Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Deny the renewal license application for a home health agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and other matters of records, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") finds and concludes as follows: By Order dated August 26, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge closed its files in the above-styled case. Petitioner filed a status report withdrawing the application for renewal oflicense on August 20, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 2). The denial of the renewal application for Petitioner home health agency is upheld and the application for license renewal has been withdrawn. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Agency's file is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this ffj day of ,2009. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Monica L. Rodriguez Attorney for Petitioner Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A. One Datran Center 91 South Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1610 Miami, Florida 33156 (U.S. Mail) Nelson E. Rodney Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 8350 NW 52nd Terrace, Suite #103 Miami, Florida 33166 (Interoffice Mail) Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration' 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 2 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent to the above-named addressees by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on thisLday of s5xpf 009. Richard Shoop. Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 3 CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR June 23, 2008 Kelly Marie Damas, Admin istrator- 1 / / ·.:;, '. TEHC LLC '- -...· , .. ' ' 3317NW10thTerrSte404 i' r:;_'.'./fl Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33309 J:.:·:>r 1.< \ ii{;;_ License Number: 204390961 Case#: 2008007748 NefltE't)iKIN1'ENT:·q,oDENY It is the decision of this Agency that the application for renewal licensure as a home health agency, for TEHC, LLC., located at 3317 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 404, Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33309, is DENIED. The basis for this action is pursuant to authority of Section 120.60 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Section 408.815 (1), (c) and (d), F.S. which states as follows: (1) In addition to the grounds provided in authorizing statutes, grounds that may be used by the agency for denying and revoking a license ... include any of the following actions by a controlling interest: A violation of this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules. A demonstrated pattern of deficient performance. The home health agency did not demonstrate compliance with Chapter 400, Part III, F.S. and the state home health agency rules, Chapter 59A-8, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) at the home health agency licensure survey conducted Mr..y 5 through May 8, 2008. The plan of correction due June 7, 2008 as submitted to the Agency's Field Office was not acceptable. Non compliance was found in the following areas: The home health agency failed to ensure the Director of Nursing established and conducted an on-going quality assurance _program that evaluated the effectiveness of all the provided service for consistency with professional standards and anticipated outcomes. (H 224) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095(2) (c), F.A.C. "Director of Nursing: (c) The director of nursing shall establish and conduct an ongoing quality assurance program which assures: 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 EXHIBIT j Visit AHCA Online at http://ahca.myflo rida.com 'Tehc LLC Page 2 · ·-:June 23;·2008· Case assignment and management is appropriate, adequate, and consistent with the plan of care, medical regimen and patient needs; Nursing and other services provided to the patient are coordinated, appropriate, adequate, and consistent with plans of care; All services and outcomes are completely and legibly documented, dated and signed in the clinical service record; Confidentiality of patient data is maintained; and Findings of the quality assurance program are used to improve services." The home health agency failed to ensure that the Registered Nurse (RN)provide case management for 5 of 17 nursing and therapy patients. This was evidenced by: failure to provide an assessment prior to documenting a start of care comprehensive assessment for one patient; failure to provide supervision for the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) in the performance of duties for two patients and failure to assure progress reports were made to the physician for patients receiving nursing services when the patient's condition changed for two patients. The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (3) (a), F.A.C. "Registered Nurse. A registered nurse shall be currently licensed in the state, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S., and: Be the case manager in all cases involving nursing or both nursing and therapy care. Be responsible for the clinical record for each patient receiving nursing care; and Assure that progress reports are made to the physician for patients receiving nursing services when the patient's condition changes or there are deviations from the plan of care." The home health agency failed to ensure that the RN retained full responsibility for the care given and making supervisory visits to the patient's home for 3 of 17 sampled patients as evidenced by failure to provide supervision for the LPN in the performance of duties for two patients; failure to provide supervision for the Home Health Aide (Aide) and failed to prepare a written Aide assignment/instructions for services to be provided to the patient for 3 patients. (H 231) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (3) (b), F.A.C., "Registered Nurse. A registered nurse may assign selected portions of patient care to licensed practical nurses and home health aides but always retains the full responsibility for the care given and for making supervisory visits to the patient's home." The home health agency failed to provide supervision for the LPN in the perfonnance of duties for 2 of 17 patients. (H 235) Tebc LLC Page 3 --+---- ----:June-23--;-2008·--------- ·-- --------- --- The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (4) (a), F.A.C., "Licensed Practical Nurse. A licensed practical nurse shall be currently licensed in the state, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S., and provide nursing care assigned by and under the direction of a registered nurse who provides on-site supervision as needed, based upon the severity of patients medical condition and the nurse's training and experience. Supervisory visits will be documented in patient files. Provision shall be made in agency policies and procedures for annual evaluation of the LPN's performance of duties by the registered nurse." The home health agency failed to ensure the LPN reported any changes in the patient's condition to the RN and document the changes in the patient's clinical record for 1 of 17 sampled patients. (H 236) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.0095 (4) (b), F.A.C., "Licensed Practical Nurse A licensed practical nurse shall: Prepare and record clinical notes for the clinical record; Report any changes in the patient's condition to the registered nurse with the reports documented in the clinical record; Provide care to the patient including the administration of treatments and medications; -------and --- , ---------------- , -------------, ------------------ -------------·· Other duties assigned by the registered nurse, pursuant to Chapter 464, F.S." The home health agency failed to ensure that the care provided followed the plan of treatment for 11 of 17 sampled patients. The home health agency also failed to ensure a verbal order obtained by a home health agency nurse was put into writing and signed by the attending physician for 1 of 17 sampled patients. (H 302) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (2) F.S., "When required by the provisions of chapter 464; part I, part III, or part V of chapter 468; or chapter 486, the attending physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, acting within his or her respective scope of practice, shall establish treatment orders for a patient who is to receive skilled care. The treatment orders must be signed by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner before a claim for payment for the skilled services is submitted by the home health agency. If the claim is submitted to a managed care organization, the treatment orders must be signed within the time allowed under the provider agreement. The treatment orders shall be reviewed, as frequently as the patient's illness requires, by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner in consultation with the home health agency." 'Tehc LLC Page 4 _June 2},-200&------- ----- Chapter 59A-8.0215(2), F.A.C., "Home health agency staff must follow the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment orders that are contained in the plan of care. If the orders cannot be followed and must be altered in some way, the patient's physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner must be notified and must approve of the change. Any verbal changes are put in writing and signed and dated with the date of receipt by the nurse or therapist who talked with the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's office." The home health agency failed to ensure 9 of 17 patients were advised of the payment for home health agency services before care was started and were clear about the payor source and any charges required from the patient. (H 304) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (1), F.S., "Services provided by a home health agency must be covered by an agreement between the home health agency and the patient or the patient's legal representative specifying the home health services to be provided, the rates or charges for services paid with private funds, and the sources of payment, which may include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, personal funds, or a combination thereof. A home health agency providing skilled care must make an assessment of the patient's needs within 48 hours after the start of services." Chapter 59A-8.020 (2), F.A.C., "At the start of services a home health agency must establish a written agreement between the agency and the patient or client or the patient's or client's legal representative, including the information described in Section 400.487(1), F.S. This written agreement must be signed and dated by a representative of the home health agency and the patient or client or the patient's or client's legal representative. A copy of the agreement must be given to the patient or client and the original must be placed in the patient's or client's file." Chapter 59A-8.020 (3), F.A.C., "The written agreement, as specified in subsection (2) above, shall serve as the home health agency's service provision plan, pursuant to Section 400.491(2), F.S., for clients who receive homemaker and companion services or home health aide services which do not require a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order. The written agreement for these clients shall be maintained for one year after termination of services." The home health agency failed to demonstrate effective communication between interdisciplinary team members to coordinate services as outlined in the plan of care for 3 of 17 'patients and failed to ensure that 8 of 17 sampled patients received the skilled nursing services in accordance with the physician's VvTitten plan of care. (H 306) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 'Tehc LLC Page 5 --·-- June 23, 20-08 ··· - ----- Section 400.487 (6), F.S., "Tl1e skilled care services provided by a home health agency, directly or under contract, must be supervised and coordinated in accordance with the plan of care." The home health agency failed to ensure the registered nurse completed the initial evaluation visit for 1 of 17 patients. The Director of Nursing who signed the initial evaluation visit never made a home visit to the patient. (H 307) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: 59A-8.008 (1), F.A.C.., "In cases of patients requiring only nursing, or in cases requiring nursing and physical, respiratory, occupational or speech therapy services, or nursing and dietetic and nutrition services, the agency shall provide case management by a licensed registered nurse directly employed by the agency.'' The home health agency failed to provide written notice for tenninating home health services to 1 of 3 sampled patients. There was no written notification regarding the date of termination; reason for termination or a referral to another agency with a plan for continued services prior to the termination. (H 316) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.020 (4), F.A.C., "When the agency terminates services for a patient or client needing continuing home health care, as determined by the patient's physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, for patients receiving care under a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order, or as determined by the client or caregiver, for clients receiving care without a physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment order, a plan must be developed and a referral made by home health agency staff to another home health agency or service provider prior to termination. The patient or client must be notified in writing of the date of termination, the reason for termination, pursuant to Section 400.491, F.S., and the plan for continued services by the agency or service provider to which the patient or client has been referred, pursuant to Section 400.497(6), F.S. This requirement does not apply to patients paying through personal funds or private insurance who default on their contract through non-payment. The home health agency should provide social work assistance to patients to help them determine their eligibility for assistance from government funded programs if their private funds have been depleted or will be depleted." The home health agency failed to develop a plan of care for 6 of 17 sampled patients that included all of the required items needed to appropriately serve patients including goals to support the physician's treatment orders, level of staff to provide the services to reach the goals, and the frequency of visits to conduct the services by appropriate home health agency staff. (H 320) Tehc LLC Page 6 -June 23, 2008 The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.487 (2). f.S., "When required by the provisions of chapter 464; part I, part III, or part V of chapter 468; or chapter 486, the attending physician, physician assistant, or advanced regis1ered nurse practitioner, acting within his or her respective scope of practice, shalJ establish treatment orders for a patient who is to receive skilled care " Chapter 59A-8.0215 (1), F.A.C., "A plan of care shall be established in consultation with the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.487, F.S., and the home health agency staff who are involved in providing the care and services required to carry out the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's treatment orders. The plan must be jncluded in the clinical record and available for review by all staff involved in providing care to the patient. The plan of care shall contain a list of individualized specific goals for each skilled discipline that provides patient care, with implementation plans addressing the level of staff who will provide care, the frequency of home visits to provide direct care and case management." The home health agency failed to demonstrate evidence that patients were informed in advance about any changes to the plan of care prior to implementation of the changes for 1 of 17 patients. (H 321) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.0215 (3), F.A.C., "The patient, caregiver or guardian must be informed by the home health agency personnel that: He has the right to be informed of the plan of care; He has the right to participate in the development of the plan of care; and He may have a copy of the plan if requested." The home health agency failed to maintain a clinical record in accordance with accepted professional standards for 12 of 17 patients. (H 350) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.491 (1), F.S,, "The home health agency must maintain for each patient who receives skilled care a clinical record that includes pertinent past and current medical, nursing, social and other therapeutic information, the treatment orders, and other such information as is necessary for the safe and adequate care of the patient. When home health services are terminated, the record must show the date and reason for termination " 'Tehc LLC Page 7 June 23,-2008 The home health agency failed to include all of the required items in the discharged patient clinicai records for 3 of 3 patients. There were no tem1ination summaries as required. (H 356) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Chapter 59A-8.022(5), F.A.C., "Clinical records must contain the following: Source ofreferral; Physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner's verbal orders initiated by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner prior to start of care and signed by the physician, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner as required in Section 400.487(2), F.S. Assessment of the patient's needs; Statement of patient or caregiver problems; Statement of patient's and caregiver's ability to provide interim services; Identification sheet for the patient with name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, agency case number, caregiver, next of kin or guardian; Plan of care or service provision plan and all subsequent updates and changes; Clinical and service notes, signed and dated by the staff member providing the service which shall include: Initial assessments and progress notes with changes in the person's condition; Services rendered; Observations; Instructions to the patient and caregiver or guardian, including administration of and adverse reactions to medications; (i) Home visits to patients for supervision of staff providing services; G) Reports of case conferences; (k) Reports to physicians, physician assistants, or advanced registered nurse practitioners; (1) Termination summary including the date of first and last visit, the reason for termination of service, an evaluation of established goals at time of tennination, the condition of the patient on discharge and the disposition of the patient." The home health agency failed to submit their comprehensive emergency management plan to the local county health department for review and approval. (H 376) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 400.497(8) (c), F.S. "Preparation of a comprehensive emergency management plan pursuant to s. 400.492. (c) The plan is subject to review and approval by the county health department. During its review, the county health department shall contact state and local health and medical stakeholders when necessary. The county health department shall complete its review to . Tehc LLC Page 8 - --June 23.1008 ensure that the plan is in accordance with the criteria in the Agency for Health Care Administration rules within 90 days after receipt of the plan and shall approve the plan or advise the home health agency of necessary revisions. If the home health agency fails to submit a plan or fails to submit the requested information or revisions to the county health department within 30 days after vvTitten notification from the county health department, the county health department shall notify the Agency for Health Care Administration. The agency shall notify the home health agency that its failure constitutes a deficiency, subject to a fine of $5,000 per occurrence. If the plan is not submitted, information is not provided, or revisions are not made as requested, the agency may impose the fine." Chapter 59A-8.027 (2), F.A.C., "The plan, once completed, will be forwarded electronically for approval to the contact designated by the Department of Health." Section 400.492, F.S., "Each home health agency shall prepare and maintain a comprehensive emergency management plan that is consistent with the standards adopted by national or state accreditation organizations and consistent with the local special needs plan. The plan shall be updated annually ... " Chapter 59A-8.027(3) and (4), F.S., "The agency shall review its emergency management plan on an annual basis and make any substantive changes. (4) Changes in the telephone numbers of those staff who are coordinating the agency's emergency response must be reported to the agency's county office of Emergency Management and to the local County Health Department. For agencies with multiple counties on their license, the changes must be reported to each County Health Department ap.d each county Emergency Management office. The telephone numbers must include numbers where the coordinating staff can be contacted outside of the agency's regular office hours. All home health agencies must report these changes, whether their plan has been previously reviewed or not, as defined in subsection (2) above." · The home health agency failed to renew the application for a Certificate of Exemption that authorizes the performance of waived laboratory tests. (H 390) The pertinent statutes and rules that apply include the following: Section 483.091,F.S. "Clinical laboratory license.--A person may not conduct, maintain, or operate a clinical laboratory in this state, except a laboratory that is exempt under s. 483.031, unless the clinical laboratory has obtained a license from the agency A license is valid only for the person or persons to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, and is not valid for any premises other than those for which the license is issued. 483.031 Application of part; exemptions.--This part applies to all clinical laboratories within this state, except: (1) A clinical laboratory operated by the United States Government. (2) A clinical laboratory . Tehc LLC Page 9 · - · June 23;-2008 that performs only waived tests and has received a certificate of exemption from the agency under s. 483.106. (3) A clinical laboratory operated and maintained exclusively for research and teaching purposes that do not involve patient or public health service. 483. l 06 Application for a certificate of exemption.--An application for a cenificate of exemption must be made under oath by the owner or director of a clinical laboratory that performs only waived tests as defined ins. 483.041. A certificate of exemption authorizes a clinical laboratory to perform waived tests. Laboratories maintained on separate premises and operated under the same management may apply for a single certificate of exemption or multiple certificates of exemption ... EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 Arlene Mayo-David, AHCA Delray Beach Field Office Manager Track & Confirm Search Resuhs Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901 9845 4743 6663 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 11:36 AM on June 26, 2008 in FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309. Track.& Confirm FAQs Enter Label/Receipt Number. Options Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. ( /,h,>) fgnns Oov'I Services .Jobs Priv11.c;y Policy Tenns_ofUse • Nation;il_&.Premier Accounts Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA http://trkcnfrm l .smi.usps.com/PTSintemetWeb/Inter Labellnquiry .do 7/21/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Agency ,i' ., :, In RE: Licensure Renewal Application of Care Admi :i: : TEHC,LLC AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 I REQUEST FOR FORMAL HEARING The law firm of Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A., notices its appearance as counsel for TEHC, LLC, in conjunction with the above-referenced matter. All pleadings, documents, and other communications should be provided to TEHC's counsel at the address below. TEHC disputes the allegations of fact contained in the Notice oflntent to Deny and requests that this pleading be considered a demand for a formal hearing, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and pursuant to Rule 28-106.2015,. Florida Administrative Code, before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. In support of this Petition, TEHC states the following: The Petitioner is TEHC, TLC, 3317 NW 10th Terrace. Suite 404. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309. TEHC's telephone number is 954-351-1895, and the facsimile number is 954-351-1820. TEHC's counsel should be contacted at the address and fax number below. TEHC disputes allegations of fact including, but not limited to, those in paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the Notice oflntent to Deny, and requests an Administrative Hearing regarding these allegations. In addition, TEHC disputes that they DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A., ONEDATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, F'L 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 have demonstrated a pattern of deficient performance, and that the plan of correction submitted in June, 2008 was not acceptable. TEHC received the Notice oflntent to Deny on June 26, 2008. The Agency's file number in this case is 2008007748. Respectfully submitted, DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Attorneys for TEHC, LLC One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1610 Miami, FL 33156 Off: (305) 670-9800 Fax: (305) 670-9933 '£' Monica L. Rodriguez) Florida Bar No. 986283 2 DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ, P.A., ONE DATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FL 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 AHCA No. 2008007748 License No. 204390961 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been furnished by telefax and U.S. Mail on July 16, 2008 to: Nelson Rodney, Assistant General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, 8350 N.W. 52nd Terrace, Suite 103, Miami, FL 33166, with a copy via telefax and U.S. Mail to Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk, 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop # 3, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. '-<:;.., )...f?. .c..,...:_ Monica L. Rodriguez O ') 3 DRESNICK & RODRIGUEZ. P.A., ONEDATRAN CENTER, SUITE 1610, 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FL 33156-7817 • (305) 670-9800 08/20/2009 15 51 FAX 305 870 9933 ?RESN ICK & RODRIGUEZ, PA 002/003 STATE OF FLORJDA
The Issue The issue is whether the application of A Professional Nurse, Inc., (APN) for Certificate of Need No. 4636 to operate a home health agency in HRS District IX should be granted. STIPULATION CONCERNING APPLICABLE STATUTES In the prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the issues to be litigated are only those relating to the need for an additional home health agency in the HRS service district. The other criteria found in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, which the Department is required to take into consideration in granting certificates of need, are not in dispute. The only portions of the statute and rules which must be examined here are Section 381.494(6)(c)1., 2. and 12, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10.5.011(1)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact APN's Applications This case arises from the application by APN for Certificate of Need No. 4636, filed in June, 1986. In 1983, APN had filed another application for a certificate of need when the Department had imposed an administrative moratorium on applications. HRS originally denied the application but during the pendency of formal proceedings, reconsidered and would have granted the application, but other parties intervened. APN failed to respond to certain discovery (it did not have an attorney) and at the final hearing therefore was not allowed to present evidence. As a result, APN's 1983 application was denied. With respect to the current application, based upon its June, 1986, filing, under Rule 10.5.008, Florida Administrative Code, a decision would have been due in October of 1986. On September 16, 1986, an employee of the Department requested an extension of time for the Department's decision until January, 1987, because the Department had no rule methodology for determining need for home health agencies, but hoped to have one by January, 1987. APN agreed to a three-week extension but did not agree to defer a decision until January, 1987. In November, 1986, the Department issued a state agency action report proposing to deny the application. At no time during the application process was APN told how need for an additional home health agency would be determined during departmental review in the absence of any need methodology adopted by departmental rule. There were no other applications in HRS District IX filed in the same batch as this application, and there have been no petitions to intervene in this proceeding. APN And Its Related Companies APN is an existing, licensed home health agency which has operated in District IX for nine years. It has applied for a certificate of need in order to qualify as a Medicare and Medicaid provider. Without the certificate of need, it cannot receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement for its services. Due to the recent opening of psychiatric hospitals in District IX and the need for follow-up care after such hospitalization, there is a need in District IX for psychiatric home health services. APN has particular expertise in psychiatric nursing. The requirements APN met for licensure are nearly identical to those for certification. There is no capital expenditure necessary for the Medicare and Medicaid certification. APN also started a related company, Professional Staffing Services, which provides nurses for hospitals, nursing homes and other home health agencies. These clients have called upon Professional Staffing Services when they are short of staff. APN currently receives referrals of persons who need home health services which come from hospitals, social service departments, hospital discharge planners. It also has a plan with hospitals for providing indigent care called "Patient Care Partnership Plan" under which it provides two hours of indigent care for each 40 hours of private duty care obtained through a hospital. There are people who could benefit from home health services who are unaware that they qualify to be reimbursed by Medicare for home health services. There are even some physicians who are not familiar with the availability of home health services. Because of the relatively low level of public awareness of the availability of home health services, patients are sometimes placed in nursing homes rather than deceiving health services at home, which would be less expensive and more cost-effective than nursing home care. Method For Determining Need For Home Health Services in District IX Because there is no rule methodology for determining the need for home health services, the method for determining need used by the Department is subject to de novo review in this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985). The Department presented no evidence of the number of home health agencies it believes are needed in District IX. In the absence of a rule it has no way of quantifying need. The Department has had difficulty in developing a methodology for determining need for home health agencies. Its first rule promulgated in 1977 was known as the Rule of Three Hundred. That rule is determined to be invalid. See Johnson and Johnson Home Health v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Final Order, DOAH Case 83-2170R, affirmed 447 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thereafter, the Department used a nonrule policy requiring an applicant to prove that people were not being served in order to justify a certificate of need for a new home health agency. That policy was applied by the Department at the time of the hearing in Upjohn v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 496 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and was criticized by the court. The Department's current policy of requiring applicants to show that people are not being served is unreasonable. Existing home health agencies have the ability to expand their staff as demand increases. This would preclude the entry of any new competitor into the market if the rule for determining need for additional agencies is that there must be current potential users who are unserved. The Department's assertion that additional need can be shown by surveys of doctors or hospital discharge planners which indicate an inability to obtain home health services places an unreasonable, unattainable burden on an applicant. The expert retained by the Department to help it develop a rule methodology attempted to survey discharge planners and received only a 25 percent response rate, which is unreliable. The Department's assertion that the applicant could show a waiting list as an indication of need is also unreasonable. Those in need of home health services who cannot obtain them do not wait, they obtain alternate services, by such means as entering a nursing home. Finally, to the extent that patients or even physicians are unaware of the availability of home health services, it is not possible to structure any survey to quantify that pool of unmet need. APN's Need Methodology The testimony of the health planning expert presented by APN, Eugene Nelson, was generally persuasive. He advocated an assessment of need based upon a use rate formula. Nelson found that the patients used home health services at varying rates throughout the state, with greater use in the southeast, less use in the mid-portion of the state, and lower use in north Florida. He therefore suggested the use of different use rates in north, central and south Florida. District IX is in the southern area. The data on the use of home health services by patients is not reported to the Department or to local health councils, and is therefore not readily available. It can be obtained, however, from Medicare financial intermediaries based on reimbursement reports those intermediaries process on behalf of the federal government. Only the Department can obtain this data. Intermediaries will not supply it to CON applicants on request. The most recent data which is complete is 1984 data. When this use rate is applied to the population over age 65, one can derive the expected number of Medicare home health visits for 1987. An HRS service district is the appropriate planning unit. By multiplying the use rate in south Florida times the District IX population over 65 (2.4446 x 268,056) the total expected visits for 1987 are 655,290. Even using the lower, and therefore more conservative, statewide average use rate yields 508,154 visits (1.8957 x 268,056). Nelson then converted the number of visits to a reasonable number of agencies based upon the number of visits each agency ought to be able to perform. There is little economy of scale in home health agencies and it is therefore difficult to determine an optimum agency size. Nelson discussed data showing reasonable agency size ranges from 9,000 to 15,000 visits per year. This range of agency size is accepted as reasonable. Using 15,000 visits as the appropriate agency size (which is conservative), there would be a need for 44 agencies in District IX if the south Florida use rate is applied, and 34 agencies needed if the statewide use rate is applied to the appropriate population. There are currently 25 existing home health agencies which have certificates of need in District IX. This methodology shows a net need for between nine and 19 new home health agencies. APN's use rate formula for determining the number of home health agencies is consistent with the goals and priorities found in the State Health Plan and the Local Health Plan. In this case, one of the significant objectives of the State Health Plan is Objective 1.5 which is 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.5a: Develop a need methodology based on historic cost data for Florida Home Health Agencies. Because it currently has no rule methodology for determining need for home health agencies, the Department has contracted with Dr. Elton Scott to draft a formula for determining need. The preliminary report of Dr. Scott recommends a methodology based on the historical Medicare use rate and is generally similar to one presented by APN. Until it adopts a new methodology by rule, the current policy of the Department is to request extensions of time for CON review from applicants rather than process the applications. This results in a de facto moratorium. No applications have been approved under the current policy of requiring the applicant to prove unmet need. In the record of this case the Department has failed to present any qualified health care expert to give any opinion about appropriate health care planning for home health agencies or to justify its current policy of requiring applicants to present evidence of need on an anecdotal basis. The policy is unreasonable for reasons stated in Finding of Fact 15.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulated facts, the following facts relevant to these proceedings are found: Upjohn operates a number of home health agencies throughout the State of Florida, as well as in other states. Prior to 1975, a patient served by a proprietary home health agency could not obtain reimbursement under the Medicare program. Such agencies were not able to obtain a Medicare "provider number" unless they were licensed under State law. In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Home Health Services Act, Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, providing for the licensure of proprietary home health agencies. On July 1, 1977, the "establishment of a new home health agency" became one of the projects subject to Certificate of Need review. HRS's rules pertaining to Certificate of Need review were amended in October of 1977, to include the "establishment of a new home health agency or a new subunit of any agency" as projects subject to review". During the rule adoption process, HRS specifically considered the suggestion that expansions of service areas by existing home health agencies without new facilities be subject to Certificate of Need review. This suggestion was rejected on the belief that such a requirement was not statutorily authorized. Confusion existed within the various offices of HRS as to whether additional licensure and/or Certificate of Need review as required when an existing home health agency desired to extend the provision of services to other counties without opening a new subunit or other physical facility in the new county. Prior to 1982, officials within the Office of Community Medical Facilities the office responsible for the Certificate of Need program, generally took the position that the mere geographical expansion of services by an existing certificated and licensed home health agency did not require further Certificate of Need review as long as additional physical facilities were not contemplated. For example, in September of 1981, Upjohn was informed by the OCMF that a Certificate of Need was not required for the provision of home health services from its Jacksonville, Duval County, office to patients residing in Nassau, Baker or St. Johns Counties, as long as subunits or other physical facilities were not opened in those counties. The above four counties were all located within the same health service area. On the other hand, the Office of Licensure and Certification generally took the position that each county served must appear on the home health agency license. On occasion, the OLC required home health agencies to build new offices if it was found that an agency was geographically overextending itself in terms of appropriate supervision or quality of care concerns. It appears to have been the policy of the OLC, on most occasions, to defer to the OCMF the determination of whether additional Certificate of Need review was required prior to the issuance of a license listing additional counties or service areas. However, in January of 1980, the Director of the OLC took the position that petitioner's licensed Marion County home health agency could not provide services to Citrus County residents without applying for and obtaining a Certificate of Need, and thereafter having its license extended to operate in Citrus County. The record in the instant proceedings does not reflect that the OCMF was requested, either by the OLC or by Upjohn, to render a specific opinion as to whether additional Certificate of Need review was required for the extension of home health services from Marion County to Citrus County. In October of 1981, Upjohn requested advice from the OLC as to whether it could provide services from its Broward County office to patients in Palm Beach County. Noting that it was the understanding of the OLC that a Certificate of Need would be required to authorize any expansion of home health services, the OLC referred Upjohn's request to the OCMF. The matter was thereafter referred to the HRS legal staff. James M. Barclay, an attorney with the Office of Health Planning and Development, issued Legal Opinion 82-2 on the issue of whether a Certificate of Need was required before a home health agency, licensed to operate in certain counties within a health service area, could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area. It was Mr. Barclay's opinion that a licensed home health agency could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area without an additional Certificate of Need. The rationale for this opinion as that when the original Certificate of Need review occurred, the review criteria were applied to the entire health service area and thus the original Certificate was evidence of a need within the entire health service area. Based on this opinion, the OLC informed Upjohn that it could not expand its Broward County services to Palm Beach County without Certificate of Need review since the two counties were located in separate health service areas. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, Gary J. Clarke, disseminated the Barclay opinion to the Directors of the Health Systems Agencies. In his cover letter, dated April 7, 1982, Mr. Clarke noted that "the memorandum clarifies existing law; namely, that a home health agency in one county may offer services in an adjoining county without obtaining a CON." Based upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke cover letter, Upjohn informer its various Florida office managers that its existing home health agencies, though licensed only for a particular county, could deliver services in additional counties within the health service area without the need for further Certificate of Need review. Subsequent to the Barclay opinion and the Clarke distribution letter, there were changes in the Certificate of Need law, as well as leadership changes within HRS. The former Health Systems Agencies were abolished and replaced with District Councils, local involvement with the Certificate of Need process was virtually eliminated and the "health service areas" were changed to "districts," some with different boundaries. These changes prompted the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, to request of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary a clarification of the policy regarding Certificate of Need review for expansion of home health agency service areas. In order to be consistent with regard to home health agencies and to make clearer to HRS officials, applicants and the public how HRS would be applying the statutes and rules, HRS developed a "home health agency review matrix." Basically, the, review matrix limited geographical expansion of services (without Certificate of need review) to those counties in which the applicant could demonstrate that the criteria for review had been applied by the appropriate reviewing bodies, either the OCMF or the former local Health Systems Agencies. The former OCMF policy, as expressed in the Barclay/Clarke documents, of allowing carte blanche expansion within the health service area once a Certificate of Need had been obtained had thus changed to allowing expansion only when the applicant could demonstrate that the review criteria had been previously and actually applied to the specific county in which expansion was desired. The matrix was developed in February or March of 1983, and was distributed internally within HRS. Upjohn had several license applications for geographical expansion of services in early 1983. While advised in late March that a "revised ruling" was going into effect, Upjohn had no knowledge of the development of the review matrix. By letter dated April 8, 1983, Upjohn was advised that its license application to expand services from its Pinellas County office to the Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pasco was denied for failure to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review. By "OPLC Policy Letter No. 33-83" dated April 8, 1983, addressed to "All Home Health Agencies" and "Home Health Agency Association," the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, gave notice of the OLC position with regard to expansion of services in counties other than those noted on a home health agency license. The addressees were advised that "it is illegal to provide services in any area not covered under your current license." This policy letter was written in direct response to the review matrix. It was not until May, 1983, that Upjohn became aware of the existence of the review matrix. By letter dated May 5, 1983, the Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, Nathaniel Ward, advises counsel for Upjohn that, "we have a matrix which we must apply (Exhibit 1) when determining whether a Certificate of Need is required for expansion into the service area." Upjohn's Marion County home health agency obtained a "statement of need" (the statutory predecessor of the present Certificate of Need) in 1977, and received a license for that agency in 1978 which it has renewed on an annual basis. From and after August, 1982, and in reliance upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke memorandum, Upjohn extended the provision of home health services, without adding new physical facilities, from its Marion County office into Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. These three counties are located within the same "health service area" and "district" as Marion County, but have not been specifically named in either a statement of need, certificate of need or license issued to Upjohn. Under protest and pursuant to the Kassack policy letter referred to in paragraph (10) above, Upjohn filed an application with the OLC to renew its Marion County home health agency license and to add to said license the counties of Citrus, Lake and Sumter. The OLC issued and renewed the Marion County license from August 1983 to August 1984, but denied Upjohn's request to list Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties on the face of the license. As the sole ground for denial of the request, the OLC stated that Upjohn had failed to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review for those counties pursuant to the Certificate of Need statutes and rules. In spite of the OLC's demands that Upjohn cease providing home health services in Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties, Upjohn continued to provide such services. 0n August 30, 1983, HRS issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Upjohn's Marion County license, or impose other penalties, on the ground that the Marion County home health agency had been providing home health services in Citrus and/or Lake Counties without a license that lists those counties on its face. The review criteria of the Certificate of Need law is necessarily geographic intensive in measuring the needs, feasibility, accessibility and availability of alternative services of a particular area. HRS and the local health planning agencies utilize counties and service districts as the geographic unit by which to measure need for health services and facilities. One of the reasons counties are chosen is because population and other demographic data and statistics are readily available and obtainable for such geographical units.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Upjohn's application to add Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties to its Marion County license to operate a home health agency be DENIED until such time as a Certificate of Need is obtained for such services (Case No. 83-3059), and The Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 1983, be DISMISSED (Case No. 83-3248). Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Wing, Esquire Barbara R. Pankau, Esquire P.O. Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601 Robert P. Daniti, Esquire (Former) Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Lakeview Terrace Christian Retirement Center is a licensed adult congregate living facility located in Altoona, Lake County, Florida (hereafter referred to as Lakeview Terrace) Lakeview Terrace is also licensed to operate a 20-bed skilled nursing facility at the same location. In February, 1982, Lakeview Terrace applied for a license to operate a home health agency to serve only the residents of its facility. The application was referred to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., for review and comment pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council supported Lakeview Terrace's application and recommended a certificate of need be issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereafter the Department). The staff report of the council contained the following recommended findings of fact: The proposed project is reasonably consistent with the Health Systems Plan. The proposed project would improve continuity of care to residents of Lakeview Terrace and provide a cost-effective alternative to nursing home care at the Center. The proposed project would have no impact on existing home health agencies in Lake County. The proposed project would be financially feasible without altering life care contract charges or levying additional charges. Staff recommends issuance of a Certificate of Need with the following conditions: The council recommended that the certificate of need be issued with the following conditions: The applicant will restrict the proposed service to residents of Lakeview Terrace "Christian Retirement Center" under the life care contract. The applicant will not seek third party financing of the proposed service. The applicant will not levy a separate charge for home health services. On July 14, 1982, the Department, by letter, notified Lakeview Terrace that its proposal to establish a home health care agency was denied. The sole basis for the denial was that the proposed home health agency did not satisfy the requirements of the "Rule of 300" set forth in Subsection (14) of Rule 10- 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, in that existing home health agencies in the area were operating below the 300 average daily census level specified by that rule. The Department also determined that the proposal did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 10-5.11(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code. (Section 10-5.11(14)(h) sets forth two exceptions to the "Rule of 300"). Lakeview Terrace is presently licensed for 400 residents. It anticipates having between 600 and 700 residents by 1985. The residents are retired individuals and couples. The vast majority of the residents lived outside of Florida prior to retiring and moving to Lakeview Terrace. Ninety- five (95 percent) percent of the residents are over 65 years of age. The residents live in apartment units for which they pay an initial fee or endowment and a monthly maintenance fee. As a part of the agreement entered into between Lakeview Terrace and its residents, each resident receives a full range of services including medical care at a skilled nursing facility. Lakeview Terrace is located in a rural area approximately 15 miles from the nearest home health agency. A home health agency on site would permit many residents who must now be moved to the skilled nursing facility for treatment to remain in their homes with their spouses while receiving treatment. This is beneficial to the patients in that it is not necessary to remove them from their family and familiar surroundings. The patients are then better able to cope with their particular disease. Medically, it is beneficial to an elderly patient to keep them in their homes as long as possible during treatment. There are presently three (3) home health agencies serving Lake County. They are: Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. Leesburg Office Park, Suite 406 Leesburg, Florida 32748; Home Health Professional Service, Inc. Post Office Box 750 Leesburg, Florida 32748; Waterman Memorial Hospital 116 MacDonald Avenue Post Office Box 1836 Eustis, Florida 32726. Waterman Memorial Hospital has served less than 12 persons at Lakeview Terrace over the past five to six years. The minimum charge for a one hour visit is $45.00. Over 90 percent of the patients served by Waterman are recipients of Medicare. Waterman's average daily census over the past year has been between 70 and 80 patients. Waterman has no objection to the issuance of a conditional certificate of need to Lakeview Terrace for home health services. Home Health Professional Service has not provided services to any residents at Lakeview Terrace over the past year. Home Health charges $50.00 per visit and 96 percent of its patients receive Medicare. Its average daily census is presently approximately 102. Home Health Professional Service, Inc., does not feel a conditional certificate of need issued to Lakeview Terrace would have any impact on it and does not object to the issuance of such a conditional certificate of need. The third home health agency providing services to Lake County is Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. (hereafter Central Florida). Over 90 percent of its patients receive Medicare and its charge per visit is $,40.00. Central Florida has never cared for a patient at Lakeview Terrace and its average daily census for the last calendar quarter preceding the hearing was slightly less than 100. Central Florida opposes the application of Lakeview Terrace for a conditional certificate of need. The three existing home health agencies described above have the present capacity and ability to provide home health services to the residents of Lakeview Terrace. Lakeview Terrace proposes to provide the full range of home health services on site at no additional cost to the residents of Lakeview Terrace. The cost of the services would be funded from the endowments paid by residents at the time they enter Lakeview Terrace. Lakeview Terrace would not be reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid for the cost of the services and the certificate of need sought would be conditioned upon Lakeview Terrace not applying for a Medicare or Medicaid provider number. This means that no state or federal funds will be involved in bearing the cost of the home health services at Lakeview Terrace. Although the residents of Lakeview Terrace are aware of the services available from the other three home health service providers in Lake County, they have utilized these services very rarely. Many of the residents who would be treated under the conditional certificate of need sought by Lakeview Terrace would not qualify for the service offered by the other three providers in that these persons are not homebound. Only two or three of the residents of Lakeview Terrace are homebound. The existing providers provide home health services only to homebound patients. The issuance of the conditional certificate of need would have no adverse financial impact on the existing providers in the service area and will reduce the number of patients potentially utilizing Medicare and Medicaid benefits in the service area in the future. The staff report of the North Central Florida Health Planning Council concludes that Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, is not intended for nor relevant to this application for the following reasons: Home health services would be provided as part of a life care contract and would be limited to residents of the life care center. No third party financing would be involved. There would be no impact on existing home health agencies in Lake County. Residents of the life care center currently obtain inpatient nursing care at the center, rather than purchase services from existing agencies.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department grant the Petitioner's application and issue a certificate of need upon the following conditions: The area serviced by this home health agency be limited to the geographical area of Lakeview Terrace. There would be no additional charge to the patients for services rendered directly by the Lakeview Terrace staff. All charges would be covered by the endowment fee. Lakeview Terrace will not apply for a Medicare or Medicaid provider number. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire 605 East Robinson Street Suite 610 Orlando, Florida 32801 James M. Barclay, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for payments totaling $29,701.19 that Petitioner admittedly received from the Medicaid Program between May 1, 1996, and March 31, 1998, in compensation for the provision of home health services. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not entitled to retain the payments in question, primarily on the allegations that the compensated services were not medically necessary, were improperly documented, or both.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As one of its duties, the Agency must recover "overpayments . . . as appropriate," the term "overpayment" being statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. This case arises out of the Agency's attempt to recover alleged overpayments from Monef, a Florida-licensed home health agency. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Monef is authorized, under a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency, to provide home health services to Medicaid recipients. Under the Medicaid Provider Agreement, Monef assented to comply with “all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time.” The home health services at issue consisted of skilled nursing care rendered either by a registered nurse (“RN”) or a licensed practical nurse (“LPN”), as the needs of the recipient required, together with personal care provided by a home health aide. The "audit period" that is the subject of the Agency's recoupment effort is May 1, 1996 to March 31, 1998. During this audit period, the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for all of the skilled nursing and home health aide services that are the subject of this dispute. Largely (though not entirely) on the allegation that the home health services in question were not medically necessary, the Agency contends that Monef collected overpayments totaling $29,701.19 in compensation for services rendered to nine separate patients. The following table summarizes the Agency's allegations. PATIENT NAME GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT Louisiana S. No medical necessity $8,498.17 Robert M. No medical necessity $3,615.54 Mario P. No medical necessity $2,403.33 Angel S. No medical necessity $2,089.12 Ana G. No medical necessity $2,015.94 Joann N. No medical necessity $1,705.12 C. Watson No medical necessity $1,268.76 Yvette F. Service refused $122.16 Rosa P. Multiple $7,983.05 Medical Necessity The proof was in conflict concerning the medical necessity of the challenged home health services that Monef provided to the foregoing patients. There were three categories of expert opinion evidence on this issue, described below. The attending physicians' opinions. To be Medicaid compensable, home health services must be provided pursuant to a written treatment plan that is prepared individually for each recipient and approved by his or her attending physician. The treatment plan——called a "plan of care" or "plan of treatment"—— must be reviewed and updated periodically (about every two months) and also as the patient's condition changes. A required component of all plans of care is the attending physician's certification that the services specified in the plan are medically necessary.1 The fact that a treating doctor, by prescribing, recommending, or approving a medical service, has attested to its medical necessity is not sufficient, in itself, to support a finding that the resulting care was medically necessary. See Rule 59G-1.010(166)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Nevertheless, the attending physician's opinion regarding medical necessity is relevant evidence, even if it is not inherently dispositive. In this case, all of the services that the Agency contends were not medically necessary had been determined to be medically necessary by the respective patients' treating physicians. The peer-review organizations' opinions. During the audit period, the Medicaid Program would not reimburse a home health agency for any home visits in excess of 60 visits per recipient per fiscal year unless the provider had obtained authorization to provide such care, in advance, from the Agency or its designee. Such "prior authorization" was required to be based on medical necessity. At times during the audit period the Agency was under contract with a company called Keystone Peer Review Organization ("KePRO"), which acted as the Agency's designee in regard to pre-approving services above the 60-visit limit. At other times this function was performed by Florida Medical Quality Assurance, Inc. ("FMQAI"). In a couple of instances, the Agency itself gave Monef prior authorization to perform services that it now contends were not medically necessary. By statute, a peer-review organization's written findings are admissible in an administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or lack thereof. See Section 409.913(5), Florida Statutes. Monef had obtained prior authorization based on medical necessity for most of the services that the Agency has challenged as medically unnecessary. The opinions of the Agency's designees, KePRO and FMQAI, are relevant evidence of medical necessity. Dr. Sullenburger's opinion. Dr. John Sullenburger is the Agency's Medicaid physician. He would have testified at the final hearing as an expert witness for the Agency, but the parties stipulated that Dr. Sullenburger's ultimate opinion, based on the medical records, was that each of the claims that the Agency alleges was not medically necessary was, in fact, unnecessary. By entering into this stipulation, Monef effectively waived its right to cross-examine Dr. Sullenburger and thereby expose the particular facts upon which his opinion was based. For its part, the Agency relinquished the opportunity to have the doctor explain the reasons why he had concluded that the patients' attending physicians——and also, in many instances, the Agency's designated peer-review organizations——had erred in making their respective determinations that the subject services were medically necessary. As a result of the parties' stipulation concerning Dr. Sullenburger's testimony, the factfinder was left with a naked expert opinion that merely instructed him to decide the ultimate factual issue of medical necessity in the Agency's favor. In making findings regarding medical necessity, the factfinder settled on the following rules of thumb. Greatest weight was accorded the opinions of KePRO and FMQAI. These were deemed to have the highest probative value because the peer- review organizations' determinations of medical necessity were made before the services in question were provided, and neither of the Agency's designees had any discernable motive to stretch the truth one way or the other. Certainly, the peer-review organizations more closely resemble a disinterested, neutral decision-maker than either the patient’s treating physician or the Agency's expert witness (whose opinions were formed after the services had been rendered and the claims paid); indeed, if anything, KePRO and FMQAI might be expected to tilt in the Agency's direction (although there was no evidence of such bias in this case).2 The hearsay opinions of the treating physicians, on the one hand, and Dr. Sullenburger, on the other, were considered to be about equally persuasive——and none was particularly compelling.3 It should be stated that the attending physicians' certifications of medical necessity, each of which lacked analysis that might have connected the facts concerning a patient's medical condition with the need for services, were as conclusory as Dr. Sullenburger's ultimate opinion. Consequently, in those instances where a peer-review organization gave Monef a mandatory prior authorization to render services that the attending physician had certified as being medically necessary, it has been found that, more likely than not, the services in question were medically necessary. In contrast, a closer question arose in those instances where there was no evidence of prior authorization when such was required. The expert opinions——the attending physician's on one side, Dr. Sullenburger's on the other—— essentially canceled each other out. While ordinarily in an evidential tie the party without the burden of proof (here, Monef) would get the nod, in this case the Agency had the slightest edge, on the strength of Rule 59G-1.010(166)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Under this Rule, an attending physician's approval of a service is not, "in itself," sufficient to support a finding of medical necessity.4 Because of the Rule, Monef needed to introduce some additional, persuasive evidence (e.g. the attending doctor's testimony regarding the need for the service) to overcome Dr. Sullenburger's opinion.5 Louisiana S. At the time that the services in question were provided, from May 7, 1997, until December 20, 1997, this patient, an obese woman in her late 60s, was being treated for diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. She was not able to self-administer the insulin shots that were needed to prevent complications from diabetes. For the period from May 5, 1997, through June 30, 1997, KePRO gave prior authorization to 53 skilled nursing visits and 23 home health aide visits.6 Monef was reimbursed for 42 skilled nursing visits and 23 home health aide visits conducted in this period. From July 1, 1997, until September 1, 1997, Monef provided a total of 66 combined skilled nursing and home health aide visits to Louisiana S. The Medicaid Program paid for 60 of them. Because these were the first 60 visits of the fiscal year, which began on July 1, 1997, prior authorization was neither needed nor obtained. During the period between September 1, 1997, and November 1, 1997, Monef made 96 skilled nursing visits, out of 124 that KePRO had pre-approved, and 20 of 27 authorized home health aide visits. KePRO gave prior authorization for 124 skilled nursing and 27 home health aide visits for the period from November 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998, of which 54 and 18, respectively, were made. Based on the levels of service that KePRO had approved before July 1, 1997, and then after September 1, 1997, it is reasonable to infer, and so found, that the first 60 combined visits to this patient in fiscal year 1997-98 would have been pre-approved had Monef been required to obtain prior authorization. The home health care services that Monef provided to Louisiana S. between May 9, 1997, and December 30, 1997, for which the Medicaid Program paid $8,498.17, were medically necessary. Robert M. Robert M., a man in his mid-40s who received home health care from Monef from November 26, 1997, through March 27, 1998, suffered from arteriosclerosis, hypertension, acute bronchitis, and schizophrenia. His residence was an assisted living facility ("ALF").7 FMQAI gave prior authorization for 61 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits to occur between November 26, 1997, and January 26, 1998. Monef provided 55 nursing and 59 home health aide visits during this period. Monef requested prior approval for 25 skilled nursing and 63 home health aide visits for the period from January 26, 1998, and March 26, 1998. Although prior authorization was needed for these services, which exceeded the limit for fiscal year 1997-98, there is no evidence in the record that FMQAI granted Monef's request for approval. FMQAI authorized 23 skilled nursing visits and 30 home health aide visits for the period from March 26, 1998, to May 28, 1998. However, Monef provided just one skilled nursing visit during this time, on March 27, 1998. The home health care services that Monef provided to Robert M. between November 26, 1997, and January 26, 1998, and on March 27, 1998, were medically necessary. Lack of medical necessity was established, however, for the services provided between January 26, 1998, and March 26, 1998. The Medicaid Program paid the following claims, totaling $1,442.49, for this period: One RN visit, $34.04; 21 LPN visits, $549.99; and 51 home health aide visits (35 at $17.46 apiece and 16 at $15.46 each), $858.46. Mario P. From November 25, 1997, through March 28, 1998, Mario P., a septuagenarian who was being treated for acute gastritis, an enlarged prostate, and mental illness, received home health visits at the ALF where he lived, the services provided by Monef. FMQAI approved 43 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits for the period from November 26, 1997, through January 26, 1998; 11 skilled nursing and 62 home health aide visits for January 26, 1998, until March 26, 1998; and 25 skilled nursing visits for March 1, 1998, through May 1, 1998 (overlapping the immediately preceding period by about three- and-a-half weeks). The actual number of skilled nursing and home health aide visits for which the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef was within the pre-approved service levels for each period. The home health care services that Monef provided to Mario P. between November 26, 1997, and March 28, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $2,403.33, were medically necessary. Angel S. Angel S. was a man in his middle 50s who had been diagnosed with gastroduodenitis (an inflammation of the stomach and duodenum) and mental illness. Monef obtained prior authorization from KePRO to provide Angel S. with 34 skilled nursing and 62 home health aide visits between November 25, 1997, and January 25, 1998. During this time, the Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for 32 skilled nursing and 44 home health aide visits. FMQAI pre-approved 26 skilled nursing and 27 home health aid visits for January 25, 1998, through March 25, 1998. Monef was reimbursed for 20 and 21 such visits, respectively. The home health care services that Monef provided to Angel S. between November 25, 1997, and March 25, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $2,089.12, were medically necessary. Ana G. When she was a client of Monef, Ana G., a woman in her 60s, was suffering from acute gastritis and major depression. She lived in an ALF. FMQAI pre-approved 50 skilled nursing visits and 40 home health aide visits for the period from November 25, 1997, through January 25, 1998. In that time, Monef rendered 28 skilled nursing visits and 42 home health aide visits for which it received compensation from the Medicaid Program. For the period from January 25, 1998, through March 25, 1998, FMQAI gave prior authorization for 9 skilled nursing and no home health aide visits. During this time, Monef provided 15 skilled nursing visits and 15 home health aide visits for which Medicaid paid. The services that Monef rendered to patient A. Garcia between November 25, 1997, and March 23, 1998, were medically necessary except for 17 home health aide visits (at $17.46 apiece) and 6 skilled nursing visits (at $24.19 each), making a total of $441.96 in overpayments. Joann N. In her late 30s at the time of the services in question, Joann N.'s principal diagnosis was major depression. She also suffered from hypertension and a type of diabetes. Because Joann N.'s primary diagnosis was a mental illness, the home health services provided to her may not have been Medicaid-compensable due to an exclusion that bars coverage for mental health and psychiatric services.8 The Agency, however, did not disallow Monef's claims on this basis, relying instead exclusively on the allegation that the services were not medically necessary. None of the skilled nursing and home health aide visits that Monef provide Joann N. between February 16, 1997, and September 1, 1997, was pre-approved. There is evidence that Monef sought KePRO's prior authorization of 26 skilled nursing and ten or 12 home health aide visits for the period from April 16, 1997, to June 16, 1997, but no proof was adduced showing that approval was granted. Based on the number of combined visits that Monef provided both before and after July 1, 1997 (the start of fiscal year 1997-98), it does not appear that prior authorization was required. There are no grounds in the record, however, from which to infer that prior authorization(s) would have been given if needed. Accordingly, lack of medical necessity was established for all of the home health services that Monef provided Joann N, for which the Medicaid Program paid a total of $1,705.12. C. Watson C. Watson was a teenager with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia who received care in her home between May 12, 1997, and March 31, 1998. The Agency alleges that all of the skilled nursing services that Monef provide C. Watson were medically unnecessary but acknowledges that the home health aide visits were appropriate and covered. The Agency itself pre-approved the home health care visits that Monef had requested for the period from May 12, 1997, through June 30, 1997, namely, 24 skilled nursing and 40 home health aide visits. The Medicaid Program reimbursed Monef for 12 skilled nursing and 38 home health aide visits made during this period. The Agency gave prior authorization for home health care to be provided between July 1, 1997, and September 1, 1997. FMQAI also pre-approved the following services for the same period: five skilled nursing visits and 43 home health aide visits. Monef was reimbursed for 17 skilled nursing visits made during this time. For the periods of September 1, 1997 to November 1, 1997; November 1, 1997 until January 1, 1998; and January 1, 1998 through March 1, 1998, KePRO pre-approved levels of skilled nursing services (nine, four, and nine visits, respectively) that were not exceeded by Medicaid-paid claims for these services rendered by Monef during the subject timeframes. FMQAI gave prior authorization for four skilled nursing visits to occur between March 1, 1998 and May 1, 1998, but Monef did not submit any claims for such services rendered during this period. Lack of medical necessity was established for 12 skilled nursing visits made during the period from July 1, 1997 through September 1, 1997. The Medicaid Program paid a total of $319.13 for these visits (One RN visit at $31.04 and 11 LPN visits at $26.19), and this sum constitutes an overpayment subject to recoupment. The rest of the skilled nursing visits that Monef furnished to C. Watson were medically necessary. Yvette F. Yvette F. was a patient in her 30s suffering from complications relating to HIV infection. On Christmas Day, 1997, Yvette F. refused most of the skilled nursing services that had been scheduled, to spend time with her family. The Agency has sought to recoup the $122.16 that the Medicaid Program paid for an RN's visit to Yvette F.'s home on December 25, 1997. This sum reflects four hours of service. The medical records in evidence establish that the patient's refusal of treatment occurred after the RN had arrived at her residence, and that, despite the patient's refusal of service, the RN did perform an assessment on Yvette F. that day. The Agency failed to establish that, under these circumstances, Monef is entitled to no reimbursement. Yet, common sense instructs that the covered claim should not encompass four hours of services when clearly that much time was not spent on this particular visit. Unfortunately, nothing in the record, including the parties' legal arguments, provides guidance for resolving this particular problem. In the absence both of controlling authority and evidence of the actual time spent, the factfinder has determined that the claim should be equitably apportioned to do rough justice, with Monef being compensated for one hour of service and the balance returned to the Medicaid Program. On this basis, then, lack of medical necessity has been shown for three hours of skilled nursing services, making an overpayment of $91.62. Rosa P. Rosa P. was a woman in her late 30s with multiple health problems, including uncontrolled diabetes, recurring infections, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, and mental illness. Monef rendered home health care to Rosa P. from November 22, 1996, until February 1, 1998, for which the Medicaid Program paid $24,543.27 on 1,012 separate claims. The Agency seeks to recoup a little more than one- third of the amount previously paid to Monef for this patient's home health care, alleging a number of grounds to disallow a number of claims. The following table summarizes the Agency's contentions regarding the challenged claims. ("Doc." is an abbreviation for "documentation." "PC" is an acronym for plan of care. The alphanumeric claim identifiers in the left-hand column were assigned by the Administrative Law Judge for ease of reference.) CLAIM ID DATE(S) SERVICE(S) GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT RP-1 11-22-96 Nursing No doc. $29.04 RP-2 12-9-96, 12- 10-96, 12- 14-96 Aide No doc./POT not followed (x3) $52.38 RP-3 12-25-96 to 1-5-97 Aide No PC rendered (x11) $192.06 RP-4 1-6-97, 1-7- 97, 1-9-97, 1-10-97, 1- 11-97, 1-12- 97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $104.76 RP-5 1-22-97 to 3-22-97 All POT not signed by MD or RN $4,009.37 RP-6 3-24-97 to 5-2-97 Aide No PC rendered (x40) $698.40 RP-7 5-2-97 Nursing No doc. $29.04 RP-8 5-3-97 to 7- 4-97 Aide No PC rendered (x62) $1,032.52 RP-9 7-21-97 to 7-26-97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $87.309 RP-10 8-4-97 to 8- 10-97 Aide PC not rendered (x7) $122.22 RP-11 10-29-97 Nursing Documented only 1 of 2 billed visits $31.04 RP-12 11-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-13 11-4-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-14 11-14-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-15 11-15-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-16 11-16-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-17 11-22-97 to 11-26-97 Aide No doc. (x10) (2 billed visits per day) $52.3810 RP-18 12-1-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-19 12-2-97 Aide No doc. $17.4611 RP-20 12-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-21 12-28-97 to 2-28-98 Nursing POT not signed by MD or RN $1,724.37 The total of these alleged overpayments, without adjustment for the several minor arithmetic or typographical errors in the Agency’s papers, see endnotes 9 - 11, is $7,983.05. Each claim or claim set will be addressed in turn below. RP-1. The medical records contain a "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" dated November 22, 1997, that documents a skilled nursing visit to the patient on that day. Therefore, the Agency failed to prove its allegation of overpayment regarding RP-1. RP-2. Included in the patient's records is a "Weekly Activity Report and Time Slip" for the week beginning Monday, December 9, 1996, that was filled out by the home health aide who cared for Rosa P. during that seven-day period. To keep track of tasks performed, the form instructed the aide to check boxes in a table that cross-referenced particular duties (e.g. oral hygiene, change linens, turn & position), which are described in the left-hand column, with the days of the week, which are listed, Monday through Sunday, in the top row. For the days in question (December 9, 10, and 14, 1996), the aide checked boxes showing that, among other things, she had given the patient a shower and assisted her in a wheelchair, both of which are Medicaid-covered services. See Paragraphs 133, 137, infra. Handwritten notes inscribed on the Agency's work papers next to each of the three dates at issue state: "only p/c [personal care] [is a] shower —— not following POT [plan of treatment]." The first of these points is incorrect: assistance with a wheelchair, like showering a patient, is a covered home health aide service. The plan of care that covered the subject dates disproves the second assertion. The written treatment plan explains that the home health aide will "provide personal care, asst [assist] [with] ADL's [activities of daily living] including bath, skin/foot care." The aide was following this course of action on December 9, 10, and 14, 1996. The Agency did not prove an overpayment in connection with RP-2. RP-3. The Agency seeks to recoup payments of $17.46 apiece for 11 home health aide visits made between December 25, 1996 and January 5, 1997, on the ground that the aide did not perform any covered personal services. Although a dozen such visits were made during this particular period, the Agency's work papers reveal that the claim for services rendered on December 29, 1996, was approved. The aide's time sheets for the relevant period substantiate the Agency's allegation, with one exception. The aide's entry on December 26, 1996, is identical to that of December 29, 1996, the latter which the Agency correctly deemed sufficient to make Medicaid financially responsible. On both days, the aide helped the patient with a tub bath and shampoo, which are covered personal services. For the other ten days, review of the aide's time sheets reveals that many services were rendered in the category of "light housekeeping" and "meal preparation." These fall within the exclusion for "housekeeping, homemaker, and chore services, including shopping" and hence are not covered services. Handbook, at p. 2-6; see also Rule 59G-4.130(8)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code (1996).12 (Curiously, the Agency did not specifically rely upon this exclusion.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, Monef points out that the aide made a written notation each day concerning the patient's voiding of bowel and bladder. Because the non- exclusive list of covered home health aide services included "toileting and elimination," see Rule 59G-4.130(5)(b)3.b., Florida Administrative Code (1996), it is possible that the aide was providing a compensable service during the period in question. The trouble is, it cannot be determined from the evidence whether the aide actually assisted the patient——or whether the aide merely wrote down on the time sheet what had been observed regarding the patient's use of the bathroom facilities. Although the question is close, it is determined that simply observing and commenting daily about the patient's elimination of bodily wastes is not enough, without more, to constitute a Medicaid-compensable home health aide service.13 Being unable on the present record to find that the aide did more than watch and write, it is determined that covered services in the area of "toileting and elimination" were not persuasively shown to have occurred. Consequently, lack of medical necessity has been established as to 10 home health aide visits. The total overpayment on RP-3 is $174.60. RP-4. For the week from Monday, January 6 through Sunday, January 12, 1997, the Agency alleges that six home health aide visits are not covered because the aide failed to follow the plan of treatment. Notations on the Agency's work papers suggest another basis: "only shower - incomplete," meaning, presumably, that the only covered personal care provided was assistance in the shower. See discussion regarding RP-2, supra. The aide's time sheet for the relevant period contradicts the Agency's contention. First, bathing assistance was not the only covered personal care rendered on the days in question. The aide also helped the patient with her wheelchair, which is a service covered under the rubric of "transfer and ambulation." Rule 59G-4.130(5)(b)3.e., Florida Administrative Code (1996). Second, the aide's entry for January 8, 1997——for which claim the Agency is not seeking to recover——is substantially the same as those for the challenged days. The only material difference is that on January 8 the aide checked the box indicating that she had shampooed the patient's hair. Nothing in the Rule or the Handbook, however, provides that a shower with shampoo is covered but a shower without shampoo is excluded from coverage, and the Agency failed to prove a factual basis, or advance a logical one, for drawing such distinction. Consequently, the Agency did not establish an overpayment with regard to RP-4. RP-5. The medical records in evidence contain a "Home Health Certification and Plan of Care" for Rosa P. that was signed and dated, on January 22, 1997, by the RN and by the patient's attending physician, Dr. John Prior. This plan of care covers the period from January 22, 1997 through March 22, 1997. The Agency did not present any evidence that either the doctor's or the nurse's signature appearing on this form are inauthentic or that either or both failed to sign on January 22, 1997, as recorded. Therefore, the Agency's allegation that the plan of treatment for the period in question is invalid was not proved. RP-6. This claim set encompasses five full weeks plus five days of home health aide service, or 40 visits in all. The Agency alleges that no covered personal care was provided during these visits. The time sheets demonstrate that the aide provided a covered service, namely assistance in the shower, on all days between March 24, 1997 and April 6, 1997, and also on the five days from April 28 through May 2, 1997. The Agency therefore failed to prove its allegation as to these 19 visits. The Agency made its case, however, in connection with the remaining 21 visits from April 7 to April 27, 1997, inclusive. The time sheets for these dates do not adequately document the provision of a covered service.14 Accordingly, lack of medical necessity was established for 21 home health aide visits at $17.46 each, making a total overpayment on RP-6 of $366.66. RP-7. The Agency has sought to recover payment of $29.04 for an RN visit to the patient on May 2, 1997, alleging lack of documentation. The medical records show that on this particular date, an LPN treated the patient from 8:00 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. Later that same day, at 5:00 p.m., an RN arrived to provide care, which she did, afterwards leaving the patient’s residence at 5:45 p.m. These two visits are documented in separate "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" forms. The Agency did not establish that the nursing notes are inauthentic or incredible.15 Thus, the allegation regarding RP-7 was not proved. RP-8. The Agency contends that 62 home health aide visits between May 3, 1997, and July 4, 1997, were not compensable because no covered personal care was provided. The aide's time sheets establish that a covered personal care (assistance in the shower) was given on May 3 through May 17, inclusive (15 visits at $17.46 apiece), and also on June 20 through 22, 1997 (three visits at $17.46 each). Shower assistance was also provided on May 26 through June 1, 1997 (seven visits at $15.46 each). Skin care, a covered service, was provided on June 7, 1997 (one visit, $15.46). And ambulation assistance, a covered personal care service, was rendered on seven visits from June 9, 1997, through June 15, 1997, at $15.46 per visit. For the remaining 29 visits, however, the aide's time sheets fail adequately to document the provision of a covered service. Ten of these visits were billed at $15.46, the others at $17.46 apiece. Thus, with respect to RP-8, the Agency established an overpayment of $486.34. RP-9. This claim set involves six home health aide visits on the dates of July 21 through July 26, 1997, inclusive, during which, the Agency alleges, the plan of treatment was not obeyed. (The Agency did not seek to recoup the payment made for aide services rendered on Sunday, July 27, 1997, even though that date’s visit is included within the same time sheet as the Monday through Saturday visits, and the services rendered on July 27 were identical to those performed earlier in the week.) According to the pertinent time sheet, covered personal care services (bathing and assistance with ambulation) were provided in connection with the challenged claims. Further, the plan of treatment in effect at that time stated that the aide would "assist with personal care, ambulation, prepare meals, grocery shop, wash clothes, [and] straighten bedside unit." The time sheet establishes that the aide complied with these instructions. Accordingly, the Agency failed to prove its allegation regarding RP-9. RP-10. The Agency alleges that none of the home health aide visits from August 4 through August 10, 1997, entailed covered personal care services. The aide's time sheet for that week, however, documents that bathing care, specifically showering, was provided. Because showering the patient is clearly a covered item, the Agency failed to carry its burden of proof in respect of RP-10. The patient's medical records contain two "Time Record Nursing Progress Note" forms dated October 29, 1997, which document separate RN visits on that date, one lasting from 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., the other from 6:00 p.m. until 7:40 p.m. The Agency therefore did not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, its allegation that Monef had provided documentary support for only of one of two nursing visits on October 29, 1997. RP-12, -13, -14, -15, and -16. The Agency alleges that these five home health aide visits, occurring over a two- week period from November 3, 1997 to November 16, 1997, are not adequately documented. The visits of Monday, November 3, and Tuesday, November 4, 1997, which the Agency challenges, are reported on the same time sheet as those of November 5 through 9, 1997, which the Agency accepts. The duties performed on each of these days, both challenged and unchallenged, were identical, except that on November 4 and 8 the aide shampooed the patient. Numerous covered personal care services were rendered each day during the week, including bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and assistance with ambulation. The duty descriptions on the aide's time sheet for the week beginning Monday, November 10, 1997——a week that included three challenged visits (November 14 through 16)——are substantially similar to one another (though the Agency accepted claims for November 10 through 13) and nearly identical to those given for the preceding week. Once again, covered personal care services rendered consistently throughout the week of November 10 to 16, 1997, included bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and ambulation assistance. The evidence, therefore, does not support the Agency's allegation that the services in question were not adequately documented. RP-17. The Agency alleges that home health aide visits made from November 22 through November 26, 1997, were not documented. The medical records demonstrate that one such visit per day was provided, for a total of five. The records show further, however, that Monef was reimbursed for two visits for each of the days in question, receiving double the amount to which it was entitled based on the documented number of visits. The Agency, therefore, has proved an overpayment of $87.30 (five visits at $17.46 apiece). RP-18, -19, and -20. The Agency contends that there is insufficient documentation for home health visits on December 1 through 3, 1997. But the aide's time sheet for the week beginning Monday, December 1, 1997, adequately establishes that such visits actually occurred——and that covered personal care services (bathing, oral hygiene, skin care, and ambulation assistance) were provided during each of them. However, as with RP-17, the records show that Monef was reimbursed for two visits for each of the days in question, receiving double the amount to which it was entitled based on the documented number of visits. The Agency, therefore, has proved an overpayment of $50.38 (two visits at $17.45 apiece and one billed at $15.46) with regard to RP-18, RP-19, and RP-20. RP-21. The Agency seeks to recover payments for all nursing services rendered from December 28, 1997 through February 28, 1998, on the ground that the plan of treatment for the subject period was not signed and dated by the attending physician, as required. In fact, the pertinent treatment plan was signed by a Dr. Roxana Lopez, and by the RN. Neither signature, however, was dated. Thus, the Agency is correct in its assertion that the plan of treatment is deficient. But, the record also contains a letter from KePRO dated December 29, 1997, which grants prior authorization for 124 skilled nursing and 61 home health aide visits for the period from December 28, 1997 through February 28, 1998. According to this letter, Monef's request for pre-approval was made on December 22, 1997. One of the items that must be submitted to the peer- review organization with a request for prior authorization is the written plan of treatment. Thus, it is reasonable to infer, and so found, that KePRO had in its possession the deficient plan of treatment and, in granting prior authorization, overlooked the fact that the doctor had not dated her signature. Monef did not urge that KePRO's pre-approval of the services in question effected a waiver of the Agency's right to disallow the ensuing claims based on what is, in these circumstances, clearly a technicality,16 or that the Agency should be estopped from raising this particular objection, although little imagination is required to perceive the potential merit in either argument. It is not necessary to reach waiver or estoppel issues, however, for KePRO's approval letter establishes persuasively that the doctor and the nurse signed the plan of treatment before December 29, 1997——and hence at or before the start of care and services thereunder. Plainly, in other words, the attending physician timely approved the plan of treatment, even though she failed to date her signature. Under the particular facts of this case, therefore, where the treatment plan is in substantial compliance with the requirements, and neither the Medicaid Program nor the patient suffered any conceivable prejudice as a result of a demonstrably harmless (on these facts) and unintentional deficiency, it is determined that the Agency has failed to prove a sufficient basis to recoup payments totaling $1,724.37 for pre-approved, medically necessary services that were actually provided to an eligible patient. The following table summarizes the foregoing findings relating to claims for services to Rosa P. CLAIM ID DATE(S) SERVICE(S) GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL ACTUAL OVERPAYMENT RP-1 11-22-96 Nursing No doc. $0 RP-2 12-9-96, 12- 10-96, 12- 14-96 Aide No doc./POT not followed (x3) $0 RP-3 12-25-96 to 1-5-97 Aide No PC rendered (x11) $174.60 RP-4 1-6-97, 1-7- 97, 1-9-97, 1-10-97, 1- 11-97, 1-12- 97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $0 RP-5 1-22-97 to 3-22-97 All POT not signed by MD or RN $0 RP-6 3-24-97 to 5-2-97 Aide No PC rendered (x40) $366.66 RP-7 5-2-97 Nursing No doc. $0 RP-8 5-3-97 to 7- 4-97 Aide No PC rendered (x62) $486.34 RP-9 7-21-97 to 7-26-97 Aide POT not followed (x6) $0 RP-10 8-4-97 to 8- 10-97 Aide PC not rendered (x7) $0 RP-11 10-29-97 Nursing Documented only 1 of 2 billed visits $0 RP-12 11-3-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-13 11-4-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-14 11-14-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-15 11-15-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-16 11-16-97 Aide No doc. $0 RP-17 11-22-97 to 11-26-97 Aide No doc. (x10) (2 billed visits per day) $87.30 RP-18 12-1-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-19 12-2-97 Aide No doc. $15.46 RP-20 12-3-97 Aide No doc. $17.46 RP-21 12-28-97 to 2-28-98 Nursing POT not signed by MD or RN $0 The Agency, in sum, proved overpayments totaling $1,165.28 in relation to Rosa P. The Bottom Line The Agency established that Monef received overpayments in connection with six patients. The following table summarizes these overpayments. PATIENT NAME GROUND(S) FOR DENIAL OVERPAYMENT Robert M. No medical necessity $1,442.49 Ana G. No medical necessity $441.96 Joann N. No medical necessity $1,705.12 C. Watson No medical necessity $319.13 Yvette F. Service refused $91.62 Rosa P. Multiple $1,165.28 Accordingly, the Agency is entitled to recover from Monef the principal sum of $5,165.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Monef to repay the Agency the principal amount of $5,165.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of November, 2001.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulated facts, the following facts relevant to this rule-challenge proceeding are found: Upjohn operates a number of home health agencies throughout the State of Florida, as well as in other states. Prior to 1975, a patient served by a proprietary home health agency could not obtain reimbursement under the Medicare program. Such agencies were not able to obtain a Medicare "provider number" unless they were licensed under State law. In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Home Health Services Act, Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, providing for the licensure of proprietary home health agencies. On July 1, 1977, the "establishment of a new home health agency" became one of the projects subject to Certificate of Need review. HRS's rules pertaining to Certificate of Need review were amended in October of 1977, to include the "establishment of a new home health agency or a new subunit of an agency" as projects subject to review. During the rule adoption process, HRS specifically considered the suggestion that expansions of service areas by existing home health agencies without new facilities be subject to Certificate of Need review. This suggestion was rejected on the belief that such a requirement was not statutorily authorized. Prior to 1982, officials within the Office of Community Medical Facilities (OCMF), the office responsible for the Certificate of Need program, generally took the position that the mere geographical expansion of services by an existing certificated and licensed home health agency did not require further Certificate of Need review as long as additional physical facilities were not contemplated. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) did, on occasion, require home health agencies to build new offices if it was found that an agency was geographically overextending itself in terms of appropriate supervision or quality of care concerns. In January of 1980, the Director of the OLC took the position that petitioner's licensed Marion County home health agency could not provide services to Citrus County residents without applying for and obtaining a Certificate of Need, and thereafter having its license extended to operate in Citrus County. In September of 1981, Upjohn was informed by the OCMF that a Certificate of Need was not required for the provision of home health services from its Jacksonville, Duval County, office to patients residing in Nassau, Baker or St. Johns Counties, as long as subunits or other physical facilities were not opened in those counties. The above four counties were all located within the same health service area. Thereafter, in October of 1981, Upjohn requested advice from the OLC as to whether it could provide services from its Broward County office to patients in Palm Beach County. Noting that it was the understanding of the OLC that a Certificate of Need would be required to authorize any expansion of home health services, the OLC referred Upjohn's request to the OCMF. The matter was thereafter referred to the HRS legal staff. James M. Barclay, an attorney with the Office of Health Planning and Development, issued Legal Opinion 82-2 on the issue of whether a Certificate of Need was required before a home health agency, licensed to operate in certain counties within a health service area, could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area. It was Mr. Barclay's opinion that a licensed home health agency could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area without an additional Certificate of Need. (See Attachment A) Based on this opinion, the OLC informed Upjohn that it could not expand its Broward County services to Palm Beach County without Certificate of Need review since the two counties were located in separate health service areas. The Deputy Assistant Secretary' for Health Planning and Development, Gary J. Clarke, disseminated the Barclay opinion to the directors of the Health Systems Agencies. In his cover letter, dated April 7, 1982, Mr. Clarke noted that "the memorandum clarifies existing law; namely, that a home health agency in one county may offer services in an adjoining county without obtaining a CON." It is further noted that ". . .this office and perhaps many HSAs have proceeded under the mistaken assumption that a CON was required in every case where an existing home health acency desired to provide services in a county it was not pre viously providing services in. . . It appears that the legal result of this question is due to inartful drafting in both the statutes and the rules. Nonetheless, this opinion -- while neither preferable nor what we had assumed to be correct -- appears to accurately state the applicable law.". . . (See Attachment B) Based upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke cover letter, Upjohn informed its various Florida office managers that its existing home health agencies, though licensed only for a particular county, could deliver services in additional counties within the home health service area without the need for further Certificate of Need review. Subsequent to the Barclay opinion and the Clarke distribution letter, there were changes in the Certificate of Need law, as well as leadership changes within HRS. The former Health Systems Agencies were abolished and replaced with District Councils, local involvement with the Certificate of Need process was virtually eliminated and the "health service areas" were changed to "districts." some with different boundaries. These changes prompted the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, to request of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary a clarification of the policy regarding Certificate of Need review for expansion of home health agency service areas. In order to be consistent with regard to home health agencies and to make clearer to HRS officials, applicants and the public how HRS would be applying the statutes and rules, HRS developed a "home health agency review matrix." (See Attachment C). Basically, the review matrix limited geographical expansion of services (without Certificate of Need review) to those counties in which the applicant could demonstrate that the criteria for review had been applied by the appropriate reviewing bodies, either the OCMF or the former local Health Systems Agencies. The matrix was developed in February or March of 1983, and was distributed internally within HRS. Upjohn had several license applications for geographical expansion of services in early 1983. While advised in late March that a "revised ruling" was going into effect, Upjohn had no knowledge of the development of the review matrix. By letter dated April 8, 1983, Upjohn was advised that its license application to expand services from its Pinellas County office to the Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pasco was denied for failure to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review. By "OPLC Policy Letter No. 33-83" dated April 8, 1983, addressed to "All Home Health Agencies" and "Home Health Agency Association," the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, gave notice of the OLC position with regard to expansion of services in counties other than those noted on a home health agency license. The addressees were advised that "it is illegal to provide services in any area not covered under your current license." (See Attachment D). This policy letter was written in direct response to the review matrix. It was not until May, 1983, that Upjohn became aware of the existence of the review matrix. By letter dated May 5, 1983, the Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, Nathaniel ,Ward, advised counsel for Upjohn that, "we have a matrix which we must apply (Exhibit 1) when determining whether a Certificate of Need is required for expansion into the service area." In reliance upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke memorandum, Upjohn extended the provision of home health services from its Marion County office into Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties from and after August, 1982. Prior to August 1, 1983, Upjohn requested the OLC to add to its Marion County home health agency license the Counties of Citrus, Lake and Sumter. This request was denied by the OLC on the ground that Upjohn had failed to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review for those counties. On August 30, 1983, HRS issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Upjohn's Marion County license, or impose other penalties, on the ground that the Marion County home health agency had been providing home health services in Citrus and/or Lake Counties without a license that lists those counties on its face.
The Issue Whether the applications for certificate of need numbers 8380, 8381, 8382 and 8383, filed by Petitioners RHA/Florida Operations, Inc., Care First, Inc., Home Health Integrated Health Services of Florida, Inc., ("IHS of Florida,") and Putnam Home Health Services, Inc., meet, on balance, the statutory and rule criteria required for approval?
Findings Of Fact Care First The Proposal Care First, the holder of a non-Medicare-certified home health agency license, was established in March of 1996. Owned by Mr. Freddie L. Franklin, Care First is the successor to another non-Medicare-certified home health agency also owned by Mr. Franklin: D. G. Anthony Home Health Agency ("D. G. Anthony"). Established in May of 1995, D. G. Anthony provided over 10,000 visits in its first 10 months of operation mostly in Leon and Wakulla Counties, pursuant to a contract with Calhoun-Liberty Hospital Association, Inc. Very few of the 10,000 patients were referred to D. G. Anthony by Calhoun-Liberty; they became D. G. Anthony's patients through community-based networks, including physicians, created through the efforts of Mr. Franklin and D. G. Anthony itself. D. G. Anthony was dissolved in 1996. Both its patient census and its staff of 45 were absorbed by Care First. D. G. Anthony's contract with Calhoun-Liberty was substantially assumed by Care First so that it provided service to Medicare patients as Calhoun-Liberty's subcontractor. From the point of view of the federal government, the Medicare patients served by Care First were Calhoun-Liberty's patients, even those who had not been referred to Care First by Calhoun Liberty and who had been referred from other community sources. Care First, therefore, was simply a sub- contractor providing the services on Calhoun-Liberty's behalf. The contract was terminated effective December 1, 1996. Calhoun-Liberty was free to terminate Care First with 30 days notice, a peril that motivated Mr. Franklin to seek the CON applied for in this proceeding. With the termination of the contract, Care First ceased serving Medicare patients, "because Mr. Franklin did not want to enter into another subcontractor arrangement because of all the issues and problems," (Tr. 934,) associated with such an arrangement. Mr. Franklin is involved with nursing homes as the administrator at Miracle Hill Nursing Home in Tallahassee. He is an owner of Wakulla Manor Nursing Home in Wakulla County, and he owns a 24 bed CLF, Greenlin Villa, also in Wakulla County. Miracle Hill has the highest Medicaid utilization of any nursing home in District 2. Both Miracle Hill and Wakulla Manor are superior rated facilities. On the strength of Mr. Franklin's extensive experience with community-based organizations and health care services, as well as Care First's succession to D. G. Anthony and other historical information and data. Care First decided to proceed with its application. In the application, Care First proposes to establish a home health agency that, at first, will serve primarily Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty and Wakulla Counties. It plans to expand into Madison and Taylor Counties in its second year of operation. Five of these eight counties have high levels of poverty; six of the eight are very rural, with the population spread widely throughout the county. Ninety-six percent of Care First's patients are over age Minority owned, approximately 65% of the patients are members of minorities. Many of the patients live in rural areas and are Medicaid recipients or are uninsured low income persons who do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford home health care. Since it will be serving the same patient base as a Medicare-certified agency, Care First has committed to the provision of 7% of its visits to Medicaid patients and 1% of its visits to patients requiring charity/uncompensated care. Care First projects 18,080 visits in its first year and 29,070 in its second year. Care First will promote efficiency through the use of a case management approach. Each patient will be assigned a case manager who will act as the patient advocate to provide care required and to identify and assist the patient with access to other "quality of life" enhancing services. Care First proposes an appropriate mix of services, including skilled nursing, physical therapy, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, home health aide services and social services. Care First estimates its total project cost at $25,808. Of this amount, $2,000 is indicated as "start-up cost", with nothing allocated to salaries. Care First indicates no "capital projects" other than its proposal for the home health agency in District 2. Care First's proposal would be funded from a $60,000 bank line of credit. Projected Utilization Potential patients will be able to gain access to Care First through several avenues, including physician referral, hospital referral, nursing home discharge, assisted living referrals from community agencies and organizations such as Big Bend Hospice and through private referral. In addition, there are several natural linkages to the community for Care First. Wakulla Manor and Miracle nursing facilities offer Care First's services to discharged residents in need. Very often, residents and families choose Mr. Franklin's agency because they are familiar with him, staff or the quality of care provided. Residents of Greenlin Villa, owned by Mr. Franklin, frequently chose Care First when in need of home health agency services. Mr. Franklin's civic, church, and community involvement is impressive. He is president of the Florida Health Care Association, chairman of the board of the Tallahassee Urban League, superintendent of the Wakulla County Union Church Group, and serves on the advisory board for the Allied Health Department for Florida A&M University. In the past, he has served on the Board of Trustees of Tallahassee Community College. He was accepted as an expert in long-term care administration in this proceeding based in part on his service on the Governor's Long Term Care Commission. Miracle Hill has held a "Superior" licensure rating for the last ten consecutive years. It is the highest rating awarded by the AHCA licensure office and is intended to blazon the high quality of care provided by the facility. Although reported through Calhoun-Liberty, very few of D. Anthony's and Care First's past referrals have been generated through that affiliation. Rather, they have come through community contacts and getting the referrals from "talking with physicians," (Tr. 922), in Tallahassee and the surrounding areas, many of whom Mr. Franklin has gotten to know through his post as Administrator of Miracle Hill Nursing Home. By far, it is through physician referrals that Care First receives most of its patients. Care First's physician referral list includes 47 doctors who referred patients to D. G. Anthony since May, 1995. These doctors practice in urban areas and some have rural clinic offices which they staff on certain days of the week. Physicians are willing to refer patients to Care First because of the quality of care which has been provided by Care First, as well as the reputation of its owners. The Care First application included letters of support from eight physicians who have referred patients to Care First in the past and state that they will continue to support Care First with referrals in the future. Among the letters included are those from Dr. Earl Britt, a practitioner of internal medicine and cardiology in Tallahassee, and Dr. Joseph Webster, who practices internal medicine and gastroenterolgy in Tallahassee. Many of the patients of these two physicians are elderly. Dr. Britt's patients often have chronic hypertension or heart disease, are diabetic or suffer strokes. These two physicians provided over half the total number of patient referrals to D.B. Anthony and Care First. Dr. Britt and Dr. Webster established through testimony that Freddie Franklin and Care First have an excellent reputation for provision of quality of care and enjoy significant support among physicians within the service area. Moreover, Dr. Britt, although based in Tallahassee, stressed the importance of Care First's proven ability to provide home health services in the rural setting both from the standpoint of understanding the needs of the rural patient and from being able to travel over rural terrain in order to deliver services. (Tr. 1151, 1152, 1154). Approximately 11,500 visits were performed by D. G. Anthony staff from the period of May 1995, through April 1996, before they became the staff of Care First. Since the agency has established a presence in the district and has physician and other referral mechanisms in place, it is reasonable to project that Care First will continue to grow and will experience between 18,000 and 20,000 visits in its first year and 28,000 to 31,000 visits in year two as a Medicare-certified home health agency. These projections stem from the historical and very recent monthly growth of D. G. Anthony, as well as demand it is experiencing from Franklin and Jefferson Counties, two counties it does not serve regularly at present but plans to serve regularly in the future. The reasonableness of Care First's projections is bolstered by the conservative number of visits per patient the projections assume, 35, when typically Medicare-certified agencies average at least 35 visits and as many as 60 visits per patient. Care First's utilization projections are reasonable. It enjoys an excellent reputation for quality of care and ability to deliver services. Together with its predecessor, D. G. Anthony, it has a proven track record and has benefited from a referral network that remains in place. These factors, together with the conservative assumptions upon which its projected utilization is based demonstrate that its projected utilization is reasonable. Financial Feasibility of Care First The total project cost for the Care First agency is projected to be $25,808. The majority of the costs are reasonable for this type of health care project. The majority of the project development costs, the application fee and much of the cost of the consultant and legal fees, have already been paid by Care First. Care First's Schedule 2 was prepared in conformance with the requirements of the agency and accurately lists all anticipated capital projects of Care First. The necessary funding for the Care First project will come from Care First's existing $60,000 line of credit with Premier Bank, in Tallahassee. This method of funding the project is reasonable, appropriate, and adequate. Care First has demonstrated the short term financial feasibility of its project. Care First's schedule 6 presents the anticipated staffing requirements for its home health agency. The staffing projections are based upon the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, taking into consideration the projected start-up and utilization of the agency. The projected salaries are based upon current wages being paid to Care First employees, adjusted for future inflation. Care First's schedule 6 assumptions and projections are reasonable, and adequate for the provision of high quality care. The staffing proposed by Care First is sufficient to provide an RN or an LPN and an aide in each of the eight counties Care First proposes to serve in District 2. Care First's schedule 7 includes the payor mix assumptions and projected revenue for the first two years of operation. Medicare reimburses for home health agency services based upon the allowable cost for providing services, with certain caps. The Care First revenues by payor type were based upon the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, as well as the preparation of an actual Medicare cost report. The Care First payor mix assumptions and revenue assumptions are reasonable. Care First's projection of operating expenses in Schedule 8A is also based on the historical experience of D. G. Anthony and Care First, as modified for the mix of services to be offered and the projected staffing requirements. The use of historical data to project future expenses adds credibility to the projections. Care First's projected expenses for the project are reasonable. The Care First application presents a reasonable projection of the revenues and expenses likely to be experienced by the project. Care First has reasonably projected a profit of $8,315 for the first two year of operation. Care First's proposal is financially feasible in the long term. As the result of its community contacts, Care First has been offered the use of donated office space in Franklin, Jefferson, Wakulla, and Gadsden counties. The use of donated office space will decrease the cost of establishing a physical presence and providing services in those counties since Care First will not have a lease cost for a business office and a place to keep supplies. Quality of Care Through the experience of D. G. Anthony, Care First has identified the particular needs of the community it served. This experience has been carried over into Care First's provision of services. In the 9 months of Care First's existence at the time of hearing, it provided quality of care. Its predecessor, D. G. Anthony, also provided quality of care. While Care First's experience is relatively limited, there is no reason to expect, based on the experience of both Care First and its predecessor D. G. Anthony, that quality of care will not continue should its application be granted. IHS of Florida The Application IHS of Florida is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated Health Services, Inc. ("IHS") formed for the specific purpose of filing CON applications. IHS operates other home health agencies under other subsidiary names. Pernille Ostberg is a senior vice president of the Eastern Home Care Division of Symphony Home Care Services, Integrated Health Services. In that capacity she oversees nearly 195 operations in six states, including Florida. Her operations include home health agencies, durable and medical equipment distributions, and infusion therapy offered by pharmacists. Under Ms. Ostberg's guidance, IHS has grown to its current roster of 195 agencies in only three years, from a beginning of only five agencies. IHS first acquired Central Park Lodges, primarily a nursing home company which also owned five home health agencies. Once these agencies became Medicare certified, IHS made a corporate decision to acquire additional Medicare certified home health agencies. Beginning approximately three years ago, IHS undertook a series of acquisitions which included Central Health Services, Care Team, ProCare/ProMed, and Partners Home Health. More recently, IHS has acquired the Signature Home Health and Century Home Health Companies. And, immediately prior to the final hearing in this matter, IHS acquired First American Home Health Care, making IHS the fourth largest provider of home health services in America. Of all the home health agencies overseen by IHS, 95% are Medicare certified, and 62-63 are located in Florida. IHS now has a presence in all districts except District 1 and 2. IHS personnel also have extensive experience in starting up new home health agencies. IHS personnel have opened over 40 locations across the United States. IHS employees have extensive experience bringing new home health agencies through successful surveys by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospital Organizations ("JCAHO") recommendations. Of 18 branches personally taken through initial survey by IHS's Pernille Ostberg, none were recommended to change their operations and none were cited for a deficiency. IHS has recently opened, licensed, and certified new home health agencies in AHCA Service District 5, 6, and 10. They have also received licensure in District 7, 8, and 11. Based on the extensive expensive of IHS personnel, a start up home health agency typically experiences 8,000 - 15,000 visits per first year. Opening a new program requires two months for licensure. It will require a registered nurse for three months to make certain all manuals are in place and that quality personnel are recruited. After achieving licensure, one must wait for a certification survey, which may take as long as six months. The three IHS home health agencies that became certified recently have experienced 200 visits in the first month, a good sign of growth. IHS' umbrella organization for home health organizations is Symphony. Most of their home health companies retained their original names. Other IHS home health companies include ProCare, Central Health Services, Partners Home Health, Nurse Registry, and First American. IHS of Florida has applied for applications in other districts. This applicant filed applications in District 7, 8 and 10 and each were approved. IHS of Florida's CON application number 8382 was prepared by Patti Greenberg with the significant input of IHS and IHS of Florida's operational experts. Ms. Greenberg has prepared 75-100 CON applications, 20-25 of which sought approval for Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies. Each of these prior applications had been approved or otherwise reached settlement before litigation. The Proposed Project Once the needs analysis was complete, IHS examined geographic issues within the 14 county district. IHS examined where the populations required home health agencies and what niche of the market IHS could expect to achieve. Projected visits were determined by examining month by month, how this agency would grow. This projected utilization was subdivided among sub-visit types. Existing IHS home health agencies visit mix (skilled nursing as opposed to home health aide or therapy visits) was used to estimate skill type of the projected total volume. The projected utilization was also subdivided by payor class. This payor class projection was derived specifically for District 2, its poverty levels and its managed care penetration. In the aggregate, IHS projects 7,650 visits in year one and 17,100 visits in year two. This projection is reasonable and achievable. Witnesses for the Agency agreed that IHS of Florida's projected number of visits was "definitely attainable". Past and Proposed Service to Medicaid Patients and for Medically Indigent The payor class analysis allowed IHS to conclude it should condition its approval of its application under the performance of 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. The balance of the population served by an IHS Medicare Certified Home Health agency would be covered by Medicare. The condition is important as it is a requirement which, if not achieved, will subject IHS of Florida to fines and penalties by the agency. Improved Accessibility The applicant will improve the efficacy, appropriateness, accessibility, effectiveness and efficiency of home health services in District 2 if approved. IHS of Florida will provide good quality of care, should its application be granted. Quality of Care Through competitive forces, the applicant's approval will also improve the quality of care offered by home health agencies in District 2. The approval of IHS of Florida's application will also comply with the need evidenced by the extent of utilization of like and existing services in District 2. Economies from Joint Operations Certain economies derived from the operation of joint projects are achieved by IHS of Florida's proposal. IHS has a home office and corporate umbrella which oversees all of its operations for home health services. This master office offers economies of sale by sharing resources across a wide array of home health agencies in Florida and other states. Thus, the incremental expense for corporate overhead is reduced as compared to a free-standing home health agency. Additionally, this national oversight provides better economies to provide the most recent policies and procedures, billing systems, and other systems of business operation. Financial Feasibility IHS of Florida has the resources to accomplish the proposed project. As demonstrated on schedule 1, and schedule 3 of IHS exhibit 1, the budget for the project is only $144,000. This budget includes all appropriate equipment for both the initial and satellite offices. Budgeted amounts include all required lease expenses, equipment costs and even start-up costs such as salaries for the recruitment of training and staff prior to opening. In total, $52,000 of pre-opening expenses are projected, which is reasonable. IHS of Florida filed applications for other home health agency start-ups in three different districts. The applicant had more than $180,000 in cash on hand and an additional $226,000 assured from a commitment letter from IHS which was also contained in the application. A letter of commitment from Mark Levine, a director and executive vice president of IHS, indicated IHS will provide $250,000 in capital for this specific project. Additionally, IHS will provide up to $1 million in working capital loan to assure no cash flow problems ever arise. A similar letter of commitment appears in each of the CON applications which IHS of Florida has filed. IHS has committed to fund each of the CON applications applied for by IHS of Florida. Each of these letters of commitment for the various CON applications sought by this applicant are on file with the AHCA. In total, the applicant projects $600,000 in capital commitments assured. IHS' balance sheet, reveals access to $60 million in cash and cash equivalent. The record clearly demonstrates an ability of IHS to fund all capital contributions required by the applicant. The current assets of IHS approximate $240 million. In addition to having cash in the bank, IHS is a growing concern and is, in fact, a Fortune 500 company that is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. IHS generates revenues which exceed its annual expenses. In the last year, IHS derived $30 million more than it experienced in expenses. The application is financially feasible in the short- term. IHS' application is also feasible in the long-term. IHS of Florida's utilization projections are reasonable. Budgeted staffing and salaries are reasonable. The cost limit calculation and reimbursement calculation by payor source, which is provided in great detail in Schedule 5 of IHS of Florida's application, is reasonable. Projected expenses associated with this project were reasonably calculated based on the actual experience of other IHS Home Health operations. The reasonableness of these costs are also demonstrated when compared with the cost per visit by existing agencies in District 2. In fact, IHS of Florida predicted it would be a lower cost provider than the expected cost of existing agencies at the time IHS of Florida's operations would begin. IHS of Florida's proposal will have a healthy, competitive effect on the cost of providing services by other providers. Putnam The Proposal Putnam proposes to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency with its primary office located in Bay County. Bay County was selected as the primary office based upon the locations of existing and approved agencies in District 2, the aggregate utilization of each, and the number of individuals aged 65 and over distributed among the existing District 2 counties and agencies. Mr. Alan Anderson is Putnam's sole stockholder, Director, and President. Under the ownership and administration of Alan Anderson, Putnam has provided Medicare-certified home health services in AHCA District 3 continuously since 1986. Mr. Anderson is also the sole owner, director, and president of Anderson Home Health, Inc., a Medicare-certified home health agency serving AHCA District 4 since 1992. Anderson Home Health's CON was obtained by Putnam through the same process undertaken by the prospective applicants in this proceeding. Putnam's District 3 agency has successfully served District 3 residents since 1986 at first through its Palatka office, then growing to its current size of four offices. In District 4, Anderson Home Health, Inc. has also experienced successful operations having grown from its principal office in Duval County to a total of four offices. Putnam's District 3 home health agency began with the original office located in Palatka, followed by offices opened in Gainesville, Ocala and Crystal River. Anderson Home Health, Inc.'s District 4 operation began with the original office located in Jacksonville; the second office was opened in Daytona Beach, followed by the opening of the third office in Orange Park; and the fourth office was opened in Macclenny. Putnam's District 3 agency is JCAHO accredited "with commendation." As part of CON application No. 8383, Putnam has agreed to certain conditions upon award. First, the proposed project will locate its primary office in Bay County. Putnam also conditions its approval with the provision that 0.25% of its admissions will be persons infected with the HIV virus. Four percent of its patients will be Medicaid or indigent patients. Finally, Putnam has conditioned its approval upon the provision of various special programs such as high tech home health services, a volunteer program, and the establishment of a rural health care clinic. History or Commitment to Provide Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients For Medicare reimbursement purposes, Putnam proposes to maintain a Medicare-only agency and private sister agency which provides services to non-Medicare patients. The private sister agency will provide service to the Medicaid and indigent patients. The costs of providing services to these non-paying or partial paying patients will be absorbed by the agency as a contribution to the community. The establishment of a private sister agency to handle the non-Medicare patients is common in the home health industry. As a condition in the application, Putnam will accept up to 3.0% Medicaid patients. Although it stated in its application that it would accept between .5%-1.0% indigent patients, its conditioning of the application on 4.0% Medicaid and indigent patients would necessitate that it accept at least 1.0% indigent (if not more, should the Medicaid patients fall below 3%) in order to meet the 4.0% Medicaid and indigent care condition. The percentages proposed by Putnam are consistent with the statewide average (approximately 95% Medicare) and the District average (approximately 92.1% Medicare). Bay County's average of Medicare patients is approximately 96.4% Medicare. To meet the 4.0% Medicaid and indigent condition, Putnam's average of Medicare patients might have to be less than the Bay County average but not by much. Certainly, meeting the condition is achievable. The agency's position is that Putnam's Medicaid/indigent commitment is not a ground for denial of the application. Quality of Care Putnam has continuously owned and operated a licensed Medicare-certified home health agency in District 3 since 1986 and has been JCAHO accredited with commendation status since 1994. In an effort to continuously provide quality care, Putnam has developed a comprehensive set of policies and procedures to guide its staff, its physicians, volunteers, patients, as well as patients families. No evidence was presented to suggest that Putnam does not have a history or ability to provide quality care. Availability of Resources, Including Health Manpower, Management Personnel and Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures Putnam has provided Medicare-certified home health service to the residents of District 3 for ten years. Putnam will be able to share its existing personnel and operations expertise with the proposed District 2 agency. Administrative, Managerial, and Operational Personnel Putnam intends to utilize existing administrative personnel in the start up and overall operation of the proposed agency. These management personnel include the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Data Processing Director, Director of Volunteers, Personnel Director. These experienced personnel will be available to provide valuable management support to the proposed agency. The proposed agency will be operated by an administrator who will report directly to Putnam's CEO, Alan Anderson. The agency's administrator will be actively involved in budget preparation, physician relations, community education, and preparation for regulatory agency surveys. The proposed agency will rely upon the demonstrated experience of key personnel in its initiation. Ms. Nora Rowsey, experienced in the start-up phases of home health agencies, will personally supervise and implement the start up phase of the proposed District 2 agency. Putnam intends to hire individuals to work within the proposed agency who already have experience in the provision of the necessary services. Current employees of Putnam's as well as contract personnel of the District 3 agency have indicated a willingness to provide services in Bay County once the application is approve. Funding and Capital Resources Putnam projects the total costs of initiating the proposed agency to be approximately $70,000. Putnam has simultaneously applied for two other Medicare-certified home health agencies, in Districts 6 and 7. Each of these projects area also projected to cost approximately $70,000. Putnam, therefore, has projected costs associated with all three projects of approximately $210,000. Additionally, there is a $10,000 contingency cost related to the District 3 offices bringing the total expenditure for all capital projects of $220,000. Putnam's application includes two letters from First Union National Bank of Florida which substantiate that there are funds on hand to finance all of Putnam's capital expenditures, including the District 2 proposed agency. As of April 18, 1996, Putnam's bank account had a twelve month average balance of $245,949.02. As of April 18, 1996 the accounts of both Putnam and Anderson Home Care Inc., had a combined twelve month average balance of $676,656.93. The evidence established that these funds exist and are available for all proposed capital projects. In the two years prior to hearing, Putnam showed sound management, significant growth, and a strong financial position. It continues to do so. In an interoffice memorandum dated May 28, 1996, from Roger L. Bell to Richard Kelly, Health Services and Facilities Consultant, Putnams' financial position was described as follows: The current ratio of .62 indicates the current assets are not adequate to cover short term liabilities. The long term debt to equity and equity to assets ratios are very weak. This, along with the negative equity make a weak financial position. The profit margin at .1% is also very weak, and raises some concern with the applicant's ability to cover operating expenses . Putnam Ex. No. 4. This criticism was answered by Putnam. The agency may not have considered certain factors applicable to a predominantly Medicare-reimbursed home health agency. Putnam's current liabilities are payable in a longer term than the receivables are collectible. Furthermore, with provision of 98% Medicare services, which is solely cost reimbursed, there remains only two percent of the operation left to make a profit. A .1% profit from the small amount of insurance and private pay patients indicated financial health. Putnam, moreover, is a viable operation because of its historical success, its knowledge of the industry, its expansion to six locations, its growth in staff, and its growth in patient visits. Putnam has the resources available to provide the necessary administrative, managerial, and operational manpower needed by the proposed home health agency. AHCA's financial criticisms are unfounded; Putnam has on hand the capital necessary for the accomplishment of the proposed project. Putnam has the experience and know-how to make the proposed project work in District 2's rural areas. Financial Feasibility Putnam has the resources to implement this project if approved. Putnam has the same capability that existed when three offices were opened during the period from April 1992 through February 1993, and the same resources when four offices were opened in 1995. In every instance, the new offices were started up with cash on hand from operation. Mr. Anderson, Putnam's President and sole shareholder and director, testified that he spends much time in the financial area of the operations. As of November 29, 1996, after deducting all accounts payable, Putnam has a cash balance of approximately $390,000. Anderson Home Health, Inc. had a balance of approximately $425,000. Mr. Anderson testified that the First Union letters in the application at pages 231 and 232 were correct and that Putnam is in even better shape now than when the letters were written. Putnam is financially feasible in the short term. AHCA contends Putnam's project is not financially feasible in the long term because the projected visits stay the same in the second year and because it does not project a profit in year two of operation. This fails to take into account Putnam's performance over the past ten years which, as the agency conceded at hearing, is an important consideration . Mr. Anderson purchased Putnam in 1986. At that time the agency had a single office in Palatka doing 4,000 visits. Following Mr. Anderson's purchase of the agency it had grown to over 55,000 visits and close to a hundred employees. After the success experienced by Mr. Anderson in Palatka, Putnam filed a CON application for District 4, with a proposed principle site in Jacksonville. The District 4 CON was approved by the agency--without any concerns for financial feasibility nor with any concerns for Putnam's cash flows. Without having any experience or referral sources in Jacksonville, Putnam began doing approximately 7,000 visits. The number of visits jumped to 45,000 in the second fiscal year, 123,000 in the third fiscal year, and as of September 30, 1996 the Jacksonville office performed 158,000 visits. Aside from the extraordinary growth experienced in the Palatka and Jacksonville offices, already discussed, Putnam has opened rural offices also doing very well. The Macclenny office in rural Baker County had over 15,000 visits in the first twelve months and is currently averaging over 1800 visits. The Crystal River office in rural Citrus County made over 12,000 visits in its first year and is currently doing approximately 1400 visits a month. Every new office opened by Putnam or Anderson Home Health since 1991 has been break even or better. Putnam has a proven track record for the successful and profitable operation of new Medicare-certified home health agencies. Putnam's project is financially feasible in the long term. Utilization Projections The application sets forth reasonable utilization projections. Based on Putnam's utilization in the past, there is no reason to believe the projections set forth in the application are or unreasonable or will not be achieved. Impact on Costs Putnam is a high tech provider of home health services and will provide some services not currently available or available only in a limited number of agencies. The impact of approval of Putnam's application on costs in the District will be minimal due to the reimbursement issues associated with Medicare which is cost based. RHA A Not-for-Profit Corporation in District II RHA is not-for-profit corporation whose purpose is to provide a continuum of care to the community. All profits are returned to its nursing homes or agencies as a way of continuing to build the programs. RHA owns two nursing homes in AHCA District II; Riverchase Care Center in Gadsden County and Brynwood Center in Jefferson County. If approved, RHA is proposing to locate its Medicare certified home health agency in existing space within the Riverchase and Brynwood nursing facilities. Both of these facilities are managed and operated by HealthPrime, Inc., a company which operates approximately 40 facilities in 13 states. While RHA is technically the owner and therefore applicant for this CON, HealthPrime would operate the proposed Medicare certified home health agency within the nursing homes. RHA's home health agency would have two offices. The office located in the Riverchase facility would serve Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Gulf, Wakulla, Jackson, Calhoun, Washington, Holmes and Bay Counties. The office located in the Brynwood facility would serve Leon, Jefferson, Madison and Taylor Counties. Financial Feasibility The only questions raised by AHCA concerning RHA's financial feasibility went to the ability of RHA to fund this project in conjunction with other CON projects listed on Schedule 2 of its CON application. The largest project on Schedule 2 of RHA's application was a CON application for a 20 bed addition to Riverchase Care Center. At hearing it was determined that since the filing of the instant home health CON application, the 20 bed application had been withdrawn, was no longer viable, and was not being pursued by RHA. Once AHCA's financial expert learned that the 20 bed addition to the Riverchase Care Center had been administratively withdrawn and that its costs should therefore no longer appear on Schedule 2, questions about the financial feasibility of the project were resolved. RHA's project was shown to be financially feasible in the short term based upon the financing commitment of HealthPrime. RHA proved that its assumptions and projections made in its financial analysis are reasonable. These assumptions were based on actual experience in the operation of similar skilled nursing facility based home health agencies, as well as prior experience of other home health agencies in their first two years of operation. RHA's proposed project shows a net income in years one and two and is financially feasible in both the short and long term. Availability and Access of Services To the extent that the number of people needing home health care will increase in the future, there is need for new providers of home health services to provide such availability and access. RHA's willingness to condition its application on service to AIDS, indigent and Medicaid patients can only improve the availability and access to services in the district. In addition, RHA's approval to provide nursing home based home health services is unique to the provision of home health services in District II. Efficiency RHA's proposal, which would place its home health agency within its nursing homes, is unique among the applicants in this proceeding. Such an arrangement provides not only an efficient continuum of care to the patients, it also provides efficiencies and cost savings in the sharing of resources. RHA's proposed project is cost effective because it utilizes existing space and equipment in its nursing homes. Skilled nursing home based Medicare certified home health agencies are specifically recognized by the Federal Medicare program in their cost reports. Home health reports are filed as a part of the nursing home cost report and there is an allocation of the nursing home's cost to the home health agency. This benefits both the provider and the Medicare program through cost savings. RHA's cost per visit to the Medicare program of $48 will be substantially less than the District II average of $66 per visit projected for the time RHA will be operational under the applied- for CON. RHA's proposed project will have no impact on its costs of providing other health care services. Appropriateness and Adequacy RHA proposes to provide the entire range of home health services throughout the district. Given the project need in the planning horizon, RHA's proposal is more than adequate to meet the demand for such services. Quality of Care An applicant's ability to provide quality care is another important factor in statutory and rule criteria. RHA and HealthPrime have shown, through operation of their nursing homes in Florida, all of which have superior ratings, that they have the ability to provide quality health care. In addition, HealthPrime, which will actually operate the home health agency, has experience operating four other nursing home based home health agencies. HealthPrime will utilize its quality assurance programs already in place in its other home health agencies and will seek JCAHO accreditation of this proposed agency. By combining a home health agency with its existing nursing homes, RHA will improve the case management of its patients by providing vertical integration of its services in a continuum of care. Such continuum of care provides a stability in personnel and providers that are working with the patient. Economies and Improvements from Joint or Shared Services As previously discussed, RHA's unique proposal to operate a nursing home based home health agency not only offers a continuum of care for the patient, it also provides fiscal economies to the agency as well as the Medicare program. Resource Availability Based on RHA's experience of hiring personnel for its existing nursing homes in the district, there will be no problem in hiring sufficient personnel for RHA's agency. Fostering Competition The addition of other Medicare certified home health agencies in a district consisting of 10 counties and only 23 providers will promote increased competition and more options for patients. Findings Applicable to All Four Applicants No Fixed Need Pool The agency has no rule methodology to determine the need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The agency's most recent home health need methodology was invalidated in Principal Nursing vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 93-5711RX, reversed in part, 650 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). There is, therefore, no numeric need determination, or "fixed need pool", established by the agency applicable in this proceeding. District 2 AHCA District 2 is composed of 14 counties. The applicants propose to concentrate their service in various, different parts of the district. Local and State Health Plan Preferences District 2 Health Plan Services to Medicaid and Medically Indigent The first preference under the District 2 Health Plan provides a preference to applicants with a history of providing services to Medicaid or medically indigent patients or commitment to provide such services in the future. Mr. Franklin of Care First has such a history. He is an owner of Wakulla Manor, which had a Medicaid occupancy rate of 88.09% for the period of July-December, and the administrator of Miracle Hill Nursing Home which had a Medicaid occupancy rate of 95.74% for the same period. In the face of such a record, Care First’s commitment of 7% Medicaid and 1% uncompensated/charity patients might seem to pale. But it is a significant commitment, given the nature of the home health agency business, and one upon which Care First agrees its application should be conditioned. IHS conditioned its application on 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. Putnam conditioned its application on an “Indigent and Medicaid participation equal[ling] 4.0%.” Putnam Ex. No. 1, pg. 51. Putnam, moreover, proposes a Medicare-only agency. Establishment of a private sister agency, a practice common in the home health care industry, will allow Putnam to provide service to the Medicaid and indigent patients separate from its Medicare-only agency. RHA has provided a high percentage of Medicaid/charity days at its Riverchase facility (92.10%) and at its Brynwood facility (90.24%). In addition, RHA is willing to condition its CON on the provision of a minimum of 1% of annual visits to indigent care and 5% to Medicaid. Service to Unserved Counties. Preference 2 states that “[p]reference should be given to any home health services CON applicant seeking to provide home health care services in any county within the District which is not presently served by a home health agency.” There are no counties within District 2 that are not presently served by a home health agency. Service Through a County Public Health Unit Preference 3 states that “[p]reference should be given to a home health services CON applicant seeking to develop home health care services to be provided through a county public health unit in the district in order to more adequately serve the elderly and medically indigent patients who are isolated or unable to travel to permanent health care sites." Of the four applicants, only IHS of Florida’s application is conditioned on working with public health units. IHS has experience working with public health units, working with them currently in Martin County, Manatee County and Broward County. Nonetheless, IHS of Florida will not be providing its services “through” a public health unit. Public Marketing Program Preference 4 states, “[p]reference should be given to a home health services applicant who has a history of providing, or will commit to provide, a public marketing program for services which included pamphlets, public service announcements, and various other community awareness activities. These commitments should be included on the granted CON as a condition of that CON.” Care First currently markets its services to the community and commits to a public marketing program in the future as a condition of its CON. IHS of Florida committed to performing at least one community awareness activity per calendar quarter as a condition of its application. It also indicated, moreover, that it would work to develop public service announcements and marketing programs with the help of public health units or any other appropriate vehicle. The latter indication, however, was not made a condition of the application. Putnam provides educational services to the community, its employees, patients and patients’ families, including the provision of pamphlets, and presenting audio and video tapes as appropriate to the patient and their families. Putnam, however, did not condition its application on a commitment to a public marketing program or commit to such a program in any other way in its application. RHA stated it would accept a condition on its CON to provide a public marketing program for services, including pamphlets, public service announcements and other community awareness activities. It did not reflect such a condition on the “Conditions” page of the application, but, given its statement that it would accept such a condition, there is nothing to prevent the agency from imposing such a condition should it grant RHA’s application. Access Requirements Preference 5 is, “[p]reference should be given to a home health services CON applicant who agrees, as a condition of the CON, to meet the following access requirements for each county in which services are provided: 1) 24 hour local telephone call (or toll-free) contact. 2) 24 hour call/response capability. 3) Maximum on one (1) hour response time following call. Care First currently meets the requirements of Preference 5 in the counties in which it now provides services, and has committed to continue to meet these requirements as a Medicare certified home health agency in all counties in which it will provide services. Care First has made as conditions of its CON, provision for 24-hour accessibility by answering service and installation of a toll-free access line and maintenance of a log of calls during the hours the agency is closed, including documenting of response time to each call. IHS of Florida conditioned grant of its CON on a 30 minute response time, and 24-hour phone availability on a toll-free hot line. Putnam presently provides the services in this preference in its District 3 Medicare certified home health agency and agrees to meet this preference within 90 days of initiating services. It did not, however, make a commitment to meet this preference on the “conditions,” page of its application. There is nothing to prevent the agency from making Putnam’s CON, if granted, conditional upon compliance with this preference. RHA has agreed to have its CON conditioned to meet the access requirements of Preference 5. 2. State Health Plan Service to Patients with AIDS The first preference under the State Health Plan is that “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients.” All four applicants are committed to serving AIDS patients. Full Range of Services. Preference 2 of the State Health Plan is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless these services are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area." There are currently 11 hospital-based Medicare certified home health agencies in District 2. Several of them provide the high tech services which are sometimes needed by discharged hospital patients. Very few referrals for high tech care have been received by D. G. Anthony or Care First since May, 1995, and there is no indication such services are not available in District 2. Care First has identified, however, an unmet need for the pediatric and pre-hospice home health agency services and has conditioned its application on the provision of those services to the community. IHS of Florida proposes, among other high tech services, infusion therapies, pain management therapies and chemotherapy. There is no evidence, however, that these therapies are not available in District 2. The same is true of Putnam as to the high tech therapies it proposes to provide. There is no evidence that they are not available in District 2. Although RHA indicated in its application that it intended to provide the entire range of services that a home health agency can provide, again, there is not evidence that they are not available in District 2. Disproportionate Share Provider History Preference 3 is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant 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." Care First, having been formed in March, 1996, did not have a history of providing Medicaid and indigent patients. Care First has committed to 7% of its visits to Medicaid patients, well above the average of existing District 2 agencies of 2-3% Medicaid. Care First has committed to 1% of its visits to charity/uncompensated care. IHS of Florida has committed to 5% Medicaid and 1% charity care. Like Care First, IHS of Florida, as a newly formed corporation, does not have a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid/indigent care patients. Putnam’s commitment is 3% to Medicaid and 1% to charity care. This commitment will be met through its sister home health agency and not the Medicare-certified home health agency for which the CON is sought. RHA has committed to set aside 5% total annual visits to Medicaid patients and 1% of annual visits to indigent care. It has a history of providing a disproportionate share of services to Medicaid patients at its two skilled nursing facilities in District 2, Riverchase Care Center in Quincy and Brynwood Center in Monticello. Underserved Counties Preference 4 is [p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve counties which are underserved by existing home health agencies. The rural areas of District 2 are traditionally underserved. Putnam will serve Bay County, an underserved county; the three other applicants will serve rural areas of more than one county in District 2. Consumer Survey Data Preference 5 is "[p]reference shall be given to an applicant who makes a commitment to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring patient satisfaction." Care First has committed to providing such data to the agency. IHS of Florida will maintain a data base of results of patient satisfaction surveys and make them available to the agency, just as it already does. Putnam will make available to the agency the results of surveys similar to surveys measuring patient satisfaction Putnam has already developed. Putnam has conditioned its application on providing these surveys to the agencies as well as surveys measuring physician satisfaction. RHA has cited on its “Conditions” page, “. . . (it) will provide the Agency for Health Care Administration with consumer survey data.” Quality Assurance Program and Accreditation The State Health Plan’s Sixth Preference is “[p]reference shall be given to an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality-assurance program and proposing to be accredited by either the National League for Nursing or the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations." Care First included in its application a copy of its Quality Assurance Program which has been in use since May, 1995. The program meets the state and federal licensure and certification requirement and the stringent requirements of JCAHO. Moreover, Care First has conditioned its application upon JCAHO accreditation. IHS of Florida submitted documentation regarding its Quality Assurance Program through initiatives such as Total Quality Management and Continuous Quality Improvement. It will seek accreditation from JCAHO within one year of receiving its CON. Putnam, an existing home health agency in District 3 since 1986, has over the years developed and refined a comprehensive quality assurance program which is above the industry standard. The District 3 agency, using its quality assurance program, has attained its JCAHO accreditation “with commendation,” a distinction received by less than 4% of all applicants. Putnam will seek accreditation from JCAHO for its District 2 operation within one year of receiving its CON. RHA is willing to condition its CON on the provision of a comprehensive quality assurance program and accreditation by the JCAHO. Need 1. Numeric Need Since there is no published fixed need pool applicable to this proceeding, the parties, other than the agency, developed their own methodologies for determining numeric need. Each of the methodologies employed by the parties was reasonable. After taking note of the statistics for actual patient visit growth in District 2 from 1991 to 1994, Michael Schwartz began with a conservative number of 60,000 new patient visits per year, a number half of the growth for the lowest growth year of that time period. Multiplying that number times the three horizon years of 1994-97 equals 180,000 new patient visits from 1994 which yields a need for 5.2 agencies. The reasonableness of numeric need in excess of four is supported by other factors. After the filing of the four applications at issue in this proceeding, there are two fewer Medicare-certified home health agencies with certificates of need in District 2. At the same time, home health care visits have been on the increase not only in the district as discussed, above, but in the state as well. Statewide, home health care visits grew from 18 million to 22 million between 1991 and 1994. The utilization of home health care agencies is increasing because of population growth and an increase in the number of visits per patient. The amount of time spent by patients in the hospital is decreasing. The decrease translates into increased need by patients for visits from home health agencies. The need for home health is going to continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. From 1991 to 1994, the number of home health visits more than doubled: from 369,396 to 869,893. This trend continued in 1995. The recent significant growth in the utilization of home health agencies in District 2 is expected to continue. The growth is attributable not only to a population increase in the district but to increase in the use rate for home health agency services as well. The growth in use rates can be explained, in part, by the increase in the senior population (65 and older) and the pressure exerted by managed care for earlier hospital discharges and home health agency services as a viable alternative in some cases to inpatient treatment. The senior population in District 2 is reasonably expected to grow approximately 8% in the five years after 1996, with 15% growth expected reasonably in the 75 to 84 year old population and even higher growth, 25%, in the population over 84 years old. 2. Other Indications of Need Local physicians have experienced difficulty arranging for the existing home health agencies to provide services to patients located in remote areas of District 2. Specialized groups, such as AIDS patients, would, in all likelihood, benefit from additional home health agencies in District 2. Furthermore, a study conducted by IHS of Florida showed that the district has an unusually high rate of diabetes and in four counties has a diabetes death rate 100% greater than the statewide average. Well Springs home health agency is one of the two Medicare-certified home health agencies to cease providing Medicare-certified home health services after the four applicants in this proceeding filed the applications at issue here. Well Springs was licensed in all 14 counties of District 2 and had physical locations in Franklin, Gadsden, Bay, Leon, Liberty, Taylor and Madison Counties. It had a significant share of the District 2 Medicare certified home health agency market with 13.1% of the 1994 visits, the second highest in the District. With Well Springs discontinuing Medicare-certified home health agency services, a void was left for such services in District 2, particularly in those counties in which Well Springs had a physical presence.
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 Nos. 8380, 8381, 8382 and 8384 to RHA/Florida Operations, Inc., Care First, Inc., Home Health Integrated Health Services of Florida, Inc., and Putnam Home Health Services, Inc., respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5408 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard Ellis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5408 W. David Watkins, Esquire Watkins, Tomasello & Caleen, P.A. 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Emanuel, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel NationsBank Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Paul Amundsen, Esquire Amundsen & Moore 502 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
