The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need to establish Medicare-certified home health agencies filed by Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction) and Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. (Nursing Unlimited), on balance, satisfy the applicable review criteria so as to entitle either or both to award of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc., was formed for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need for a Medicare certified home health agency, and to serve as the entity into which would be merged certain existing licensed non-Medicare certified home health agencies in Dade County. Aida Salazar-Rebull is a co- founder, director, officer, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns, operates, and serves as the administrator of LTC Professional Consultants, Inc. (LTC), a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Ms. Salazar will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s administrator, and after CON approval will merge LTC into Nursing Unlimited and continue its current operations. Elia Murias is also a co- founder, director, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns and operates Nursing Love & Care, a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Upon CON approval, Ms. Murias, a registered nurse, will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s director of nursing, and will merge the operations of Nursing Love & Care into Nursing Unlimited. For the past 12 years LTC has provided home health care services directly to Medicaid and private pay patients, and to Medicare patients through contracts with Medicare certified agencies. LTC is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), which accreditation will be transferred to Nursing Unlimited. Since its inception, the number of patients served by LTC has increased every year. LTC enjoys an excellent reputation among local health care providers and patients. LTC’s continual growth over the past ten years, coupled with the letters of support in the application, demonstrate a record of providing high quality care to underserved communities and population subgroups. LTC currently provides home health services in northwest, west central, central, and east central Dade County, and as Nursing Unlimited will serve the same geographic area. LTC places particular emphasis on its service to underserved population subgroups such as Hispanics, Haitians, Blacks, low-income clients, and HIV-positive patients. Nursing Unlimited will continue to serve those population subgroups. Although approximately 53 percent of the Dade County population is Latin, only two of the over 30 existing Medicare certified home health agencies are Latin owned and operated. LTC and Nursing Love & Care are Latin owned and operated, as would be Nursing Unlimited. The entire staff of LTC is bilingual, and some staff are multi-lingual, as would be the staff of Nursing Unlimited. Approval of Nursing Unlimited's application would enhance the availability and accessibility of services to the Latin community. Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction), is an existing home health care agency providing services in Dade County since approximately 1988. Like Nursing Unlimited, Aaction's target population is the Hispanic community of Miami and Hialeah. The geographical area which Aaction now serves and will continue to serve at an enhanced level, if approved, is a low- income, high crime and low education area. Aaction's success in those difficult areas is based on its ability to recruit and retain indigenous staff who know the problems. Over 30 letters of recommendation and support, mostly from Hispanic physicians, are attached to Aactions's application and attest to the agency's past and anticipated future service in the community. Aaction has applied for JCAHO accreditation. Need Analysis The review of CON applications must be in context with the criteria set forth in Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the parties’ prehearing stipulation, both applicants satisfy all of the applicable review criteria, except this: The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing home health care services in District 11. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Aaction and Nursing Unlimited both contend there is a need in District 11 for at least two new or additional Medicare certified home health agencies. Each asserts that both CON applications can and should be approved; their respective applications are not mutually exclusive, and accordingly, they need not be comparatively reviewed with one another. The focus of the sole remaining criterion at issue, Subsection 408.035(1)(b), is on existing home health care providers. As acknowledged by AHCA in its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in pure numbers the instant CON application proposals would increase availability and access in District 11. There is no AHCA rule formula or methodology to determine a numeric need, nor is there a fixed need pool applicable to this proceeding. In the absence of an Agency numeric need rule, the applicants each proposed reasonable need methodologies within their applications. AHCA did not propose any need methodology at hearing. AHCA's former home health agency numeric need methodology rule was invalidated because it was anti-competitive, understated potential actual need, and failed to consider health care economics, efficiency and cost containment. Principal Nursing v. AHCA, DOAH No. 93-5711RX (Final Order January 26, 1994); AHCA v. Principal Nursing Services, Inc., 650 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (Affirmed the Final Order as to the need methodology, but reversed as to other portions of the rule unrelated to the issues here). Nursing Unlimited, through Michael Schwartz, applied the invalidated need methodology to demonstrate that even under that excessively conservative approach, at least 2 additional home health agencies are needed in District 11. When the applications were filed the most current home health visit utilization data was for calendar year 1994. The number of visits in 1994 was divided by the age 65+ population to determine a use rate, i.e., the number of home health visits per 100,000 population. The 1994 use rate was applied to the projected age 65+ population growth for the three horizon years of 1995-1997, a projection of 102,039 more patient visits in 1997 than there were in 1994, based on population growth alone. Next, Mr. Schwartz determined a cost-efficient agency size (CEAS) by determining from a review of District 11 existing home health agencies the point at which the average cost per home health visit was less than the statewide average cost per visit. In this case, the result was a CEAS of 34,973, which was divided into the number of projected new visits in the horizon year 1997 resulting from population growth alone, which calculation shows a numeric need for three new home health agencies in District 11. At the time the CON application was filed there was one approved, but not yet licensed home health agency, which was subtracted by the applicant from the net need figure, thus resulting in a net need for two new agencies. The recent historical data shows that home health care visits have been on the increase, both in terms of visits per 100,000 population and in terms of visits per patient. The amount of time spent by patients in the hospital is decreasing, which translates into increased need by patients for visits from home health agencies. The need for home health will continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. Home health care services are less costly than care received in hospitals, in nursing homes, or on an outpatient basis. Thus, allowing greater access to home health services should reduce the overall cost of health care to payors, including Medicare. To address this trend Michael Schwartz offered a realistic, yet still conservative, numeric need projection which assumes an increased use rate beyond that which is based on population increase alone. Mr. Schwartz considered the cumulative increase in visits that occurred over the three-year period 1991-1994 and projected this forward to the horizon year of 1997. Although federal Health Care Finance Agency (HCFA) data suggests that visits will grow nationally at seven percent per year. Mr. Schwartz assumed only a seven percent increase over three years, which resulted in a growth of approximately 180,124 visits by 1997, and which divided by the CEAS yields a need for 5.2 new agencies. In hindsight, the conservative nature of this projection is apparent from a review of utilization data which has become available since the filing of the CON application. For example, rather than a growth in visits of 180,000 over the period 1995-1997, there was an actual increase of over 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996 alone. Utilization data for 1997 is not yet available. Aaction presented three separate need methodologies in its application prepared by Mark Richardson. The first two methodologies applied a static use rate based on visits in 1994 to the projected population to determine total visits at the planning horizon. Recognizing that cost efficiencies maximize at an approximate range between 30,000 and 90,000 visits per year, Aaction divided the total projected visits by a conservative CEAS of 50,000. These methodologies yielded a need in District 11 for two additional home health agencies at the planning horizon. Using a CEAS of 30,000 visits would yield a need for three agencies instead of two. AHCA has recently determined that static use rates are inappropriate. (Allstar Care, Inc., etc. vs. AHCA, DOAH No. 96-4064, Final Order November 4, 1997). Nonetheless, application of over-conservative methodologies in this case can help counter the agency's unsubstantiated assertion that many visits are fraudulent or unnecessary. In its third methodology, Aaction assumed more realistically that home health use rates would continue to increase as suggested by historic data. In order not to overstate the potential growth rate, Aaction used a rate equal to one-half of the 1993-94 actual growth rate. Utilizing a 50,000 visit CEAS, this methodology yields a need of 7 to 9 new home health agencies in District 11 at the planning horizon. Using a 30,000 visit CEAS yields a net need for over 15 new home health agencies. Recalculating the need formulas by application of the now available 1995 and 1996 data, using a growth rate at 50 percent of the actual rate, and a CEAS of 50,000 visits, results in a need for 7 to 8 new agencies. If the static use rate were applied, the need would be 5 to 6 new agencies. Application of Aaction’s initial need methodologies with a static use rate based on 1996 utilization data yields a need for over 5 new agencies when a 50,000 visit CEAS is used. If a 30,000 visit CEAS is utilized, these methodologies yield a net need for 9 new home health agencies. Applying Aaction’s third methodology (i.e., utilization projected to increase at 50 percent of the actual increase between 1995 and 1996) yields a net need for over 7 or over 12 new agencies, depending on whether a 50,000 visit or 30,000 visit CEAS is applied. There are other indications of need for additional home health agencies in District 11. For example, a review of 1996 utilization data reveals that District 11 has only 1.7 home health agencies per 100,000 population, which is the lowest ratio of any district in the state. The average of all districts is 2.4 home health agencies per 100,000 population. Both applicants proposed fair and reasonable need methodologies which demonstrate a need in District 11 for at least 2 additional home health agencies, and potentially more. There is, therefore, a need for at least 2 more Medicare- certified home health agencies in District 11. Approval of both applications will increase the availability and accessibility of home health services in the proposed service areas within Dade County. Home health services are typically delivered in close proximity to the location of the agency and providers. Nursing Unlimited’s agency location is in the center of a large Latin and Haitian population, with the nearest Medicare certified home health agency approximately 15 miles away. Aaction's commitment is to a population that is difficult to serve. Local population accessibility to the proposed home health services would be increased by approval of both applications. Medicare-certified agencies apply their own admission criteria and decide whether to accept patients, leaving some patients in need and without access to services in the applicants' service area. An informal survey directed by Michael Schwartz suggests there are existing agencies which refuse to treat AIDS patients, that do not provide services at night and on weekends, and that refuse to treat people in poverty areas. The targeted Medicare-eligible population would enjoy enhanced accessibility and availability of home health services by both applicants, if approved. The addition to the district of a Medicare-certified home health agency (Nursing Unlimited) which utilizes a JCAHO- approved centralized case management system would also tend to enhance the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of services provided in the district. When non-Medicare-certified agencies receive a request to care for Medicare patients, the request must be forwarded to a Medicare-certified entity, which in turn will contact the patient. The non-Medicare agency may then be authorized under subcontract to contact and serve the patient and to bill the Medicare-certified agency for its services. In turn, the Medicare-certified agency will add on its overhead and forward a higher bill to Medicare. This process also results in delays in patient treatment. Approval of these applications would likely result in better patient care, without delays, and at lower costs. AHCA has determined that eliminating such subcontract arrangements will eliminate an unnecessary level of administrative costs. AHCA also discourages subcontract arrangements which remove direct control of patient care from the Medicare certified entity. See Allstar Care, supra. District 11 home health visits increased by 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996. A projection of 600,000 new visits during 1995 through 1997 is reasonable. Nursing Unlimited and Aaction each project approximately 25,000 visits during their second year of operation. Approval of these applicants would not adversely impact the utilization of existing home health providers in the district. Both applicants here will specifically enhance access by the needy Hispanic population. AHCA offered no competent evidence to contradict the conclusions of the applicants' experts, nor did it effectively challenge the accuracy, validity, or reliability of the methodologies they employed. AHCA's expert and sole witness, James McLemore, is an application review specialist who candidly admitted he has no experience in the development of need methodologies but relies instead on the expertise of health care planners such as Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Richardson. Mr. McLemore's anecdotal testimony regarding fraudulent or phantom visits, and AHCA's concern that both state and federal agencies are investigating fraud in the home health care business, raise compelling licensing issues but are insufficient to defeat otherwise convincing evidence in favor of these certificates of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting CON No. 8428 to Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. and CON No. 8432 to Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Manthei Broad and Cassel 1130 Broward Financial Center 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Moses E. Williams Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3400 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. David Prescott Ruthledge Ecenia Underwood Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Pedro Rene Benitez, M.D., is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 53453. On or about November 12, 1997, a true bill was returned by a grand jury in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 97-574-Cr-LENARD, which charged Respondent, as well as numerous co-defendants, with, inter alia, conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false claims to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program, contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 Pertinent to this case, Count I of the Superseding Indictment charged Respondent, together with eighteen other persons or organizations, as follows: COUNT I (CONSPIRACY: 18 U.S.C. § 371) From in or about January 1991, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing through in or about October 1993, in Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendants . . . did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, agree, and reach a tacit understanding with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, as follows: (a) to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating, through deceitful and dishonest means, the lawful government functions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in its administration of the Medicare program, in violation of Title 18, Unites States Code, Section 371. . . . GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material to this Indictment: THE MEDICARE PART A PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS The Medicare program was a Federal program that helped pay for health care for the aged, blind and disabled. The Medicare program was administered by HHS, through its agency, the Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"). Medicare, through the Medicare "Part A" program, covered certain eligible home health care costs for medical services provided by "home health agencies", commonly referred to as "providers", to persons who qualified for Medicare and who required home health services because of an illness or disability that caused them to be homebound. . . . HCFA contracted with private insurance companies to administer the Medicare Part A program throughout the United States. In the State of Florida, HCFA contracted with Aetna Medicare Administration of Clearwater ("AETNA"). As administrator, AETNA was to receive, adjudicate and pay claims submitted by home health agencies and providers under the Part A program. * * * Under the Medicare Part A program, home health agencies possessing the required CON were reimbursed for reasonable costs and overhead expenses incurred for direct patient care. The Medicare Part A program reimbursed 100% of the allowable charges for participating agencies providing home health care services only if the patient: (a) was confined to the home; (b) was under the care of a physician who determined the need for home health care and set up a written home health plan, known as a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment; and (c) was in need of skilled nursing care on an intermittent basis, required physical or speech therapy, or had a continuing need for occupational therapy. Medicare Part A regulations further required home health agencies providing services to Medicare patients to maintain complete and accurate medical records reflecting the medical assessment and diagnoses of their patients, as well as records documenting actual treatment of the patients to whom services were provided and for whom claims for reimbursement were submitted by the home health agency. These medical records were required to be sufficiently complete to permit Medicare, through AETNA, to review the appropriateness of Medicare payments made to the home health agency under the Part A program. Among the written records necessary to document the appropriateness of home health care claims submitted under Part A of Medicare was a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment (HCFA Form 485) (hereinafter referred to as "POT"), signed by an attending physician certifying that the patient was confined to his or her home and was in need of the planned home health services. Moreover, any substantial changes to the POT, or the provision of any home health services beyond a two-month (62 days) period from the date of the original certification, required a re-certification by the attending physician of the need for these changed or additional home health services. Additionally, Medicare Part A regulations required home health agencies to maintain medical records of each visit made by a nurse or home health aide to a patient. The record of a nurse's visit was required to describe, among other things, any observed significant signs or symptoms, any treatment and drugs administered, any reactions by the patient, and any changes in the patient's physical or emotional condition. These written medical records generally were created and maintained in the form of "skilled nursing notes" and "home health aide observations." * * * HOME HEALTH AGENCIES INVOLVED Defendant MEDERI OF DADE COUNTY, INC. ("MEDERI DADE COUNTY") was a home health care provider, incorporated in the State of Florida ("Florida") and certified by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY was located in Coral Gables, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7087. Mederi of Miami Lakes, Inc. ("Mederi Miami Lakes") was a home health care provider, certified by the Florida Division of Health and Quality Assurance. Mederi Miami Lakes, which was a branch of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY, was located in the Miami Lakes area of Dade County, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7380. THE DEFENDANTS * * * * * * 43. Defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ was a resident of Dade County, Florida and a licensed physician. * * * PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY 53. It was the purpose and object of the conspiracy for the defendants to enrich themselves by fraudulently inducing HHS to pay defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes millions of dollars in Medicare Part A reimbursements for purportedly legitimate home health care claims and expenses, which claims and expenses the defendants knew to be false, fictitious, fraudulent and otherwise non-reimbursable in that, as the defendants well knew, the services were not actually provided or were provided to persons who the defendants knew were not qualified to receive Medicare home health care benefits. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY The manner and means by which the defendants sought to accomplish the purpose and object of the conspiracy included the following: * * * . . . defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, NILDA MIRANDA and RAUL CABRERA participated in the recruitment of licensed physicians, including defendants EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, to sign fabricated and fictitious POT forms in exchange for cash and other financial benefits. In addition to directing the fabrication of POT forms, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUINI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to generate the following fictitious supporting documentation, including: (a) records necessary to support the payments made to the nursing groups by defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes for the claimed visits, including billing sheets, final matched itinerary/bill reports, and group batch worksheets; and (b) records necessary to support defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY's and Mederi Miami Lakes' billing of those visits to Medicare. * * * 68. Defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA, JORGE MORENO, JESUS PUNALES, ELISA GAVILLA, LYDIA GUADALUPE, JULIA GARCIA and NILDA MIRANDA, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to process and submit to Medicare the false claims for home health visits originating from the nursing groups. * * * OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its objects, at least one of the co-conspirators committed or caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others: * * * CREATION OF FALSE DOCUMENTATION BY MEDERI EMPLOYEES * * * 48. On or about June 4, 1992, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused his signature to be affixed on a POT form for a patient identified by the initials N.J. * * * On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to create a POT for a patient identified by the initials F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, caused the signature of a licensed physician, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, to be affixed to a POT form for F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused employees of Mederi Miami Lakes to complete nineteen (19) false "skilled nursing notes" pertaining to F.D. * * * SUBMISSION OF FALSE CLAIMS * * * 93. On or about October 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ and LYDIA GUADALUPE caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to submit a false home health claim in the amount of $2,700.00 to Medicare, through Aetna, pertaining to a patient identified by the initials M.G. (Emphasis added.) The false documentation Respondent made, presented and filed, or caused to be made, presented and filed, with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, through AETNA, for Medicare reimbursement for home health care visits resulted in a loss to the government with regard to patient N. J. of $500.00, with regard to patient F. D. of $4,600.00, and with regard to patient M. G. of $2,700.00, for a total loss of $7,800.00. For the creation of such false documentation, Respondent averred, at hearing, that he was paid "75.00 per beneficiary." (Transcript, page 22.) On April 27, 1998, consistent with a plea agreement Respondent had entered into with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Superseding Indictment ("Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, by making false claims to the [United States Department of] Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program," contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 371), and on April 19, 1999, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of such offense. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) For such offense, given his cooperation with the United States attorney, discussed infra, Respondent was given a split sentence of 14 months, consisting of a term of imprisonment of 7 months, followed by 7 months of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. Upon release from imprisonment, Respondent was to serve a term of 2 years on supervised release. Special conditions of supervision imposed by the judgement of conviction included the following: Effective immediately, the defendant shall surrender his medical license to the U.S. Probation Office. The U.S. Probation Office shall submit the license to the appropriate regulatory agency. The defendant shall not serve as a doctor or be employed or act in any capacity at any type of medical services, whether it be as a doctor, physician assistant or an administrator. The defendant shall not have any interest, directly or indirectly, in any medical businesses, whether it be medical services or medical supplies. The defendant shall notify the State Board of Medicine of his conviction and sentence in this case, and of the fact that his medical license has been taken by this Court. The defendant shall not participate in any Medicare/Medicaid billing procedures for any medical facility or program. Respondent was also ordered to pay, individually, restitution in the amount of $150,000.00 to the Palmetto Government Benefits Administration.2 The remaining charges (counts) against Respondent were dismissed (consistent with the plea agreement) on motion of the United States Attorney. On May 17, 1999, Respondent surrendered to the United States Marshal for the Southern District of Florida for commitment to the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 7 months. Respondent apparently completed that term in or about December 1999, and as of the date of hearing (February 8, 2000) was serving his 7-month period of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. According to Respondent, his term of supervised release (probation) is scheduled to end December 12, 2001. Circumstances related to aggravation or mitigation of any penalty Respondent has been actively engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida from his initial licensure on June 22, 1988, until the Department suspended his license (on an emergency basis, as a consequence of the pending federal charges) on April 6, 1999.3 During such period, in addition to his active practice, Respondent volunteered his services (from 1998 until his license was suspended) two or three days a month to the Dade County Chapter of the American Red Cross; volunteered his services for 5 or 6 years as a member of the medical staff of "Camilla's House," an organization serving the homeless; and volunteered his services to the American Red Cross for treatment of the victims of Hurricane Andrew. Respondent has never previously been disciplined by the Board of Medicine, and notwithstanding his conviction, continues to enjoy the support of former patients and colleagues. With regard to the Mederi case, Respondent cooperated with the United States attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, albeit not until investigators discovered (3 years after the events) his participation in the conspiracy, and confronted him with their findings; it appeared in his best interest to cooperate. Notwithstanding, consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Respondent provided truthful information, testified on behalf of the government at trial, and proved to be a key witness in resolving the case favorably for the government. With regard to the strictures placed on his conduct under the terms of conviction, the proof demonstrates Respondent has complied with the Special Conditions of Supervision. Indeed, during the term of his imprisonment, Respondent was formally excluded from eligibility to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs; was barred from receiving payment, directly or indirectly, from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; and, surrendered his controlled substances privileges (Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration). As for restitution, there is no proof of record that Respondent has made any payment toward satisfaction of such obligation; however, it is also noted that Respondent was imprisoned from May 17, 1999, to on or about December 12, 1999, and, consequently, unemployed. As for his future plans, Respondent, given his training and experience, desires to resume the practice of medicine upon completion of his term of supervised release (December 12, 2001), provided the Department does not further restrict his licensure status.4 Such practice will, according to Respondent, allow him an opportunity to properly support his family,5 and it would also appear likely that such employment would accord Respondent an opportunity to satisfy, in whole or part, his obligation to pay restitution for his criminal offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violation found, imposes an administrative fine of $10,000.00; orders compliance with all terms of the judgment of conviction; and continues the suspension of Respondent's license for a term of 2 years following successful completion of his term of supervised release, followed by a 2-year period of probation on such terms and conditions as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2000.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding involves certificate of need (CON) application No. 4912 by Home Health Care of Bay to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency to serve Bay County Florida. Home Health Care of Bay's CON application was timely filed on December 15, 1986. Home Health Care of Bay's application was deemed complete on March 2, 1987. On April 30, 1987, DHRS preliminarily denied Home Health Care of Bay's CON application based on a determination that: There was no need demonstrated by Home Health Care of Bay for an additional home health agency in Bay County. Home Health Care of Bay is owned by Mark Ehrman, M.D. Dr. Ehrman is a board-certified internist, hematologist, and oncologist. Dr. Ehrman has been in private practice in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, since November, 1984. Prior to 1984, Dr. Ehrman was involved in the organization and delivery of medical services, the teaching of medicine, and the practice of medicine in Canada. Home Health Care of Bay will serve all patients regardless of race, income, sex, ethnic background, religion, or physical handicap. Home Health Care of Bay will provide 3 percent Medicaid and 3 percent indigent home health visits. Dr. Ehrman, both in his office and in his durable medical equipment (DME) company, goes to great lengths to ensure that indigent persons receive medical services. Dr. Ehrman, in his office practice, provides medical services to all persons regardless of their ability to pay. He is a participating physician in Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance programs. Dr. Ehrman's participation in these programs and his determination not to screen patients financially has increase access to medically underserved patients. Dr. Ehrman's private practice includes approximately 5 percent Medicaid patients. In the past, home health agencies have tended to focus on acute medical problems. The traditional model for home health care has been to shorten an acute hospital stay for a discrete problem. Even chronically ill patients still came to the hospital when they had an acute episode. There has been little focus on avoiding hospitalization. There is now a shift in home health care which attempts to avoid hospitalization in appropriate cases. Dr. Ehrman, in treating patients at home, has become involved with sophisticated triage procedures, home pain management, and other procedures which maximize a patient's time outside the hospital. Such procedures allow patients to remain safely and comfortably in their homes. Procedures which can be safely done in the home include the starting of I/V morphine drips or I/V antibiotics. These procedures have traditionally not been done in the home. Nationally, and in Bay County, several factors are causing a shift to home health use. First, pressure is being applied in the form of reimbursement mechanisms to reduce the expense of institutional care. Patients are discharged from the hospital sooner and there is more pressure to use home health services. Second, an increased incidence of chronic illnesses, such as AIDS, will increase the use of home health services. The incidence of AIDS and AIDS related diseases will continue to increase and has obvious implications for increased home health usage. Home health care will make "hospital-like" care more available and less expensive for AIDS patients. Third, health consumers want to maintain the quality of their lives and remain at home as long as possible. HOME HEALTH CARE OF BAY'S PROPOSAL Home Health Care of Bay will provide medical personnel services in the disciplines of registered nursing, certified home health aides, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, and medical/social work. These services will be provided to Medicare, private insurance, and indigent patients. Home Health Care of Bay will provide traditional home health services and many "high-tech" services which currently are not available at all or are not routinely done in Bay County. Such services include the transfusion of blood and blood products, professional pain management, the drawing of arterial blood gases, the care of Groshong and Hickman catheters, and the care of subcutaneous pumps and subcutaneous venous access devices. Home Health Care of Bay's proposed services will be utilized by many different types of patients, including renal patients, chronic pulmonary patients, chronic heart disease patients, and cancer patients. Home Health Care of Bay will provide health care services to AIDS patients. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 contains a complete list of services which Home Health Care of Bay will provide. Home Health Care of Bay's services will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is an important commitment because home health care patients need services regardless of the time of day or day of the week. Even more important than the discrete list of services that Home Health Care of Bay will provide is the integration of all these services into one agency. In that way, patients are not shuttled from place to place; their care can be organized and integrated for maximum benefit. This integration will be accomplished by formulation of a plan of therapy which will include evaluation by a social worker and a physician in order to deal with the patient's total needs. Home Health Care of Bay's commitment to a total integration of patient services is evidenced by its plan to provide 4 percent of its visits in the medical/social work category. Such services are important in providing comprehensive care. The provision of medical/social work services will help patients and their families identify both medical and non- medical needs. Once such needs are identified, the patients and families can be channeled to the appropriate services, agencies and resources. Home Health Care of Bay will provide the physician with direct and timely communication about the patient. This will include daily delivery of complete medical records. Such a service is crucial in order to provide home care to patients with complicated problems. Home Health Care of Bay has a budget line item for marketing of $21,000 in the first year and $18,000 in the second year of operation. This money will be used to change the perception and pattern of home health use. Patients and doctors will be made aware of the availability of new home health services and the integration of those services with existing services. Home Health Care of Bay's marketing effort will overcome the reluctance of some physicians to utilize home health services. The demographics of the subdistrict of Bay County were analyzed and compared to the demographics of District II. The analysis shows that from 1986 to 1989, 3,076 persons 65 and over will be added to the population of Bay County. This represents a growth rate of 21.5 percent in Bay County compared to a district growth rate of 12.4 percent. Of the elderly growth in District II of 7,355, approximately 40 percent of such growth is occurring in Bay County. Forty percent (40 percent) is a high percentage in a 14 county district and indicates that the elderly population in Bay County is growing at a very rapid rate. Elderly persons are the most frequent users of home health services. Thus, rapid population growth is occurring in the segment of the population most in need of home health services. STATUTORY CRITERIA 1/ Consistency With State Health Plan Home Health Care of Bay`s proposal was reviewed for conformity with the State Health Plan and is consistent with that plan. The 1985-1987 Florida State Health Plan states: Home health agencies provide nursing, health aid, therapy and other kinds of services to patients in their homes. This allows individuals to remain at home rather than use more expensive institutional care to recover from acute illness or to manage chronic conditions. The State Health Plan further states: Home health services can be a cost effective form of long term care for the elderly and the infirm. The provision of home health services proposed by Home Health Care of Bay will provide residents of Bay County with a lower cost alternative to institutionalized long term care as referenced in the above State Health Plan excerpts. The State Health Plan also addresses the unwillingness of many providers to serve the medically needy: Medicare is the largest payor for home health care to the elderly, though some private insurers and Medicaid both cover home health services. Policy makers are increasingly concerned about providers' willingness to serve Medicaid recipients and medically indigent Floridians. Home Health Care of Bay has committed to provide at least 3 percent Medicaid and 3 percent indigent visits. Such a commitment will greatly increase access of medically underserved groups. Approval of a provider who accepts a significant portion of Medicaid patients will encourage current providers to accept such patients in order to retain their Medicare and private referrals. Physicians and discharge planners are much more willing to refer to an agency that will care for all their patients. The State Health Plan contains the following objective: OBJECTIVE 1.5.: To assure that the number of home health agencies in each service area promote the greatest extent of competition consistent with reasonable economies of scale by 1987. The methodology utilized by Home Health Care of Bay to project need maximizes competition consistent with economies of scale by allowing additional providers to enter the market while maintaining existing agencies at a size at which they can operate efficiently. Consistency With Local Health Plan Home Health Care of Bay's proposal was reviewed in relation to the 1986 District Two Health Plan and is consistent with that plan. The local health plan contains a section on long-term care services, including home health services. This section contains a numerical methodology to determine need. That methodology indicates a need for an additional agency in Bay County. The local health plan also contains priorities for home health services. Priority C states that: Priority will be given to home health services applications who have a history of providing, or will commit to provide, services to Medicare, Medicaid and medically indigent patients. Dr. Ehrman, the owner of Home Health Care of Bay, has a record in his practice of providing services to all payor groups. He has committed to continue to do so in his home health agency. Priority D of the Local Health Plan states: Priority will be given to home health services applicants who have a history of providing, or will commit to provide, a public marketing program for their services which includes pamphlets, public service announcement and various other community awareness activities. Home Health Care of Bay has budgeted for and committed to an extensive marketing program. A marketing priority is unusual in a local health plan and indicates an awareness of the need to educate the public about home health services. Determination Of Need DHRS currently has no rule governing the need for home health agencies. A historical summary of the regulation of home health agencies in Florida is described in a memorandum prepared by Ms. Marta V. Hardy. Ms. Hardy was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, DHRS, from September 1984 through June 1987. Ms. Hardy was responsible for all CON decisions and was the ultimate decision-maker in regard to the preliminary denial of Home Health Care of Bay's CON. In the fall of 1984, DHRS attempted to promulgate a rule to replace the invalidated Rule of 300. This proposed rule was based on a use rate methodology, but was invalidated in a rule challenged proceeding in 1985. After the invalidation of the proposed rule, DHRS implemented an interim policy which it used to review home health agencies. This interim policy is reflected in the "Bob Sharpe memo," dated May 15, 1986. The interim policy was applied to home health agency application beginning with the first batching cycle in 1986. The interim policy utilized a variation of the previously invalidated rule and attempted to correct the problems which caused the proposed rule to be found invalid. The interim policy is a use rate/population methodology which projects the number of Medicare enrollees using home health services in the future. This number is multiplied by the average number of visits per Medicare home health user. The total number of visits is divided by an agency size of 9,000 visits to yield the gross number of agencies needed. The total number of licensed and approved agencies is subtracted from the gross need number to yield the net number of agencies needs. The interim policy phased in the needed agencies over a three year period. DHRS defended the interim policy in circuit court when the Florida Association of Home Health Agencies (FAHHA) sought to stop DHRS from using the policy. DHRS defended the interim policy in December, 1986, before the First District Court of Appeal. Use of the interim policy resulted in the approval of 23 home health agencies. DHRS abandoned its interim policy sometime in the fall of 1986. No notice was given to the public or to interested parties that a change in DHRS policy had occurred. DHRS published no document rescinding the Sharpe memo. Only after applications were filed in the second batching cycle of 1986, were applicants informed that DHRS had changed its interim policy. Applicants in the December, 1986, batching cycle, including Home Health Care of Bay, were asked for an unlimited extension of time within which DHRS could render a decision. Applicants who refused to agree to an extension were evaluated on the basis of the "statutory need criteria." Applicants who did not agree to an extension were denied. In only one instance was a CON granted after abandonment of the interim policy. This occurred in Franklin County, where no home health agency existed at the time of that approval. DHRS' new "policy" was not developed by DHRS health planners. The "policy" put the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate an unmet need. Such a demonstration would be difficult to make. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office within DHRS responsible for preliminary CON review, reviewed Home Health Care of Bay's application using the "policy" based on "the thirteen statutory criteria." Such a review required Home Health Care of Bay to prove need by demonstrating an unmet need. However, as evidenced by the Office of Community Medical Facilities' review of Home Health Care of Bay's application, a policy requiring an applicant to meet a negative burden of proof is unreasonable. It imposes a standard which is virtually impossible for an applicant to meet. Ms. Joyce Farr was the DHRS employee responsible for the review of Home Health Care of Bay's application and for the development of the related State Agency Action Report (SAAR). The SAAR was the only work product Ms. Farr prepared in regard to Home Health Care of Bay's application. Ms. Farr has never been qualified as an expert witness in the home health area. Ms. Farr has no formal education in health planning and is unfamiliar with Medicare reimbursement. Ms. Farr does not consider herself to be an expert in financial feasibility projections, staffing, or quality of care. Ms. Farr is not in a policy-making position at DHRS. Ms. Farr was given no instructions by her superiors as to how to review Home Health Care of Bay's application. DHRS presented the testimony of Ms. Farr to attempt to explain how Home Health Care of Bay's application was reviewed. Ms. Farr was tendered and accepted, not as an expert health planner, but as an expert in "CON review." Ms. Farr articulated the standard she used to determine need: [I]f an applicant or residents of a county or community resources of a county or just about any organization basically says that there is an unmet need, meaning that there is no home health services available or there is an accessibility problem where certain groups are not being served -- certain services are not being offered -- I become aware of it by their simply documenting, "I cannot get home health services," like CAPS [Capitol Area Community Aging Agency] that said, "They aren't serving these people. We need somebody in here to serve these people." That would show that there was an unmet need. Unless an applicant, or community resource, could demonstrate an accessibility problem, no need existed according to Ms. Farr. Ms. Farr did not review the Medicare cost reports of current providers to determine the services they provided prior to recommending denial of Home Health Care of Bay's application. Ms. Farr reviewed utilization data of current providers for only one year. Ms. Farr did no analysis of the types of visits provided by existing providers. Ms. Farr looked only at the total number of visits. The only information Ms. Farr utilized in regard to the type of visits being provided was information given to her by existing providers. In determining that no need existed for medical/social work services, Ms. Farr relied on the list of social service agencies included in the local health plan, but did no analysis as to what services such agencies offered. Ms. Farr determined that no Medicaid access problem existed in Bay County based on information current providers gave her. She did not verify these representations with the Medicaid office. Ms. Farr did no charge comparison in her review. At the time of her review, Ms. Farr did not know when a new competitor last entered the market in Bay County. Ms. Farr did not address Objective 1.5 of the State Health Plan in her review. She was unaware of Objective 1.5 until it was pointed out to her in deposition. Ms. Farr utilized no planning horizon in determining need, though she admitted that one of the purposes of CON review is to plan for future health needs. Ms. Farr's review of Home Health Care of Bay's application was deficient for several reasons. First, Ms. Farr's review did not look at a projection of future need. It did not analyze demographics or utilize a planning horizon. It contains no elements of a needs analysis. A mere review of what currently exists misses the point of health planning. Second, in making a determination of no need, Ms. Farr relied solely on comments of existing providers who told her that there was no need for a competing agency. Dr. Deborah Kolb, vice-president of Jennings, Ryan, Federa & Co., participated in the preparation of Home Health Care of Bay's CON application. In preparing the needs assessment portion of the application, Dr. Kolb reviewed the State Health Plan, the Local Health Plan, utilization data, home health CON decisions, and services offered by current providers. The need methodology which appears in Home Health Care of Bay's application is contained in Dr. Kolb's expert report. The methodology appearing in her report and the application was the interim policy in use by DHRS at the time the application was filed. This was the methodology in the Bob Sharpe memo. Home Health Care of Bay will provide home health services to the residents of Bay County. Bay County is in DHRS Service District II. According to the 1986 District II Health Plan, District II is composed of 14 separate subdistricts. Each subdistrict is composed of one county. Bay County is a reasonable service area for Home Health Care of Bay. Dr. Kolb utilized a two-year planning horizon to project the need for home health agencies. This is a reasonable planning horizon. Table 3 of Dr. Kolb's report analyzes need on a district-wide basis. Two time frames, July, 1988, and January, 1989, are shown because Home Health Care of Bay's application was filed in December, 1986. Two years from that date would be December 1988. The official population projections from the Governor's Office focus on July and January of each year. Use of the two project dates straddles the December, 1988, planning horizon. The population numbers of District II for 65 and over are 62,546 for January, 1988, and 63,558 for January, 1989. The 1984 Medicare use rate, which is an estimate of the number of Medicare home health visits per elderly person in Florida for 1984, is multiplied by the projected elderly population to arrive at a projected number of visits. The number of projected visits in Table 3 of 118,565 in July, 1988, and 120,483 in January, 1989, is a result of multiplying the use rate by the projected population. To determine the number of agencies needed, the projected number of visits is divided by optimal agency size. This calculation yields a gross agency need of 13 agencies in the district in July, 1988, and January, 1989. The number of licensed and approved agencies, 12, is subtracted from gross need, 13, to yield net need of one (1) agency in July, 1988, and January, 1989. Dr. Kolb utilized 9,000 for the optimal agency size figure. This is consistent with the interim policy and with data which suggests that is where economies of scale occur. An optimal agency size of 9,000 appears in the Local Health Plan methodology. Table 4 of Dr. Kolb's report presents the same analysis as Table 3, described above, on a subdistrict basis to determine where the one agency found to be needed in District II should be located. Use of the same methodology results in a gross agency need of three. The two existing agencies are subtracted from the gross need of three to yield a net need for one agency in July, 1988, and January, 1989, in Bay County. The methodology described above is a reasonable one for determining need. The methodology utilizes a common health planning approach. It is the same methodology used by DHRS as an interim policy. It is the same type of methodology used by DHRS in planning for other types of health services. Beyond the numerical analysis discussed above, other factors indicate the need for an additional home health agency in Bay County. Bay County has a very low home health use rate and a very high nursing home use rate. The Bay County home health use rate is 1.5 visits per person 65 years and older. The Bay County use rate is significantly lower than the state use rate of 1.89. This disparity indicates a gap between real need and historical utilization. At the same time, Bay County has a nursing home use rate of 41 beds per thousand elderly compared to a state rate of 23 beds per thousand. Additionally, the occupied nursing home beds per thousand elderly is much greater in Bay County than in the state. In the state there are 21.3 occupied beds per thousand elderly. The utilization of Bay County's nursing home beds is approximately 75 percent greater than utilization in the state as a whole. These statistics suggest an inappropriate allocation of resources between home health care services and more expensive institutional nursing home services. Nursing home utilization would decrease with more sophisticated home health care. Many people are inappropriately institutionalized in nursing homes and could be cared for at home. From a medical perspective, Dr. Ehrman was of the opinion that an additional home health agency was needed. Availability, Quality Of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent Of Utilization, And Adequacy Of Like And Existing Services There are currently two Medicare-certified home health care agencies serving Bay County. One way to evaluate agency performance is to analyze the mix of services and the number and types of visits being provided. Current providers have concentrated heavily on providing nursing and aide visits. Of approximately 18,000 visits provided each year, approximately 16,000 visits comprised the nursing and aide categories. Neither provider did any specifically medical/social work visits in 1985 or 1986. Additionally, the total number of visits delivered to the residents of Bay County has remained constant in 1985 and 1986. Bay County's constant use rate illustrates the need for more education in regard to home health services. While current providers do certain high tech procedures if directed to by a doctor, current providers are not committed to consistently doing high tech procedures. High tech services are not the most profitable. Their margins are often low and it is more economically beneficial for current providers to provide aide services. Transfusions, initiation of I/V antibiotics, continuous infusion of morphine, pain nursing, and catheter care are all services which existing agencies have rarely done or do with great difficulty. Without doing such procedures as a regular basis, competency is difficult to maintain. Bay Home Health Care Agency d/b/a Home Health of Panama City (Home Health of Panama City) is a free-standing home health agency and has been in business for 11 1/2 years. Home Health of Panama City does no Medicaid visits. Bay Medical Center Home Health receives referrals from Home Health of Panama City because Home Health of Panama City does not take Medicaid or indigent patients. Home Health of Panama City does no medical/social work visits. Home Health of Panama City has no money budgeted for marketing. Bay Medical Center Home Health is a hospital based home health agency. It functions as a department of Bay Medical Center, an acute care hospital located in Panama City, Florida. In the past two years, Bay Medical Center Home Health has provided no medical/social work visits though some of those services were provided by nurses during nursing visits or by other departments of Bay Medical Center. Bay Medical Center Home Health does not currently provide care of certain high tech devices such as the Denver pleuroperitoneal pump or the subclavian pump. Its staff would have to be trained to provide such care. Bay Medical Center Home Health has never given blood transfusions or cared for a Denver shunt. Bay Medical Center Home Health has a very low number of average visits per patient (6.8) when compared to the state average of 30 visits per patient. Bay Medical Center Home Health does a low percentage of Medicaid visits. In 1986, Bay Medical Center Home Health was reimbursed for 120 Medicaid visits out of a total of 3,280 Medicaid-reimbursed visits provided in District II. A comparison of reimbursed Medicaid visits provided by Bay Medical Center Home Health to District II as a whole demonstrates a Medicaid access problem. In 1986, Bay County had 25 percent of the district's population and 16 1/2 percent of the district's Medicaid eligible. Yet only 3.7 percent of the district's Medicaid-reimbursed home health visits were provided in Bay County. If services were Medicaid accessible, the number of Medicaid visits would be closer to the Medicaid percent of the population. Bay Medical Center Home Health Care's Medicaid visits represented only 1 percent of their total visits for 1986. When Home Health of Panama City's zero (0) Medicaid visits is considered, out of all home health visits provided in Bay County only 0.7 percent were Medicaid visits. Approximately 25 percent of Dr. Ehrman's patients from the Panama City area are Medicaid or indigent. This evidences a need for more Medicaid services. Bay Medical Center Home Health has no line item for marketing and advertising. Ability of the Applicant To Provide Quality of Care Dr. Ehrman is a highly trained and experienced physician. While in Canada, Dr. Ehrman established a hematology and oncology health care delivery system in Montreal. This system is still in existence and working well. Dr. Ehrman has been instrumental in improving the delivery of health care in his practice area. He has established tumor boards at local hospitals and provided many new procedures and devices in the home. Dr. Ehrman has raised the level of awareness on the part of other practitioners in his area as to a team approach to the delivery of services. This has increased the type of home services now available. Dr. Ehrman has responded to the needs of his patients for a multi- disciplinary approach to oncology by associating a clinical psychologist. This person deals with the psychological needs of the cancer patients seen by Dr. Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman has been instrumental in beginning many new and innovative practices in his office. For instance, he administers chemotherapy to Medicare patients in his office. He accomplished this by arranging with local pharmacists to mix and supply chemotherapy drugs. Dr. Ehrman will work with these same pharmacists in Home Health Care of Bay. Dr. Ehrman is involved in a durable medical equipment company. Many new devices and treatments were first used in the area by Dr. Ehrman's company. Dr. Ehrman has been a leader in the community in keeping up with new home health care developments. Home Health Care of Bay will have adequate staff on a full-time basis and add staff as utilization increases. Dr. Ehrman currently contracts with two nurses who are well trained and have over 1,000 hours of in-service training. Home Health Care of Bay is committed to keeping up with state-of-the- art home health care services and will add new services as they are developed. Availability and Adequacy of Alternatives There are no realistic alternatives to the establishment of a new home health agency. The alternative of nursing home care is not satisfactory. Most persons would prefer home care to nursing home care when at all possible. The alternative to home care which is currently being used is to shuttle the patient from the emergency room to the hospital to the doctor's office. Eventually the patient drops out of the system or settles for a lower level of services. Availability of Resources, Including Health Manpower, Management Personnel and Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures . . . Extent to Which the Proposed Services Will Be Accessible to All Residents The staffing requirements for Home Health Care of Bay are shown on Table 11 of the application. That staffing plan is reasonable. Home Health Care of Bay will have a full-time administrator at a salary of $27,000. A capable administrator can be recruited at that salary. Home Health Care of Bay will employ a full-time nurse supervisor at a salary of $21,000. A nurse supervisor can be hired at that salary. Home Health Care of Bay will employ a full-time clerical person at an annual salary of $16,000. A clerical person can be hired at that salary. The above salaries and Home Health Care of Bay's ability to recruit such persons is reasonable based on Dr. Ehrman's experience employing similar personnel in his office. Home Health Care of Bay will hire contract staff to provide skilled nursing services, physical therapy services, speech therapy services, occupational therapy services, medical/social work services, and home health aide services. Such persons can be contracted with to provide the type of services Home Health Care of Bay proposes based on discussions with such persons. Dr. Ehrman currently contracts with two nurses in Ft. Walton Beach to provide nursing services similar to those proposed by Home Health Care of Bay. Such services are provided mainly to non-Medicare patients and the arrangement has worked very well. Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures Project costs are depicted on Table 25 of the application. The costs are reasonable. Home Health Care of Bay can be started for $22,600. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility of the Proposal At hearing, DHRS admitted the short-term financial feasibility of Home Health Care of Bay's proposal. The statement of projected income and expense in Figure 7 of the application and on page 14 of Dr. Kolb's report was prepared under Dr. Kolb's supervision. The majority of assumptions on which the pro forma is based have been stipulated to by DHRS as reasonable assumptions on which to base a financial projection. The only assumptions not admitted by DHRS relate to utilization and payor mix. DHRS, however, introduced no evidence that refuted the reasonableness of these assumptions. The utilization projection used to calculate gross revenue in the pro forma was 3,800 visits in 1988 and 8,500 visits in 1989. The utilization projections are reasonable based on the agency's demographic base and Dr. Ehrman's commitment to education and marketing. The projection of costs and charges depicted on page 45 of the application is reasonable based on Dr. Ehrman's current office experience. The number of visits is multiplied by the charge per visit type to calculate gross revenue. This calculation yields a gross revenue of approximately $200,000 in year 1 and $462,000 in year 2. The payor mix for Home Health Care of Bay is found on Table 7 of the application. Home Health Care of Bay predicts 3 percent Medicaid visits, 80 percent Medicare visits, 14 percent private pay and insurance visits, and 3 percent indigent visits. The pay mix projections are reasonable based on the mix of patients Dr. Ehrman currently sees. Ms. Farr admitted that the projections were reasonable. The difference between Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and full charges results in the contractual allowances figure. Bad debt and charity deductions were calculated based on 3 percent indigent and 3 percent Medicaid visits. Deductions from gross revenue, which are funds not received because of contractual allowances, bad debts, or charity, are subtracted to yield net revenue. Deductions from revenue are approximately $38,000 in year 1 and $135,000 in year 2. Net revenue is approximately $162,000 in year 1 and $327,000 in year 2. The second portion of the pro forma lists expenses. This list contains all the expenses expected for a new home health agency. All the expenses listed are reasonable. The pro forma shows a loss of $28,505 in the first year and a profit of $13,207 in the second year. Home Health Care of Bay has the equity to sustain a loss in the first year. In the second year of operation, based on the above assumptions, expenses are $314,000 and net revenue is $327,000 for a net income of $13,000. These projections indicate that the project is financially feasible in the long term. Table 26 on page 41 of the application presents the project timetable anticipated when the application was filed. Any delay in this timetable due to this litigation will not materially change the projections or commitments contained in the application. Impact of the Proposal on Costs of Providing Health Services, Including Effects of Competition and Improvements in Financing and Delivery of Health Services Which Foster Competition and Services To Promote Quality Assurance and Cost Effectiveness The introduction of a new home health agency into the Bay County market will stimulate competition. Such competition will stimulate growth in competitors and increase the overall level of services. Approval of a new competitor where there has been no new competition for nine to ten years will put pressure on providers to provide a wider range of services as well as higher quality services. Ms. Young, administrator of Bay Medical Center Home Health, admitted that if Home Health Care of Bay's CON is approved, her agency might begin educating physicians in regard to available services, rather than waiting for physicians to request a service. As the current providers testified, as agency visits go up or down, the number of staff required can be adjusted without incurring unreasonable costs. Current providers have control over their costs and staffing. Home Health Care of Bay's charges are competitive. In some areas, such as skilled nursing and home health aide, Home Health Care of Bay's charges are lower than current providers' charges. Price competition allows competition for private pay patients. Impact The addition of Home Health Care of Bay to the home health market will not significantly affect current providers. Studies have indicated that new entrants into the home health market do not significantly affect existing providers. The elderly population of Bay County is growing rapidly. When the 1984 home health use rate is applied to elderly population growth between 1986 and 1989, approximately 5,800 new visits are attributable to population growth alone. Home Health Care of Bay projects it will deliver 3,800 visits in its first year of operation and 8,500 visits in its second year. Thus, a large percentage of those visits are attributable to population growth alone. Home Health Care of Bay's marketing and education programs will raise the local use rate and generate more visits. Dr. Kolb analyzed the financial impact of Home Health Care of Bay's project on current providers. Her analysis considers a worst case scenario and assumes that current providers' visit levels will be affected by the introduction of a new provider. The analysis then calculates the financial impact on current provider. In order to do this, Table 11 calculates the average cost per visit from existing agencies' 1985 Medicare cost reports. Home Health Care of Panama City's average cost per visit is $37.18. Bay Medical Center Home Health's average cost per visit is $41.76. The Medicare program pays agencies the lower of Medicare cost caps or actual costs. The current providers in Bay County are well below the Medicare cost caps and so will be paid their actual costs. Table 11 calculates the difference between actual agency costs and Medicare cost caps. Home Health of Panama City was 18 percent below its cost caps. Bay Medical Center Home Health was 24 percent below its cost caps. Thus, Home Health Care of Bay could provide the number of visits it projects and even if all those visits came from existing providers, the current providers could still operate at a level of cost that would be Medicare reimbursable. The approval of Home Health Care of Bay's application will not have a significant adverse impact on existing providers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting CON No. 4912 to Home Health Care of Bay County, Florida, Inc., to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency in Bay County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-2151 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Home Health Care of Bay County, Florida, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 5(4); 7-10(5-8); 12-16(48- 52); 18(53); 19 & 20 (54); 21(55); 24-27(56-59); 28- 31(59-62); 37-52(9-24); 54-57(25-28); 58-77(28-47); 78-89(63-74); 91-102 (75- 86); 104-114(87-97); 116-129(97-110); 130(110); 131(111); 133-135(112); 136- 139(113); 140 & 141(114); 142-153(115-126); 154-163(126-135); 165-175(136-146); 179-182(147-150); 183(150); 184 & 185(151); 186(152); 187 & 188(153); 189- 191(154); 192 & 193(155); 194 & 195(156); 196(157); 197(158); 200-203(159-162); 207(163); 209(164); 210(165); 212-218(166-172); and 219-225(172-178). 2. Proposed findings of fact 17, 32-36, 53, 90, 103, 115, 132, 164, 176- 178, 198, 199, 204-206 and 211 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 22, 23 and 208 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4 and 11 are rejected as being unnecessary and/or irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2); 2(3); 6(Footnote 1); 7(148) and 13(4). Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 8-12, 14-40, 43-45 and 47-53 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 42 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4 and 46 are rejected as being unnecessary and/or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire McDermott, Will and Emory 101 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation & Health Facilities Ft. Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether applications for Certificates of Need filed by Medshares of Florida, Inc., and National Healthcare, L.P., for Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies in Health Planning District 8 for the July 1997 Planning Horizon, should be granted or denied by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
Findings Of Fact The District District 8 is composed of Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Rule 59C-1.031(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. If granted, the requested certificates of need will enable Medshares and NHC to provide Medicare-certified home health services throughout the entire district. The parties disagreed as to the number of District 8 home health companies with Medicare-certified home health agency CONs. For purposes of the 1997 planning horizon, the district has thirty-five home health care companies (reporting and non- reporting) with certificates of need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The Parties Medshares of Florida, Inc., (Medshares) was formed "pretty much immediately prior to the application [in this case]." AHCA No. 10, p.15. Although it recently received a CON to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency in District 9, there has not been enough time for Medshares to build a record in Florida. But Medshares is a member of a family of companies (the "Medshares Family") founded in Tennessee in 1985. The Medshares family has now expanded into 12 states. Through 2000 employees, it provides various home health services, including Medicare-certified home health services, private nursing services, management services for home health agencies, infusion services, and consulting services. In 1996, the Medshares Family provided approximately one million visits through its Medicare-certified home health agencies and approximately 1.7 million visits through its non- Medicare-certified and managed home health agencies. Recent growth in Medshares Family business is attributable to increased admissions, not to increased home health visits. It is Medshares Family policy for each of its home health agencies which have operated for three years to seek accreditation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). This policy, of course, is applicable to a Medshares District 8 agency should the Medshares application in this case be granted. In the nursing home business for over 26 years, National HealthCare, L.P., (NHC) is a national nursing home company and a southeastern regional home health care company. It has thirty- three home care offices in three states and did in excess of 750,000 home health visits in 1996. It owns or manages one hundred and five nursing homes throughout the United States. It owns eight nursing homes in Florida of which five have a superior rating. NHC manages thirty-two other centers in Florida. NHC currently has three nursing home facilities which it owns or manages in District 8. The facilities, in Collier, Sarasota, and Charlotte Counties, have a total of 420 beds. Because of this ownership of existing facilities in the district, NHC has developed significant community linkages, training programs, and community involvement in the district. Obtaining a certificate of need for a Medicare-certified home health agency in District 8 will enhance NHC's continuum of care in District 8. NHC has a well-developed corporate and regional management structure dedicated to providing high quality care to its patients. The management structure places a significant amount of decision making at the home health agency level. The corporate and regional structure's purpose is to support the local delivery of health care services. The Agency for Health Care Administration is designated by statute as the "single state agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with the district plans, the statewide health plan and . . . federal and state statutes." Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. Need Projections Paragraph (a) of Section 408.035 AHCA's rule setting a home health agency need methodology was invalidated several years ago. See Principal Nursing v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 16 FALR 10465, reversed in part, 650 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). AHCA did not publish a fixed need pool for Medicare-certified home health agencies for the July 1997 planning horizon applicable to these applicants. AHCA did not propose any methodology in its initial, free-form review or testimony of the applications. Instead, AHCA left it to the applicants to develop and present need methodologies in support of their applications. Medshares' Need Methodologies and AHCA Criticism The Medshares application presented various need methodologies and estimates of need for additional Medicare- certified home health visits in District 8. The primary Medshares methodology is a clinical need model based upon data obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. The model develops home health use rates by sex for four age groups, 0-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+, and by geographic region. Patient volume and visits projections are made by developing individual use rates for each diagnostic category collected in the data survey. Each use rate is the result of dividing the total number of visit characteristics for the specific age and sex combination by the matching age and sex population estimates. To project need for 1997, the developed use rates are applied to the projected 1997 District 8 population by diagnostic category. For the 1997 planning horizon for District 8, Medshares' clinical need model estimates total visits of 3,488,290, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 million visits over 1994 (the latest year for which data was available at the time of the application). The Agency criticized Medshares' clinical need model because it included population aged 64 and under. The criticism fails on two counts. First, Medicare-certified home health agencies are expected to provide home health services to persons under age 65. Second, inclusion of the population and use rates for those under age 65 does not have any significant impact on Medshares needs projections since only 3 per cent of the originally projected visits are attributable to population under 65. AHCA's major criticism of Medshares clinical need model is that it considers the model's total visits projection of 3.4 million in 1997 to be an unreasonable increase over the actual visits in 1996 shown in AHCA publications. (These publications were not available at the time of the filing of the applications and so were not used by Medshares.) AHCA's published actual visits for 1996 of 2.4 million, however, are, without doubt, not accurate. The figure assumes that 9 agencies which did not report in 1996 conducted the same number of visits in 1996 as they reported in 1995, that is, 900,000. Whether this assumption is to high or too low, there is little question that it is not correct. If, for example, an agency not reporting in 1996 did not do so because it did not conduct any visits (not an unreasonable assumption since the agencies are obligated by law to report) then the 1995 reported visits are much too high for that agency as a figure for 1996 visits. On the other hand, if the non-reporting agency simply failed to report in 1996, the number of 1995 visits is likely lower than the actual number of visits in 1996. Home health care visits have been on the increase in District 8, a trend mirroring the state-wide trend. Utilization of home health care agencies is increasing because of growth in elderly population and an increase in the number of visits per patient. Furthermore, the amount of time spent by patients in hospitals has been decreasing. The decrease translates into an increased need by the patients for home health care visits. The need for home health care will continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. In sum, AHCA's criticism of the Medshares clinical need methodology is based on inaccurate assumptions. Perhaps AHCA is correct that Medshares' projected visits for 1997 is unreasonably high. But the projection squares with the direction that home health visits are going, both because of increase in population and increase in use rate as well as decrease in hospital's lengths of stay. In addition to the clinical need model, Medshares projected need by two other methodologies. Through the first of these two, the clinical need model was tested by comparing its results to projections based upon the average Medicare-certified home health use rate growth from 1991 to 1995. This methodology yielded an estimate of 3.6 million for the 65 and over population of District, thus supporting the need projected by the clinical need model. In the second of the two additional methodologies, Medshares estimated the number of home health visits based upon the number of hospital discharges of patients within a certain Major Diagnostic Category (MDC). This methodology yielded an estimated need for 2,704,910 visits in 1997. All three of Medshares' methodologies provided an estimate of need for at least two additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in District 8 in 1997. NHC's Need Methodologies One of NHC's methodologies computes the increase in the home health use rate from 1993 to 1994 and applies a reduced increase in use rates to the projected population for each year to the horizon year of 1997. The methodology yields projected visits of 2,403,630 visits in 1997, for an increase from 1994 of 550,950 visits. In contrast to AHCA's determination that the Medshares' methodologies were unreasonable, AHCA agreed that NHC's methodology was reasonable. AHCA found fault with the NHC opinion of need, however, because of the data NHC used in its calculation of need. The AHCA document relied on by NHC for its base year (1993) visits of 1,656,112 was later revised by AHCA to reflect 1,702,106 visits in 1993. As a result, AHCA contends, the initial use rate increase used by NHC (7.6 per cent from 1993 to 1994) is higher than the actual use rate increase (4.8 per cent), which means that NHC's projections are overstated. Other criticisms were leveled by AHCA at NHC methodologies used in the application. The Agency's criticisms do not hold sway. Overlooking for the moment that any error was caused by faulty data provided NHC by the Agency, given the undisputed increase in the use rate, the NHC forecast for 1997 visits compared to actual 1996 visits shows the 1997 forecast to be conservative. After taking all of the Agency's criticisms into account, there was competent substantial evidence to establish a need for five more home health agencies in the district. The inadequacy of the criticisms was underscored when NHC's health planning expert used a "median agency size" in his calculations, an approach now favored by AHCA as it attempts to develop a new rule methodology for ascertaining Medicare-certified home health agency numeric need. Employing such a method still yielded a need for at least two more Medicare-certified home health agencies in the district. State Health Plan Preferences The Florida State Health Plan establishes six preferences for applicants of certificates of need for Medicare- certified home health agencies. The State Health Plan provided for preference to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients, (Preference 1). Both Medshares and NHC meet Preference 1. Medshares will provide services to AIDS and HIV-positive patients. The Medshares family has a history of providing services needed by these patients and Medshares proposes to condition its certificate on provision of services to AIDS patients. NHC is actively involved and has seen patients for Bay Aids Services Information Coalition, Tallahassee AIDS Support Services and Big Bend - Comprehensive AIDS Residential Education Services. NHC provided extensive documentation in its application to demonstrate current provision of significant levels of AIDS care. It has the organizational capability to continue to do so. Preference is given by the State Health Plan to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless they are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area, (Preference 2). NHC surveyed existing home health agencies in the district to reveal that 29 agencies do not provide dietary guidance, 28 do not provide homemaker services, 26 do not provide medical supplies, 21 do not provide respiratory services, six do not provide speech therapy and five do not provide social services. NHC will provide all of these. NHC meets Preference 2. Medshares provides a full range of skilled nursing, homemaker, and therapy services including cardiac care, continuous IV therapy, diabetes care, oncology services, pediatrics, rehabilitation services, pain therapy, total parenteral nutrition, speech, physical and occupational therapies, respiratory therapies, audiology therapy, and infusion therapy. Medshares meets Preference 2. The State Health Plan provides a preference to applicants with a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients in comparison with other providers within the same AHCA service district and proposing to serve such patients within its market area (Preference 3). There is no definition of "disproportionate share" and no data available to determine the level of Medicaid and indigent care provided by home health providers in District 8. Nonetheless, it is fair to find that NHC meets this preference and Medshares, based on the experience of the Medshares family, meets the spirit of this preference. In addition, both have committed to continue to provide Medicaid and indigent care; in the case of NHC, 2 per cent of patient visits to Medicaid patients and 1.5 per cent of its visits to the indigent, in the case of Medshares, its application is conditioned on 1 per cent of its patients being Medicaid and another 1 per cent being indigent. The State Health Plan provides a preference to an applicant proposing to serve counties under served by existing home health agencies (Preference 4). No demonstration was made that any of the counties in District 8 were underserved by existing home health agencies. The fifth State Health Plan preference is for applicants which commit to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring consumer satisfaction. Both Medshares and NHC meet this preference. The final preference in the State Health Plan is for an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality assurance program and proposing to be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations. Both Medshares and NHC meet this preference with NHC conditioning its application on implementation of a quality assurance program and successfully obtaining JCAHO accreditation. The District 8 Health Plan The District 8 Health Plan contains two allocation preferences for applicants for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The first is for the applicant able to demonstrate community contacts and relationships with hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, psychiatric, substance abuse, mental health, and other outpatient facilities within the proposed service area. The second is for the applicant showing a commitment to, or a historical record of, service to the medically indigent or other healthcare underserved population groups. NHC has developed significant community linkages through its existing nursing home beds in the health planning district with the types of health care providers listed in the preference. Further, NHC has agreed to condition its CON on the satisfaction of this preference. Medshares does not have operations in the district currently. But its application contained evidence of contact with local District 8 health care providers. As discussed earlier, both NHC and Medshares meet the second preference of the local health care plan. Availability and Access Paragraph 408.035(1)(b) Access issues become much less important for applicants who have demonstrated a numeric need for their proposals. Nonetheless, the addition of both NHC and Medshares Medicare- certified home health agencies will enhance both availability and access to these health services. Competition and Cost Effectiveness Paragraph 408.035(1)(l) Competition among home health providers in District 8 is more restricted than the number of providers would indicate because the District 8 market is dominated by a few large providers. Four companies provide 75 per cent of home health visits. Seventeen of the agencies are hospital-based and 10 of these are owned by one hospital. Competition will be enhanced by approval of the Medshares and NHC proposals. Both Medshares and NHC have the ability to compete effectively with the large providers in District 8. Cost effectiveness should be enhanced as well. District 8 has the highest average cost per home health visit in Florida. The 1994 average was $71.48. Generally, hospital-based home health agencies have higher costs. Hence, it is not surprising that District 8, with its many hospital-based agencies, has the highest average cost per home health visit. The cost per visit projected by Medshares in its second year is $65.21. Approval of the Medshares and NHC applications should help to lower the district-wide average cost per visit. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid Patients and the Medically Indigent Paragraph 408.035(1)(n) As discussed above, both Medshares and NHC meet this statutory criterion. Multi-level Health Care System Paragraph 408.035(1)(o) Home health services play a key role in the continuum of care in a multi-level health care system by providing a less restrictive and less costly setting for discharges of patients from hospitals and nursing homes to their homes or assisted living facilities. Medshares participates in programs which promote a continuum of care, including a pre-heart transplant and post-heart transplant program, a "Healthy Homecomings" program for high risk pregnancies and a program which enables physically challenged persons to remain employed. NHC proposes to provide home health care in a continuum of care in conjunction with NHC's own nursing home and assisted living facilities located throughout District 8. An award to NHC would expand the continuum of care already provided by NHC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting the applications of Medshares of Florida, Inc., and National HealthCare L.P. for CON Nos. 8412 and 8413, respectively. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0623 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Sternstein, Rainer & Clarke, P.A. 314 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact CHS is an existing provider of home health care services in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, HRS District V, and has provided such services since 1981. CHS offers a wide range of nursing services including nurses specializing in I.V. therapy, oncology, geriatrics, obstetrics, pediatrics, and orthopedics; licensed practical nursing services; nursing assistants; home health care aides; and respiratory therapy services n the home. These services are offered solely to private payors. Only home health care providers who have been issued certificates of need are licensed and eligible to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients whose care is paid for under whose programs. CHS is applying for a certificate of need in order to be eligible to provide home health care which is paid for pursuant to Medicare and Medicaid procedures. At the time CHS' application was first considered Respondent found the application not to meet the requirements of a need methodology rule which was subsequently declared invalid. The present denial is alleged to be bared solely on statutory criteria. CHS presented one expert witness who calculated need for additional home health care services using a formula suggested by he U.S. Department of Human Services but which was never adopted as a rule by any agency. Pursuant to this formula, which takes into consideration the projected population of the service area, the age cohorts of the population, the population's historical and projected utilization of home health and related services, he service area's hospital discharge rate, and nursing home utilization data, an unmet need for services for 62,541 potential home bed health care patients in 1985, with 13,960 in Pasco and 49,581 in Pinellas Counties, was found. Based on the historical utilization of home health area services by patients in District V, the existing licensed home health agencies, of which there are 12, are projected to serve 25,424 patients in 1985 Exhibit 3). This would leave a potential unmet need for some 28,000 patients in District V. However, serious questions were raised as to the efficacy of the assumption in the formula since this methodology was never adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has not been tested by empirical verification, and the definition of home health services used in this formula is not limited to part-time or intermittent services. Home health care providers differ from other medical care providers principally in the fact that the capital outlay in establishing home health care is minimal. This is so because such care is personal service oriented with little tangible property required. As an example, CHS employs some four or five full-time employees and maintains a list of approximately 350 nurses and aides that can be called to provide the home health care services needed. Accordingly, there is no large fixed payroll to meet when work is slack and services can be increased by any home health care provider simply by employing nurses as the jobs arrive and stop their pay when the care is no longer needed. There is no large overhead to be concerned with in this type operation. CHS is financially capable and has the personnel resources to provide the proposed service. CHS has a line of credit with a commercial bank of $100,000, has the organizational ability to operate as a home health care provider, and has personnel available to provide all services needed. CHS proposes to serve all Medicaid patients who apply for services and to provide services throughout District V as needed. No evidence was presented that patients needing home health care are unable to get such care from existing providers. CHS presently serves private pay patients and holds itself out as able to provide all home health care required within District V. No evidence was presented that those 12 licensed home health care providers in District V are unable to provide all authorized Medicare and Medicaid home health care needed. Since any of them can increase the availability of services simply by employing additional personnel to provide such services as needed actual need for additional certificate of need holders will be difficult to prove. CHS presented evidence that when its private pay patients who are Medicare eligible are hospitalized and subsequently discharged from the hospital needing home health care, the hospital usually refers these patients to a licensed home health care provider who can be compensated by Medicare. This results in CHS losing these patients. Home health care providers get approximately one-half of their patients referred to them by a doctor and one-half referred by a hospital. This ratio is accurate for Petitioner and for the licensed home health care providers The advent of diagnostic relate groupings (DRGs) could impact on home health care providers, but no evidence was presented (if available) of the actual impact DRGs will have on nursing homes or on home health care providers.
The Issue Pursuant to the Stipulation, the factual issues to be determined are: Whether DHRS' initial agency action in denying CON #4912 to Home Care was substantially justified; Whether special circumstances existed which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. Whether this action was initiated by a state agency within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)3, Florida Statutes. The ultimate issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (FEAJA), for fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 87-2150.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the parties, filed on November 10, 1988, the parties have admitted and/or stipulated that: DHRS' initial agency action was to deny CON #4911 to Home Care for the establishment of a Medicare home health agency to serve patients in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. After preliminarily denying Home Care's CON application, DHRS was required by statute or rule to provide Home Care with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Home Care's Petition for Attorney's Fees was timely filed after Respondent, DHRS, filed a Final Order in this case on July 26, 1988, sustaining Home Care's position that it should be awarded CON #4911. Home Care is a "small business party" within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes. Home Care is a "prevailing party" within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Home Care incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in Case No. 87- 2150, at least in the amount of $15,000. The following findings are based upon the record presented: Home Care filed its timely petition in this fee case after Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") entered a final Order on July 26, 1988, in Case No. 87-2150 granting Home Care a certificate of need ("CON") to operate a home health agency. DHRS' Final Order was a reversal of its original position on Home Care's application which was initially denied by DHRS. A formal administrative hearing was held before the undersigned on the issue of whether Home Care was entitled to a CON. The pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits in that proceeding, Case No. 87-2150, have been duly considered in regard to whether DHRS' actions were substantially justified in initially denying Home Care's application. The parties have stipulated that those documents shall constitute part of the record in this proceeding. The following findings are based upon the record in Case 87-2150 and the findings made in the Recommended Order entered in that case and adopted by the agency's final order. DHRS is the state agency responsible for administering the State Health Planning Act pursuant to Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes. (a) At the time DHRS denied this application, it did not have any published rule or policy on the methodology for determining need. Its original rule was successfully challenged and in 1984 DHRS attempted to promulgate a new rule. This proposed rule was invalidated in 1985 because it was based upon a use rate methodology and contained arbitrary criteria. Subsequently, DHRS published an interim policy which it used to assess home health care CON applications. The interim policy was applied to the first batch of applications in 1986 and used a rate population methodology which projected the number of Medicare enrollees using home health care services. The projected number of users was multiplied by the average number of visits per medicare home health care user. See Paragraph 15 of Recommended Order, Case No. 88-4763F. This interim policy was defended by DHRS in the First DCA in December 1986. In the summer of 1986, representatives of the Florida Association of Home Heath Agencies complained to the governor's office about the interim policy. After meetings between the staff of DHRS and the Governor's office, the Department abandoned the interim policy. No change occurred in the medical or financial factors which would warrant a change in policy. Additional applications had to be approved by Ms. Hardy's superiors. Home Care filed a Letter of Intent on October 8, 1986, and a CON application for a Medicare-certified home health agency in Okaloosa and Walton Counties on December 15, 1986. This was application CON Action No. 4911. DHRS published its notice of denial of CON Action No. 4911 in a letter to counsel for Home Care dated April 30, 1987. No specifics were given regarding the grounds for denial. Applicants at that time had been asked to give DHRS an unlimited extension of time within which to render a decision on their applications. Those who refused had their applications denied and were required, similar to Home Care, to demonstrate an unmet need based upon the broad statutory criteria found in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. DHRS characterizes the procedure above as a free form action utilizing the statutory criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. DHRS argued in Case No. 87-2150 that its incipient policy looks at the actual need by applying the 13 statutory criteria and bases its conclusion upon information collected from local home health service providers and the local health council. The denial of Home Care's application by DHRS does not state how DHRS applied the statutes to Home Care's application in order that Home Care or others could ascertain a developing standard. DHRS admitted that it did not have any rule upon which to adjudicate the application and DHRS did not present any credible evidence in support of its denial in Case No. 87-2150. DHRS did not adduce evidence supporting its denial because it was DHRS' policy to place the burden of proving both the facts and the methodology on the applicant. The deposition of Joseph Mitchell was introduced and made a part of this record. Mitchell's testimony is clear that, although there is a possibility Home Care could recoup some portion of the costs of litigation in medicare reimbursement as a cost of organizing and establishing the business, it is not certain that Home Care would be compensated because there is a cap on all reimbursable costs above which Medicare will not reimburse a provider and such legal expenses might not be allowed. See Deposition of Mitchell, page 76-78. Intervenors Choctaw Valley Home Health Agency and Northwest Florida Home Health Agency submitted a proposed order in this action seeking a dismissal of Home Care's petition for attorneys' fee and costs as to any relief from the Intervenors.
Findings Of Fact On December 18, 1978, the Petitioner, using the name "Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc." filed its application for certificate of need with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc. This application was deemed complete on April 20, 1979. The application as originally filed indicated that healthcare services were to be made available on a 24 hour a day basis, seven days a week, with an admission criteria based on the patient's need for home health care, his ability to make available financial resources and the Petitioner's ability to provide the services required. Services were to be provided from a central location in Pensacola, Florida, which is in Escambia County, Florida; to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. The application was subsequently amended to indicate the willingness of the Petitioner to aid Medicare and Medicaid patients in the named counties. The Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "Upjohn", operating as Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of the Upjohn company, having forty-Seven certified home health agencies in the United States. The organization has twenty-one offices in the State of Florida and one of those offices is located in Pensacola, Florida. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to evaluate the applications for certificate of need and to issue such certificates as would be appropriate under the terms of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede. This application for certificate of need and that of the companion case of Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool, hereinafter referred to "Personnel Pool", are also considered in accordance with the Health Systems plan for the Florida Panhandle effective December 15, 1978. A copy of that document may be found as the Joint Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The project review committee of the Northwest Florida District recommended to the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Advisory Council that the certificate of need be granted and this action was taken on May 2, 1979. A public hearing was held on May 8, 1979, and on Nay, 17, 1979, the Northwest Florida Subdistrict recommended the disapproval of the project. This disapproval followed a staff report by the staff of the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency which suggested that the certificate of need be denied. The application was then presented to the Regional Council, Florida panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc., and on May 25, 1979, the Regional Council recommended the approval of the certificate of need to serve Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, with the proviso that services be offered Medicare and Medicaid patients. On June 29, 1979, the Respondent in the person of Art Forehand, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, attempted to apprise the Petitioner that the request for a certificate of need had been denied; however, this correspondence was misaddressed and it was not until July 9, 1979, that a letter was forwarded to an official of Petitioner's organization and received by that official. On July 31, 1979, the Petitioner appealed the decision of denial of the certificate of need and the case was later assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration which resulted in the hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. (The details of the various items discussed in developing the chronology of this application may be found in the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) In offering its proof to demonstrate the entitlement to a certificate of need, the Petitioner essentially attempted to refute the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', hereinafter referred to as "Department", letter of notification of denial. That letter gave five reasons for denying the certificate of need, those reasons being: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency 1979 Health Systems Plan policy guide regarding physical location of a home health agency in the area it intends to serve. The proposal is not consistent with standards and criteria established in Chapter 10-5.11(14), Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Extenuating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in approving a certificate of need for a new home health agency have not been adequately demonstrated. There are other available and adequate home health care service providers in the proposed service area which could serve as an alternative to the proposed project and prevent unnecessary duplication of resources. Financial feasibility data do not clearly reflect the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The initial reason for denial deals with the claim that the Health Systems Plan for the Florida Panhandle, adopted December 15, 1978, does not allow service of three counties from one central office in Pensacola, Florida. The disputed language in that document is found in Chapter IV at page 216, and it states: No home health agency may be issued a license to operate in a Florida county without having applied for and been granted a certificate of need. The Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services considers the recommendation of the Health Systems Agency and established criteria in determining need. Certificates are now issued for a single-county service area, but prior to legislation passed in 1977, an agency could obtain a certificate for several counties. This inconsistency has created considerable confusion in determining need. Although the comment in the document is reluctantly made, it does establish the necessity for the issuance of certificates of need for single-county service areas. This determination is reached, notwithstanding the Petitioner's argument that there is existing precedence for serving more than one county out of a single office. Although there are circumstances in Florida where this approach has been utilized, such service of a multi-county area from a single office would not be allowed on the occasion of the current application. The second reason for denying the certificate of need involves Rule 10- 5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (14)(a) A Certificate of Need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit shall not be issued until the daily census of each of the existing home health agencies or subunits providing services within the health service area of the proposed new home health agency or subunit has reached an average of 300 patients for the immediate preceding calendar quarter unless the need for the proposed new home health agency or subunit can be demonstrated by application of the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in rule 10-5.11(14)(b) herein. (b) Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service are is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The Petitioner, in the course of this presentation, took issue with the survey method used by the employee who conducted the staff review of the application. Upjohn claimed that the data gathered on the question of the requirement for a 300 average daily patient census was incomplete and inaccurate. The Petitioner also questioned whether the rule as cited above could be followed in this hearing or should the prior rule which spoke in terms of the daily census of the aggregate of the existing home health agencies or subunits in determining the count of 300 patients be used. The current rule became effective on June 5, 1979, and that rule has application because it was effective at the time of this hearing. Turning again to the question of the formula in deriving the number of patients in the census of the proposed service area, even assuming incompleteness or inaccuracies in the staff evaluation performed by the Health System Agency, the proof offered by the Petitioner in the bearing does not show utilization in excess of the 300-patient census. There are two health agencies now delivering home health care in Escambia County. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., is one of those agencies and in its last complete reporting quarter prior to the hearing, there is an indicated patient census for April, which was 71; for May it was 77; and for June it was 73, totaling 221 patients, thereby constituting an average census of 74. This statement of census was established through the testimony of Arthur Long, Executive Director of Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. (His organization serves only patients who are enrolled with his service group.) Ms. Marian Humphrey, a public health nursing supervisor for the Escambia County Health Department, established the census in Escambia County for that Health Department as serviced by the Visiting Nurses Association, Inc. Beginning in January, 1979, the census was 101 Medicare patients; 14 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAD-PUS patients; 9 private patients and 71 free patients, the latter category being patients who do not pay for services. In February, 1979, there were 164 Medicare patients; 16 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 72 free patients. In March, 1979, there were 128 Medicare patients; 9 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 11 private patients. In April, 1979, there were 147 Medicare patients; 13 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 9 private patients. In May, 1979, there were 165 Medicare patients; 12 Medicaid patients; 3 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 88 free patients. In June, 1979, there were 148 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 61 free patients. In July, 1979, there were 150 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 77 free patients. In August, 1979, there were 134 Medicare patients; 11 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 14 private patients and 96 free patients. The above-cited statistics demonstrate that the two current servicing agencies in Escambia County, Florida, in the preceding full quarter of 1979 which would have been April, May and June, considered separately do not exceed the average of 300 patients for that calendar quarter, nor did the statistics show excess of 300 in other reported quarters. By its Exhibit No. 8, the Petitioner presented statistics on the patient census in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County. These statistics were gathered by Blue Cross of Florida. The statistics of the Blue Cross survey show the patient Census services rendered by the Okaloosa County Health Department. These statistics only deal with the years 1977 and 1978 and are, therefore, not current. The most recent quarter in the report on Okaloosa County Health Department shows that in the last quarter of 1978, in-October the patient census was 9; November, the patient census was 14, and in December the patient census was 21. There is a provision in the Blue Cross report which deals with the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc.; however, these findings of fact defer to the testimony of Mr. Long which showed that in 1979, there was a patient census in April of 36; in May, a patient census of 38 and in June, a patient census of 40, for an average census of 38. The Blue Cross report shows that Santa Rosa County Health Department is the only home health care provider in that county. The most recent census reflected in that report is for January, February and March of 1979. In January the patient census was 41, in February the patient census was 35, and in March the patient census was 33. Analyzing this statistical data provided dealing with Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, although some of the information is not current, it does demonstrate that the census did not exceed the average of 300 patients for the quarters that were reported in either county. In closing out an examination of the discussion of point 2 of the reasons for denial, it is noted that the Blue Cross report deals with the patient census of the Escambia County Health Department but this report is not as current as the presentation by Ms. Humphrey and the Humphrey report is accepted in lieu of the Blue Cross report. Reason 3 for denying the certificate of need talks about the failure of the Petitioner to demonstrate extenuating and mitigating circum stances which would allow a certificate to be issued, notwithstanding the fact that the current service agencies do not exceed the average census of 300 patients for the calendar quarter. Again, that provision of Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Statutes, states: Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service area is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The first provision under that subsection deals with the inability of the existing health agency to provide services to persons in need of home health care. In examining the question of the ability of the current organizations to provide the necessary health care, Escambia County will be reviewed first. In Escambia County, the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., requires that their patients be registered with the organization and their office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and on the weekends, a registered nurse is on call through the utilization of a "beeper" system. These services only apply to Medicare patients enrolled with the organization. To be enrolled it is necessary for the enrollment to have been achieved through a request by a physician. The Escambia County Health Department is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and serves all classes of patients. There are on- call nurses who work on weekends. The nurses are called by the utilization of the Nurses Directory for Escambia County. The exception to these statements is that two days a year the services of the Escambia County Health Department are not available due to holidays. At night during the week those persons who are patients of the Escambia County Health Department are instructed to arrange for emergency treatment in the Emergency Room or ambulatory care at West Florida Hospital, assuming those patients cannot wait until the following morning for attention. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., services Okaloosa County from an office in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The exact nature of those services is as set out in the discussion of the services provided to patients in Escambia County. The exact details of other current services offered in Okaloosa County and Santa Rosa County were not presented by the Petitioner. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether those services are adequate. The only evidence that touched on the issue of adequacy of services was testimony offered by one Ruby Savage, who is a volunteer member of the Regional Board of the Northwest Florida Subdistrict Council and a participant in project reviews. She stated that in her opinion there was a need for 24-hour service in Santa Rosa County. This testimony standing alone was insufficient to identify the need for further home health care services. The Petitioner has asserted that the services spoken of in the preceding paragraphs are not sufficient and examples of the lack of available services, according to the Petitioner, are shown on pages 65 through 68 of the transcript of the hearing. Therein are cited several examples of persons unable to receive necessary care of the type which the Petitioner desires to deliver. These examples are accounts given by Ms. Krumel from information purportedly given to her on the subject of the lack of service. Ms. Krumel in the course of the hearing made further comments to the effect that the individuals involved in the project review felt that the services in the question area were insufficient. Those opinions, while they may be true, are not the quality of evidence needed to sustain the Petitioner's contention that there is a need for further health care service in the area in question. The Petitioner made no further presentation on the question of lack of service and on balance the Petitioner has failed to show lack of service. The Petitioner offered testimony on the possibility of the utilization of population increases in the area as a criterion for increasing home health care services. While this criterion formerly appeared in Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code, under the provisions of extenuating and mitigating circumstances, it is not found in the current statement of that rule and may not be used as a criterion for gaining the certificate of need. In discussing the issue of cost containment as outlined in the above- cited rule, the Petitioner made a general comment that if further services are not provided, patients will be required to receive services at emergency rooms, thereby voiding the possibility of cost containment which could be offered by granting the certificate of need to this Petitioner, who is willing to provide 24-hour home health care services. This statement standing alone is insufficient to show that the granting of the certificate of need to the Petitioner will foster cost containment. Finally, the fifth reason for denying the certificate of need was premised upon the failure of the Petitioner to provide financial feasibility data reflecting the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid resources. The requirement for such data is found in Rule 10-5.09(5), Florida Administrative Code, which states: (5) Documentation showing that the project is financially feasible and can be accommodated without unreasonable charges for services rendered to include a projection of income and expense on a pro forma basis for the first two years of operation after completion of the project. Petitioner claimed at the hearing that it has failed to include this data because the inclusion of Medicare and Medicaid patients in its proposed services was a last minute item and no one in the evaluation process told them that they had to comply with this provision. At the time of the hearing the data was yet to be provided. Upjohn and Personnel Pool were afforded an opportunity to offer their testimony to establish in what respects they might be superior to the other applicant for a certificate of need, assuming that only one certificate of need was to be granted. The two Petitioners did not wish to make any direct attack on the special qualifications of the collateral Petitioner. Both parties proceeded on the basis of offering their remarks to be available for comparison if the contingency were realized which required that only one certificate of need be issued. It is not necessary to detail the special qualifications of these Petitioners, because no certificate of need will be recommended for issuance in Escambia County, Florida, the location in which Upjohn and Personnel Pool are potential competitors for a sole certificate of need. Nonetheless, the facts offered in support of the special qualifications of Upjohn may be found in the transcript of record, pages 187 through 190. The testimony on Personnel Pool's special qualifications may be found in the transcript of the hearing on pages 228 and 251 through 256.
Recommendation This recommendation is being entered in view of the Facts and Conclusions of Law in this case and those Facts and Conclusions of Law in the companion case, D.O.A.H. No. 79-1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Upon consideration of the Facts herein and the Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency be denied its request for a certificate of need to serve Escambia, Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. It is further recommended that the agency in entering its final order do so by a process of simultaneous review of this Recommended Order and the Recommended Order entered in D.O.A.H. Case No. 79- 1748, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that final orders be entered on the same date with copies to be served on the representatives of each applicant in this case and in the companion case mentioned above. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Krumel, R.N. Mr. Art Forchand, Administrator Service Director Office of Community Medical Facil. Upjohn Healthcare Services Department of Health and 15 West Strong Street Rehabilitative Services Old Townhouse Square 1323 Winewood Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Owens Mr. Joe Dowless Zone Manager, West Florida Office of Licensure and Cert. Upjohn Health Care Services Department of Health and 3118 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Rehabilitative Services Clearwater, Florida 33519 Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Departnt of Health and Mr. Herbert E. Straughn Rehabilitative Services Office of Cozmunity Medical Facil. 1323 Winewood Boulevard Department of Health and Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherrill E. Phelps Governmental Affairs Representative Personnel Pool of America, Inc. 303 Southeast 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Thomas S. Siler Owner/Administrator Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. 1800 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether a license should be issued to the Intervenor to operate a home health agency in Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor contends that it is not required to obtain a Certificate of Need to operate in Palm Beach County because it is excluded from Certificate of Need requirements by a "grandfathering" provision. Petitioner contends that the Intervenor is not exempt from the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Need and that a license should not have been issued allowing Petitioner to operate in Palm Beach County. Intervenor contends that Petitioner has no standing to attack Intervenor's license and that the Petition for Hearing was not filed in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding is an offshoot of a long and bitter feud between former business partners. Two couples, the Collisters and the Schacks, together established a home health agency that provided services in Broward County, Florida. The agency was set up to provide skilled nursing and other therapeutic services to homebound patients in their place of residence. The agency was incorporated as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." on February 26, 1974. It thereafter provided services to homebound patients in Broward County. To facilitate payments for the agency's Medicare or Medicaid patients, the agency obtained a provider identification number from the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The federal department issued the agency Provider Identification No. 10-7093. Sometime in late 1974 or early in 1975, the agency opened an office in Palm Beach County and began serving patients there. The Broward County office operated as the parent office of the Palm Beach County office. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued provider No. 10-7305 to the Palm Beach office operating as a suboffice of the Broward County office. The provider number was issued to the Palm Beach County office on June 18, 1975. The relationship between the Schacks and the Collisters deteriorated shortly after the expansion into Palm Beach County. The Schacks were operating the Broward County office, and the Collisters were operating the Palm Beach County office. The two offices began to operate independently of each other from the point of view of day-to-day operations beginning in December, 1975, when an accountant was hired for the Palm Beach County office. From then on, agency patients in Broward County were served by the Schacks, operating out of the Broward County office. Agency clients in Palm Beach County were served by the Collisters, operating out of the Palm Beach County office. For more than a year after December, 1974, the parties continued to operate legally as A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc., with a parent office in Broward County and a suboffice in Palm Beach County. While this was their legal umbrella, the parties operated independently of each other subsequent to December, 1974. The parties were unable to work out a settlement of their difficulties. There is some question as to whether they both ever signed any document that outlined how an ultimate separation should occur. Whether they both signed it or not, the parties acted as if a memorandum dated February 18, 1976, set the terms of their separation. Under this memorandum, the Schacks agreed not to compete in Palm Beach County, and the Collisters agreed not to compete in Broward County. Basically, each office would retain its balance sheets for November 30, 1975. The Broward office would be allowed to keep the logo, and the Palm Beach County office would keep the existing corporation. The Broward County office would form a new corporation. The Schacks filed Articles of Incorporation for a new corporation on June 30, 1976. The Certificate of Incorporation was issued July 1, 1976. The Schacks incorporated as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." Thereafter, the Collisters continued to operate in Palm Beach County as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Petitioner). The Schacks continued to operate in Broward County, Florida, as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Intervenor). The parties had not entered into any agreement as to who would retain the provider identification numbers that had been issued by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Palm Beach County office could not continue to operate under Provider No. 10-7305 because it was a provider number for a suboffice. After July 1, 1976, the Palm Beach County office could not have been considered a suboffice of the Broward County office. The parties apparently quarreled about this with the federal agency. The federal agency recognized that the original provider number (10-7093) could have been assigned to the original corporation, then housed in Palm Beach County. In order to minimize confusion, however, it assigned the original provider number to Intervenor and issued a new provider number (10-7154) to Petitioner. It appears that the federal agency's reason for assigning the original provider number to the Intervenor was simply to avoid confusion. It does not appear that the federal agency had any intention of granting any special rights to either party by choosing to assign the original provider number to Intervenor. The Schacks and the Collisters operated thereafter for some years without bothering each other. The Intervenor annually applied for licensure to operate in Broward County in 1978 and 1979. In 1980, however, despite its covenant not to compete in Palm Beach County, the Intervenor applied for a license to operate in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties. The application was denied. The Intervenor did the same thing with respect to the year June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982. This application was also denied. Intervenor did the same thing for the June 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, year. Intervenor's application for licensure in Dade and Palm Beach Counties was denied by letter dated May 5, 1982. Intervenor requested an administrative hearing to challenge that denial. Intervenor provided some additional documentation to the Department and ultimately submitted a new application to be licensed to operate in Palm Beach County. The Department issued a license allowing Intervenor to operate In Broward and Palm Beach Counties on July 8, 1982. The executive director of the Petitioner became aware sometime in July, 1982, that Intervenor was operating in Palm Beach County. He wrote to the Department, which replied that on July 8, 1982, Palm Beach County was added to the service area of Intervenor. The Department's reply was dated July 19, 1982. It did not advise Petitioner that it had any right to a hearing respecting the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. Through counsel, Petitioner requested a clarification and stated that misrepresentations had been made in Intervenor's application. Further correspondence with the Department did not generate any explanation until, by letter dated October 26, 1982, the Department advised Petitioner that it had a right to request an administrative hearing with regard to the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. This letter was the first notification to Petitioner that it had a right to hearing with respect to Intervenor's licensure in Palm Beach County. The letter advised Petitioner that it could request a hearing within thirty days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner requested a formal hearing within that period and also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Upon the filing of the request for hearing, the Department forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding ensued. The Intervenor has been operating in Palm Beach County since the Department issued a license on Jul 8, 1982. Petitioner has suffered a loss of business and a loss of revenue as a result of Intervenor's operations in Palm Beach County. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Intervenor has suffered from its reliance upon licensure by the Department so that the Department should now be estopped from denying licensure in Palm Beach County. While money has been spent to set up Intervenor's business in Palm Beach County, it was not Intervenor's money. There is no evidence that Intervenor or any government agency made any expenditures for Intervenor to operate in Palm Beach County prior to the time that Petitioner requested a hearing. Furthermore, it was Intervenor itself which euchred the Department into issuing a license without notifying Petitioner and others. In its application for licensure to operate in Palm Beach County, Intervenor stretched the facts and stated that it had done business in Palm Beach County prior to April 30, 1976. This was not true.
