4504 x (808/4005) x (.9689/.90) SA = 4504 x .20174 x 1.0766 SA = 978. The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph (b)9, this need is derived as follows: The net bed 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 depart- mental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under sub- paragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8). . . (Emphasis added.) In order to apply subparagraph (b)9 and thereby determine "net" need, it is necessary to decide on what date the licensed bed inventory should be calculated. Respondent asserts that "licensed beds" for purposes of subparagraph (b)9 is the same as LB and LBD used in subparagraph (b)2 and 4, as defined in (b)7. The rule, however, is silent as to how licensed bed inventory should be calculated for purposes of subparagraph (b)8. Respondent did not explicate the reasons for its interpretation. Respondent's position that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory for subparagraph (b)9 ignores not only the clear link between (b)7 and the gross need methodology, but also the plain language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9 which is to derive a realistic estimate of net (or actual) need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles will serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it is only reasonable to include these beds when calculating net need. It would be unreasonable not to count any beds licensed or approved after June 1, 1985 in the calculation of net need. In fact, subparagraph (b)9 itself addresses "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not just beds that existed on June 1 1985. Petitioner's 78 beds should therefore be counted as "licensed" for purposes of applying the net need methodology calculation in subparagraph (b)9 of Rule 10-5.11(21), and the 143 beds reserved pursuant to the decision in-Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) should be counted as "approved beds". Net need is then calculated under subparagraph (b)8 as follows: Subdistrict allocation for Lee County = 978 Less Licensed beds = 996 Less 90 percent of 143 approved beds = 129 Surplus in Lee County = 148 Therefore, according to Respondent's need methodology as established in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) there is a surplus of beds in Lee County for the planning horizon to which Petitioner's application is directed. Petitioner has not established that there is a need for the beds sought in CON 4179 under review in this case. The source in the record of the data used in the above calculations is as follows: LB, LBD, OR - Respondent's Exhibits 1,2 POPC, POPD, POPA, POPS - Petitioner's Exhibit 4 It has not been established that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but are unable to access services currently available. The need for services which have been denied has not been documented by attending physicians' plans of care or orders, or assessments by either Respondent or attending physicians, as required by Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10. Petitioner has not established that a geographic or economic accessibility problem exists in Lee County which would warrant approval of this application notwithstanding the lack of need under the methodology of Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4179. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0047 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate Finding of Fact. 4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 6-23. Rejected as simply a quote from an exhibit and not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-11 Rejected in Findings of Fact 6-23. 12-19 Rejected in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. 20 Rejected in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 21-22 Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of fact 26, 27 and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Although true, rejected as unnecessary as a separate finding of fact. 25-32 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 33-36 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and statement of position rather than a finding of fact; otherwise cumulative and unnecessary. 37-38 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 39-44 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 45-47 Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 13 and otherwise irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6-23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, but rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Fl 32314-6507 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0700
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.
Findings Of Fact Each applicant in this proceeding submitted its application in the January, 1986 batching cycle for the January, 1989 planning horizon, each requesting a certificate of need to build a 120-bed nursing home in Brevard County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that each applicant's letter of intent and application was timely filed, that there is a need in the January, 1989 planning horizon for additional community nursing home beds, and that 120 of those beds should be awarded to one of these applicants. They further stipulated that there are sufficient professional staff available in the Brevard County area to completely staff a new nursing home facility and that each of the applicants is able to obtain the funds necessary to construct its project. Maple Leaf of Brevard County Health Care, Inc., a new corporation to be formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of HCR proposes a 120-bed community nursing home to be located in central Brevard County in the area of Rockledge and Cocoa. In addition to traditional skilled and intermediate care, the nursing home will provide services for sub-acute patients, and a separate wing of the nursing home will be set aside for Alzheimers and related dementia disease patients (hereinafter "Alzheimers patients"). The HCR proposal includes an adult day- care unit for Alzheimers patients and respite care on a bed- availability basis. At final hearing, HCR submitted an application supplement which provided updated calculations, projections and program descriptions to account for changes occurring as a result of the elapse of time between submission of the original application and the final hearing. The application supplement does not include any programmatic changes from the original application and does not add any new concepts or elements to the original HCR proposal. The adult day-care unit will provide care to Alzheimers patients for four to eight hours a day and from one to five days a week, depending upon the needs of the patient and caregiver. The program will be staffed by a nurse director and an assistant. Patients will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimers disease victims. This program provides placement for the patient who does not need inpatient care but whose caregiver needs rest or an opportunity to attend to matters outside of the home, such as employment. Respite care at the HCR facility is intended to provide placement for patients on a 24-hour basis while the family or caregiver attends to needs such as vacation or hospitalization incompatible with overnight care of the patient at home. Respite care provides inpatient nursing home care for short periods of time, typically a week or two. Sub-acute care is a more intensive form of skilled nursing care than typically has been provided in nursing homes. Historically, this care was provided in hospitals, but adoption of the DRG (diagnostically related group) system of acute care reimbursement has resulted in an earlier discharge from hospitals of elderly patients who continue to need an intense level of nursing care. Sub-acute care includes the provision of high-tech services such as ventilator care IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and short- and long-term rehabilitation. HCR provides a wide variety of these sub- acute care services in its existing facilities. Hospitals in Brevard County report difficulty in placing patients who require sub-acute care and high-tech services. Particularly difficult to place are these patients whose care is reimbursed by Medicaid. The availability of sub-acute care also provides continuity of care for bedridden Alzheimers patients in the later stages of the disease when they require life support systems. HCR proposes to devote a 29-bed wing of the facility to the care of Alzheimers patients. Special design features, patient activities and programs and modified staffing will be provided to meet the special needs of Alzheimers patients. Alzheimers disease, a form of dementia, is a degenerative condition of the brain which results in a progressive dementia and loss of Previously- acquired intellectual functions and memory. Generally, the disease has three or four stages. In the earliest stages, the victims experience some mild memory loss, behavioral changes, loss of interest in previous hobbies, depression, anxiety and increased difficulty handling some routine day-to-day affairs. In the early stages, victims often are in reasonably good physical condition and symptoms tend to be fairly subtle. In stage two memory loss is much more apparent, and victims begin to have problems with the use of language. They may have increased difficulty with spatial relationships and become lost in familiar surroundings. These victims experience more noticeable problems with their memory in terms with dealing with their family and friends; as the disease progresses to stage three, those problems tend to worsen and become apparent even to people who are not otherwise familiar with the patient. The victims may have additional behavioral or psychiatric difficulties associated with depression or severe anxiety. A delusional stage is frequent. These victims experience disruption of their sleeping cycles and sleep during the day and wander during the night. Seizures may become a problem. In stage three, the victims usually require supervision. As the disease progresses through stage three, the victims have difficulty with personal hygiene, difficulty getting dressed and difficulty performing the simplest human task. As the disease progresses into stage four the victim becomes bedridden and requires total nursing care. There is no cure for the disease. It is terminal. Nursing home care is probably appropriate for everyone in stage four of Alzheimers disease. Most patients in stage three require nursing home care. Some patients in stage two may require nursing home care, depending upon the type of care that is available at home. According to some estimations, approximately 2.5 million American adults suffer from Alzheimers disease and approximately one-half of existing nursing home patients, and 15 percent of the population age 75 and over suffer from Alzheimers disease (4 - 5 percent 65 and over, 20 - 30 percent 85 and older). There are eleven nursing homes in Brevard County, but there is only one nursing home in Brevard County which provides a separate unit for Alzheimers patients. This facility is located in West Melbourne in south Brevard County. There is no nursing home which provides a separate Alzheimers program in central or north Brevard County. Historically, Alzheimers patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimers patient in the nursing home has often created management problems because of wandering, incontinence, confusion, loss of cognitive and communicative capabilities, unusual sensitivity to normal environmental stress, and socially, unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, nursing homes have sometimes avoided admitting Alzheimers patients. Often, when such patients were admitted, their behavior was controlled by sedation and physical restraints. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimers disease are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimers patient. The Alzheimers patient exhibits such unacceptable social behavior as going through other patients' belongings, sleeping in other patients' beds, violent behavior, being unresponsive to attempted communications and continually wandering. A separate unit for the Alzheimers disease victim also accommodates the needs of the non- Alzheimers patient. It is medically appropriate to separate Alzheimers patients from other nursing home patients. Frequently, the Alzheimers patient is suffering from mental problems resulting in confusion and disorientation but is otherwise physically healthy and ambulatory. Other patients in the nursing home often have a variety of medical problems which require more intensive nursing care. Placing Alzheimers patients in the same area with those patients with medical problems requiring more nursing care can be disruptive to the nursing care being provided to the non- Alzheimers patient, The design of the HCR facility is intended to reduce the environmental stress on Alzheimers disease victims and allow them to maintain their cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Special wall coverings, floor coverings, labeling and color coding features are provided. Separate dining and activities areas are provided. Wandering is permitted. A fenced courtyard is provided. A monitoring system will alert the facility staff when a patient begins to wander out of the facility. Bathrooms are designed to avoid fright and confusion by automatic lighting systems, coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Safe dinnerware and tables which enhance the Alzheimers victim's ability to continue to feed himself or herself are provided. Additional staffing in the Alzheimers unit and staff training in Alzheimers care will be provided. The goal of the Alzheimers design and program is to maintain the patient's activities of daily living and assist in the retention of the patient's cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Separate, specialized Alzheimers care units are beneficial for several reasons. They are safer for the Alzheimers patient. They reduce the agitation and disruption of the Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimer's patient. They provide programs for Alzheimers patients which are within the patient's cognitive abilities. The units are smaller, and each patient receives more individual attention. Sedation and physical restraint is eliminated or reduced. Individual dignity is enhanced. HCR confirmed the need for an Alzheimers program in Brevard County by calculations based upon nationally-accepted statistics and contact in Brevard County with individuals knowledgeable of the availability of care being provided to Alzheimers disease patients. Special units for Alzheimers patients are a fairly new phenomenon. HCR proposes to develop Alzheimers units in other nursing homes in Florida and has submitted applications to add Alzheimers wings to existing nursing homes in Florida. HCR also proposes to convert a wing in an existing facility in Dade County to provide care for Alzheimers patients. HCR will locate its nursing home in the Rockledge- Cocoa area, about thirty miles north of Melbourne and thirty miles south of Titusville, in central Brevard County. All 120 nursing home beds in the HCR nursing home will be certified for Medicaid reimbursement. New equipment for the HCR nursing home is projected to cost $412,079. This represents an increase in cost over the original estimate of $370,000 because of a general increase in equipment cost since the original application and an allocation of approximately $13,800 for equipment for the daycare unit, a cost which was not included in the original estimate. HCR's estimate for purchase of new equipment is reasonable. Projections of payor-mix, facility utilization and revenue and expenses of a nursing home are useful to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project. All projections utilized by HCR to evaluate financial feasibility are conservative projections. The updated projections presented by HCR at final hearing are more conservative than the projections presented in HCR's original application. If the projections found in HCR's original application were realized, the facility simply would be more profitable. HCR's estimate of an 11 percent interest rate for the funds to be borrowed for this project is a reasonable and conservative estimate. HCR's estimate of 50 percent intermediate care patients and 50 percent skilled care patients is a reasonable estimate for the patients expected to be found in this facility and is a conservative estimate. No other applicant provided such an estimate. In computing revenues and expenses, HCR assumed an inflation factor of 3 percent for Medicare and Medicaid revenues, 5 percent for other revenues and 5 percent for expenses. These inflation factors are reasonable. HCR's projections of 22 percent in year one and 25 percent in year two for payroll taxes and fringe benefits are reasonable and consistent with HCR's actual experience. HCR utilized reasonable and appropriate depreciation periods of 40 years for the building and 10 years for equipment. These are the depreciation periods used by HCR in its regular course of business. The patient charges projected by HCR, including Medicaid, Medicare and private room rates and ancillary charges, are reasonable projections. HCR projected that private pay room charges at the nursing home would be $75 for a semi-private room and $85 for a private room in July, 1989. These updated projections are consistent with existing (1987) private pay rates in Brevard County, which range from $59 for a semi-private room to $90 for a private room. The HCR rates, inflated forward to 1989, are reasonable and consistent with the existing private pay charges in Brevard County. Private pay room rates charged at nursing homes tend to reflect the market for private pay rates in the vicinity of the nursing home. HCR's updated projection of payor-mix is consistent with the actual experience in central Brevard County and an open admissions policy for Medicaid patients. HCR projects that the facility will reach 95 percent occupancy within 12 months of operation. This projection is based upon HCR's experience subsequent to filing the original application. This projection is reasonable and more conservative than those of the other applicants. HCR anticipates a loss in the first year of operation of $293,885, but a profit in the second year of Operation of $241,084. These projections reveal that the project proposed by HCR is financially feasible, and these projections are reasonable. Staffing of the HCR nursing home is comprised of an administrator, a director of nursing, an assistant director of nursing, an Alzheimers program director, 8.4 FTE (full time equivalent) registered nurses, 6.3 FTE licensed practical nurses, 39.9 FTE nurse-aides, 1 full time occupational therapy aide, 1 full time recreational therapy aide, a social worker, an activities director, 10 FTE dietary personnel, 3 FTE laundry personnel, 8 FTE housekeeping personnel, a maintenance person, 2 clerical workers, and 1 medical records worker. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, and speech therapy will be provided by licensed therapists on a contract basis. The updated staffing pattern represents minor changes from the staffing pattern in the original application. These changes are a direct result of HCR's experience in operating an Alzheimers wing within a nursing home. HCR's staffing level for staff who provide direct patient care (RNs, LPNs and Aides) exceeds that of Wuesthoff and Unicare. Staff levels in the HCR nursing home are designed to meet the special needs of the Alzheimers patients. An Alzheimers program director will be responsible for the Alzheimers wing and will be an advisor for the day-care facility. HCR's staffing pattern assumes 15 wandering Alzheimers patients in the Alzheimers wing. Care for Alzheimers patients requires increased staffing. Higher nurse-aides staffing is required in the Alzheimers wing during the evening and night hours than in the remainder of the nursing home because Alzheimers patients tend to wander without regard to the time of day. HCR estimates construction costs to be $2,200,000, not including site preparation, which is estimated to cost $275,000. Construction costs per square foot are estimated at $55 and $61.87 when site preparation is included. The estimates of construction cost and construction cost per square foot include an allocation of 2,000 square feet and $110,000 for the day-care unit. The cost per square foot projected in the updated application differs from that projected in the original application because the original application included site preparation, assumed a facility size of 36,000 square feet and was not changed when the original design was changed to add day- care in the original application supplement. The actual size is approximately 40,000 gross square feet. The original HCR application submitted a blueprint which is somewhat different in shape from that which HCR currently intends to build. When HCR added day-care in its Original application supplement, a change in the shape of the building was required and a new design was submitted, but cost estimates were not changed. The design which HCR will use for this facility is similar to the design being used in four ongoing HCR projects in Florida, and which, therefore, meets HRS' requirements. The design relied upon by HCR at final hearing is not substantially different from the design presented to HRS in the original application supplement. HCR's estimates of construction cost, construction cost per square foot, construction cost per bed, equipment cost per bed and total project costs are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the construction of the proposed facility. HCR's updated construction cost estimates are based upon its construction experience in Florida, its experience in having built the design proposed and its discussions with contractors and subcontractors on the east coast of Florida. HCR is currently building two facilities on the east coast of Florida. HCR does not anticipate any cost overruns on any of the facilities currently under construction. All HCR facilities under construction are being constructed within the certificate of need budgets for those facilities. HCR estimates project development costs, including feasibility studies, surveys, legal and accounting fees, planning and HRS's plan review, to be $55,000, which represents an increase over the estimate in the original application due to the passage of time. HCR estimates professional services required for the construction of the facility to cost $90,000. These services include architectural and engineering fees and a site survey and soil investigation report. These costs are approximate1y $5,000 less than the original estimate. This reduction in cost is a direct result of HCR's new staff of civil engineers. Previously, HCR had contracted for site survey work with outside engineers. Thus, while architectural and engineering fees increase, the costs for site surveys and soil investigation reports decrease. The HCR nursing home will be located on approximately 5 acres. HCR estimates land cost for the facility to be approximately $500,000. This - represents an increase over the original land cost estimate because HCR intends to acquire a site which requires less site preparation, located near a hospital. The HCR estimates for land cost are reasonable and consistent with other applicants' estimates. Site preparation costs are estimated at $275,000, a reduction from the original site preparation cost estimate of $315,000. This change is accounted for by HCR's intention to acquire a more costly site which will require less site preparation. HCR intends to build and operate the nursing home proposed for Brevard County and is willing to accept a condition to that effect on any certificate of need issued. HCR estimates a project completion schedule which will result in its nursing home being occupied and in use in July, 1989, and this project completion forecast is a reasonable forecast. HCR has taken steps to ensure that failure to initiate construction within statutory requirements will not occur. HCR has undertaken numerous nursing home projects since 1983 and has successfully constructed or initiated construction on all of those projects. At this time HCR has approximately six projects under construction, four projects have been completed, and one project is under construction for a third party. The design of the HCR facility incorporates numerous energy conservation measures and efficiencies. The HCR facility will comply with all energy code requirements. HCR owns and operates seven nursing homes in Florida. Three of these facilities have superior licenses, and the remaining facilities have standard licenses. HCR nursing homes adhere to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patients' rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurses services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, patient activities, infection control, patient care planning, safety and the physical environmental, menus, diets, nutritional care and scheduling and staffing of dietary personnel, personal appearance and hygiene for dietary personnel, and food storage, preparation and sanitation. These standards and guidelines will be applicable to this proposed project. The standards and guidelines cover all areas of operations and patient care and incorporate survey tools used by the state of Florida and the Health Care and Finance Administration of the federal government for their annual licensure surveys. Additionally, administrators of HCR facilities have a financial incentive to optimize the performance and the quality of care of their facilities. HCR estimates that approximately 60 percent of the patient days in the facility (53 percent of the revenue) will result from Medicaid patients. This estimate is consistent with the experience in the Rockledge-Cocoa area, where one facility has a very low percentage of Medicaid patients and the remaining facilities have very high Medicaid populations (over 60 percent). HCR's estimate also takes into account HCR's recent experience in staffing a facility which includes an Alzheimers wing. HCR will not restrict the number of Medicaid patients in the Alzheimers wing or the remainder of the home. HCR's original application assumed approximately 45 percent of the patient days (42 percent of the revenues) would be accounted for by Medicaid patients. This assumption was based upon HCR's assumption at that time that, in order to cover the assumed high cost of additional staffing in the Alzheimers wing, a greater percentage of private patients (at a higher daily charge) would be required. Subsequent to submission of the original application, HCR has gained actual experience which has demonstrated that the level of staffing proposed by the original application is not necessary and that the cost of staffing can be reduced. The result is that HCR can reduce its reliance on the additional revenue generated by the private paying patient. HCR's design for its Brevard County Alzheimers unit is based upon a state-of-the-art Alzheimers wing at its facility in Perrysburg, Ohio, and HCR's experience gained there. In addition, HCR operates two other facilities which have separate units for Alzheimers patients. The HCR application is consistent with both state and local health plans. HCR projects a charge for Medicaid patients to be $60.93 and, for Medicare patients to be $76 in July, 1989. The increase in charges between the updated projections and the original projections is due to increases in costs during the passage of time since the original estimates were made. The cost of care for patients who are unable to pay is subsidized by the general revenue of the nursing home. Although HCR and Unicare have not projected a percentage of "charity" patients who will not be paying for their services, there will always be some patients who do not pay for all of their care. Patients who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford standard private pay rates are charged at lower contract rates. The loan fees projected by HCR of $57,000 for the amount of the project financed by debt are reasonable projections based upon current discussions with lenders. HCR estimates that interest during construction will cost $225,000. This amount represents the interest expense paid during the period of construction. This estimate is reasonable. HCR estimates $50,000 will be required for preopening expenses - those incurred in preparing the facility for the opening day. These expenses include marketing and the hiring of an administrator, a director of nursing, and other employees prior to opening. $50,000 is an adequate amount to cover the pre- opening expenses for the proposed facility. HCR's pro forma assumptions, proposed patient charges, projections of revenue and expense, staffing and projections of salaries are reasonable. Each HCR nursing home provides individual patient care plans for each patient, a statement of patients' rights and a resident council (which is a unit of individuals selected by the patients to afford an opportunity to have a formalized, direct method to state preferences, grievances and other opinions related to the operation of the nursing home), and each HCR nursing home has transfer agreements with local-hospitals. The planning director of the Local Health Council responsible for Brevard County performed an analysis of the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County. The results of the study demonstrate that the central part of Brevard County has a lower number of nursing home beds per thousand population over 65 than the remainder of Brevard County. If additional nursing home beds are to be approved for Brevard County, the beds should be located in the central part of the county because the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County is greatest in central Brevard. The HCR architectural design best accommodates the needs of the nursing home patient. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., is a non-profit corporation affiliated with Wuesthoff Hospital, Inc., a 305-bed non-profit hospital serving Brevard County, through a common parent Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. Wuesthoff Hospital provides some indigent medical care in central Brevard County, and the Wuesthoff nursing home certificate of need application commits to providing some indigent care at the proposed nursing home facility. Wuesthoff, through its affiliated non-profit companies, operates within Brevard County a home health agency, a hospice, four family practice clinics, Life Line for the elderly or disabled who live alone, and Brevard Medical Transport, a no- cost transportation service for the elderly. It also operates a retail pharmacy through a for-profit affiliated corporation. The hospital has for several years maintained a senior citizens' advisory council which concerns itself with the needs of the elderly in Brevard County. It also intends to compete with other businesses in operating Brevard County's Meals On Wheels due to a recent expansion of the size of the Hospital's kitchen. The proposed nursing home will be located on a tract of land owned by Wuesthoff Hospital which will make the property available to Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., at either the nominal rental of $1 per year for the useful life of the nursing home or by outright contribution if required by HRS. The land has been owned for several years by Wuesthoff Hospital, but Wuesthoff included $48,000 for land costs in its original certificate of need application. The site for the Wuesthoff nursing home is part of a large tract of land which already has located thereon a 20,000 square feet ambulatory care center, diagnostic testing center, family practice physician, dental facility, and retail pharmacy, all of which are owned by one of the Wuesthoff corporations. The ambulatory care center includes laboratory services, physical therapy services, radiology services, two out-patient surgery suites, and 24- hour physician coverage. The nursing home will be connected to the ambulatory care center by an air conditioned, enclosed corridor through which the nursing home patients will be transported to receive any therapies or services which they require. The farthest distance from any patient room in the nursing home to the ambulatory care center, including physical therapy rooms, is approximately 400 feet. Wuesthoff's nursing home would be located in the area which the Local Health Council recognizes as having the greatest need for nursing home beds, i.e., central Brevard County in the Cocoa/Rockledge area. According to Wuesthoff's updated application the total project cost for its 120-bed nursing home would be $2,901,213, and the facility will consist of 37,500 square feet. The project size actually includes 1,000 square feet for the corridor which connects the nursing home to the ambulatory care center. Therefore, the facility itself consists of only 36,500 square feet. It is unclear whether that figure should be further reduced since Wuesthoff decreased the size of its kitchen in its amended application so that the nursing home would no longer have a full-service kitchen. Similarly, the total project cost was substantially higher in Wuesthoff's original application wherein the total project cost was given as $4,417,884. Wuesthoff made changes from its original to its updated application either because the applications were prepared by different persons or because decisions were made to change Wuesthoff's application, as follows: The original application included a full-service kitchen, while the updated application contemplates meals will be prepared at Wuesthoff Hospital and transported seven miles to the nursing home. The removal of the kitchen affects the square footage of the facility along with equipment costs, staffing costs and other costs associated with the operation of the proposed nursing home, such as the increased costs associated with transporting the food to the nursing home. In its original application, one individual was listed as both the nursing home administrator and director of nursing. In its updated application, Wuesthoff treated these as separate positions. Wuesthoff proposed $376,000 for equipment costs in its original application and projected $187,400 for equipment costs in its updated application. Wuesthoff projected 45 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare in its original application and 50 percent Medicaid and 2 percent Medicare in its updated application without any evidence that the needs in the community had changed. Wuesthoff removed the debt service, in its updated application, thus reducing the financing costs. The underwriter's fees between the original and updated application were reduced based upon a dimunition of the bond size as a result of reduction of square footage in the facility and the elimination of the debt service. Wuesthoff reduced land cost from $48,000 in its original application to no cost in its updated application despite the fact that the land was owned by Wuesthoff at the time the original application was filed. Wuesthoff changed the equity contribution between its original and updated applications without any testimony of extrinsic factors while evidence showed that the funds were available to make the equity contribution at the time of the submittal of the Original certificate of need application. Although Wuesthoff's application' represents that approximately 3 percent of the revenues from private pay patients would be devoted to indigent or charity patients, the 3 percent actually applies to both charity and bad debt. Wuesthoff failed to demonstrate how much of its revenues, if any, would be allocated to charity care alone. Wuesthoff projected charges of $65 for a semi- private room for a private paying patient and $73 for a private room for a private paying patient. These charges, projected for mid-1989, are below existing (1987) charges at nursing homes in Brevard County. The projections of financial feasibility and the pro formas for the Wuesthoff facility are based upon the assumption that the Wuesthoff nursing home will be owned and operated by Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. The only financial statements provided by Wuesthoff in support of its application are those relating to Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital. Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital is a corporation separate and distinct from Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. Further, the financial statements of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital provided by Wuesthoff do not include the "notes" normally appended to those statements. The "notes" to the audited financial statements are typically included in any complete financial statements and are required for a full understanding of the financial statements. The pro formas of Wuesthoff assume that 15 percent of salaries would be allocated to fringe benefits. This assumption is based upon the assumption that the employees of the nursing home will not be unionized and, therefore, their fringe benefits will not be as high as those for unionized employees. The nurses at Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital are unionized and have higher benefits than proposed for the nursing home. Unionization is a decision made by employees and not by management. Wuesthoff's assumptions for fringe benefits do not assume any increase in the fringe benefits from year to year. Wuesthoff agrees that there are required increases in fringe benefits, such as increases in required contributions to social security programs over the next few years. Thus, the amount for fringe benefits assumed by Wuesthoff understates the amount likely to be paid. A participant in the Medicaid reimbursement system is entitled to reimbursement on the basis of fair rental value of the nursing home. Although the fair rental value aspect of the reimbursement plan includes consideration of the value of land upon which a nursing home is situated, and although Wuesthoff assumes that it would receive reimbursement under this element of the plan, Wuesthoff does not include in that reimbursement any value for land value. Wuesthoff would be entitled to that form of reimbursement, but Wuesthoff was unable to specify "how that's going to be done." The Medicaid reimbursement system incorporates certain caps on reimbursement, including caps for patient care costs, operating costs and property costs. Wuesthoff is unable to specify which Medicaid reimbursement caps it utilized when calculating its Medicaid charges. It is not possible to calculate Wuesthoff's Medicaid reimbursement and Medicaid charges based upon the exhibits presented by Wuesthoff, including its applications. The Wuesthoff application does not contain any description of patient care costs or costs of operation of the Wuesthoff facility upon which Medicaid charges can be determined. Wuesthoff represented that certain services would be provided to the Wuesthoff nursing home by Wuesthoff Health Services or Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital at no charge to the nursing home. The exact nature of the services and their value are unspecified. Although Wuesthoff contends fewer staff will be needed at the nursing home, Wuesthoff has not determined how many additional staff would be required at the hospital and has not calculated the cost of transporting food to the nursing home. Ordinarily, a related entity providing services to a nursing home is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of those services under the Medicaid reimbursement system. Wuesthoff has not determined whether the Medicaid statutes and regulations will allow a related entity to waive its entitlement to such reimbursement. Wuesthoff's parent company, Wuesthoff Health Systems, and Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital will incur costs for providing those services to Wuesthoff which Wuesthoff represents will not be reimbursed. These entities' budgets and Medicaid reimbursement are regulated and audited by HRS and the Hospital Cost Containment Board. By providing services to the nursing home and no longer allocating 100 percent of costs to operation of the hospital, the hospital's reimbursement and budget will have to be adjusted. These required adjustments have not been taken into consideration by Wuesthoff. In preparing its budget to be submitted to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, the hospital will be required to allocate a certain amount of time for those persons providing services to the nursing home. The hospital will not be reimbursed for those services by Medicaid or Medicare. The total cost of providing care to nursing home residents must be reported by the nursing home in its Medicaid cost report. If a nursing home does not include allowable Medicaid costs in its cost report, HRS will include those costs when HRS audits the cost report. When those additional costs are included, the nursing home's reimbursement (Medicaid charge) will increase. It is not a generally accepted accounting principle to exclude allowable costs in a Medicaid cost report. By not including certain costs, expenses are understated and profit is overstated. Wuesthoff attempted to present evidence that a hospital-based nursing home facility maintains lower costs which can be passed on to its patients, because of an absence of taxation and the presence of group purchasing. However, this evidence also revealed that the hospital-based nursing home to which Wuesthoff sought comparison had patient care and operating costs which exceed the caps for Medicaid reimbursement. Additionally, Wuesthoff's Medicaid costs are higher than those of HCR. Wuesthoff proposes an architectural plan for its nursing home which has never been built in Florida. Wuesthoff is the only applicant which proposes three nurses' stations for 120 beds. The 120-bed nursing home with two nurses' stations is more efficient to operate than a 120-bed nursing home with three nurses' stations. Three nurses' stations result in a higher cost per patient day than two nurses' stations. Wuesthoff's architect was unable to estimate the cost of site preparation and was unable to specify the exact nature of site preparation required. However, site preparation will be required. There is confusion concerning the cost of equipment for the Wuesthoff project, particularly with regard to food service equipment. Although the Wuesthoff architect testified that Wuesthoff originally had consulted with him concerning the cost of equipment, the witness was unable to identify the equipment costs listed in the application. The equipment list relied upon by Wuesthoff and the list of used equipment and food service equipment was not prepared until the first week of the final hearing. Wuesthoff's projection of construction cost ($57 per square foot) was not prepared by Wuesthoff's architect and the source of the projection is unspecified. The project is not based upon any actual experience of nursing home construction in Florida. The original estimate was provided by the architect to Wuesthoff several years earlier and was lower than $57 per square foot. Wuesthoff proposes to connect its nursing home to a nearby ambulatory surgical center by a corridor. There are no physical therapy or Occupational therapy rooms provided at the nursing home. Although recreational therapy and speech therapy must be provided at the nursing home, only small meeting rooms are available for these purposes. A nursing home patient transported from a nursing home to a location outside the nursing home for therapies must remain in the care of nursing home staff. This mode of operation requires more staff than one in which all therapies are provided within the physical confines of the nursing home. Wuesthoff did not include in its estimate of project development cost any estimate for attorney's fees or consulting fees of the planners and financial consultants retained for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need. The shared services referred to by Wuesthoff are not free services, and no evidence was offered to show that the sharing of those services would be cost efficient. The corridor between the ambulatory surgical center and the nursing home is estimated by Wuesthoff to be 1,000 square feet. The cost for the corridor is -included in the costs projected for the nursing home, and the corridor is included in the total size (37,500 square feet) of the nursing home. Wuesthoff proposes to equip the nursing home with used equipment and furniture. The used hospital beds which Wuesthoff proposes to use at the nursing home are eight to twelve years old. Although Wuesthoff proposes to provide therapy through professional staff from Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Wuesthoff could not estimate how many additional therapists must be hired by the hospital in order to provide therapy for the nursing home patients. Wuesthoff contends that it will provide a high level of charity care in its nursing home at the same level that is provided at the hospital. However, when calculating the percentage of charity care at the hospital, Wuesthoff included care provided within programs where some form of governmental funding was available to pay for care. For instance, Brevard County contributes funding toward the care of patients who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement. There is also a state fund for indigent care and Wuesthoff expects to receive revenues from that fund. The total allowance for bad debt and charity care proposed by Wuesthoff is 1.1 percent of gross patient revenues. Wuesthoff will require financial screening of patients prior to admission. Unicare proposes as total project cost in both its original and updated applications the amount of $3,360,000. The project cost cannot be relied upon, however, since it will be necessary for Unicare to modify its design. As further set forth below, Unicare's projected revenues and expenses are suspect. Unicare has never constructed a new nursing home in Florida or built the design proposed. When filing a cost report and determining Medicaid reimbursement for a new nursing home, all costs incurred throughout the process of developing and constructing the project, including feasibility studies, attorney's fees, accounting fees, consulting fees and certificate of need fees must be included. Unicare failed to include all project development costs in its application. The pro formas and projections of revenues and expenses for Unicare were prepared solely by Unicare's certificate of need consultants, based upon the consultants' experience in their own nursing homes and not upon any information (other than home office costs) concerning the operation of Unicare nursing homes. Unicare's in-house financial expert agreed that it is difficult to project revenues and expenses for operation of the proposed Unicare nursing home without having knowledge of what Unicare's general costs and expenses are. Two Unicare homes have failed to comply with the isolation room requirements of Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the licensure of nursing homes. The Unicare design does not provide any single, licensed isolation room as required by HRS licensure regulations. The Unicare architectural design provides only one toilet room between two patient rooms to meet the needs of four nursing home patients. The company which designed and expects to construct the Unicare facility has not performed any nursing home construction work in Florida since 1983 or 1984 when the company remodeled a nursing home. The last nursing home which this company completed for Unicare was prior to 1985. This company did not prepare the construction cost estimates relied upon by Unicare. Calculation of the size of the Unicare facility did not include a reduction of 9 square feet for each indented, V-shaped window in the facility. There are 23 such windows proposed for the Unicare facility. Accordingly, the Unicare facility is 207 square feet smaller than represented in the application. Licensure regulations require an unobstructed view (vista) of 20 feet from the window of a nursing home resident's room. At least four Unicare patient rooms have an unobstructed view of less than 20 feet. Therefore, the design presented by Unicare at final hearing does not comply with the rules for licensure of a new nursing home, pursuant to Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. The Unicare design has never been built, although it was prepared more than five years ago. The design was intended for patient programs not now proposed by Unicare. The original facility design accommodated residents who require a degree of care below and can participate in activities above typical nursing home residents, such as residents found in adult congregate living facilities. The design and location of the sinks in the Unicare patient rooms do not allow sufficient space for a patient in a wheelchair to have access to the sink at the same time that the door to the toilet room is open. Unicare proposes to locate its facility in the Titusville area in north Brevard County. The local health plan shows the greatest need for additional nursing home beds to be in central, not north, Brevard County. Unicare's selection of Titusville as the area for location of its nursing home was not based upon any demographic analysis or determination of need for additional nursing home beds in the Titusville area. Rather, the selection of Titusville would avoid competition with another of Unicare's facilities located in the Rockledge/Cocoa area. In determining equipment needs, Unicare's certificate of need consultants did not refer to the design of the Unicare nursing home. Unicare projects that its facility will reach 97 percent occupancy in the first nine months of operation. However, the last nursing home to open in the Titusville area, Vista Manor, did not reach 97 percent occupancy until after the first year of operation. Unicare will staff at skilled levels. Its proposed staff salaries are reasonable. Unicare has not yet settled on any site in the Titusville area although it has narrowed its search down to four sites which vary between four and seven acres with prices ranging from $25,000 to $90,000 per acre. Its current total project cost of $3,360,000 computes to a project cost per bed of exactly $28,000. Unicare's parent, United Health, Inc., is the entity that must fund this project and has, by resolution, committed to such funding "provided that said expenditure shall not exceed $28,000 per bed." Consequently, it is highly likely that the proposed design, which has never been built anywhere, which must be redone to comply with HRS codes, and which will be built on land that is yet to be acquired but which will likely require a zoning variance, will cost more than $28,000 per bed. The HCR nursing home is larger and provides more area for patient care than the facilities proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare. The HCR facility will provide more gross square feet per bed and a larger nursing unit area (which includes patient rooms, the nursing support unit and corridor areas). The entire facility proposed by HCR will be 40,000 square feet, 2,000 of which is allocated to day-care; the day-care area will be available to nursing home residents during those hours in which the day-care area is not in use by day- care residents. The Wuesthoff facility is said to be 37,500 square feet, but 1,000 square feet consists of an outside corridor; thus, the net usable space at the Wuesthoff nursing home is only 36,5' 00 square feet. The smallest proposed facility is the Unicare facility, said to be 34,121.5 square feet, but actually less than 34,000 feet when accurately measured. The nursing homes proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare are at or below the low gross square foot average determined by HRS. Larger patient care areas are desirable. It is not desirable to place only one toilet room between two patient rooms to accommodate four patients, as proposed by Unicare. It is a generally accepted standard for nursing home skilled nursing units to be organized in groups of 60 beds. Units of this size offer the best efficiencies of operation in terms of economics and quality of care. Each nursing unit must include, in addition to patient bedrooms, toilet rooms and bathing facilities, one nurses' station, a clean utility room, a soiled utility room, a medication preparation room, a nourishment room, a janitors closet, an equipment storage room, a stretcher and wheel chair alcove, a clean linen closet and a nurses' toilet and lavatory. By providing three nursing units, Wuesthoff must devote more space to meet these requirements than would be required for two nursing units.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order: Granting HCR's application for a certificate of need; Denying Unicare's application for a certificate of need; Denying Wuesthoff's application for a certificate of need; and Dismissing the Petition to Intervene of Brevard Medical Investors, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2686, 86-2687, 86-2688 and 86-2690 Unicare's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 22, and 25 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Unicare's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 13 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 2, 4-7, 12, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 26 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 9 and 18 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 27 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 36, 39, and 40 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 31 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 1, 7-18, 22-30, 32, 34, and 41 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 19-21, 33, 35, 37 and 38 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 42 - 43 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-66, 68, 70-81, 83, 85- 92, 94, 96-104, and 106-123 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 67 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; 69 as being cumulative; 82 and 95 as being irrelevant; 84 as being unnecessary; 93 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law; and 105 as being not supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 3231 Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
