The Issue The issue is whether Windmoor has standing to challenge AHCA's award of Certificate of Need No. 10074 to Community to establish a Class III Specialty Psychiatric Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program, and is authorized to evaluate and make final determinations on CON applications pursuant to the Health Facilities and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-.045, Florida Statutes. Community Community Hospital owns and operates a 389-bed Class I general acute care hospital, comprised of 343 acute care beds and 46 adult psychiatric beds, currently located at 5637 Marine Parkway, New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, AHCA Health Planning District 5. AHCA previously awarded CON No. 9539 to Community authorizing construction of a replacement facility in an area known as Trinity, approximately 5.5 miles southeast of Community's current location. The Trinity replacement hospital facility is currently under construction and scheduled for occupancy in November 2011. The route between the Trinity and Community campuses is a drive of approximately one mile on a two-lane road leading into State Road 54, a six-lane divided highway. Trinity Medical Center campus is located on State Road 54. Windmoor Windmoor is a licensed Class III Specialty Hospital with 78 adult psychiatric beds and 22 adult substance abuse beds, located in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Windmoor is an existing provider of adult psychiatric services located within the same Health Planning District 5 as Community. Windmoor's facility has remained in its current location since its inception in 1987. That year, Windmoor had 200 adult psychiatric beds, which were reduced in 1996 to 163. In 2001, the number of adult psychiatric beds was reduced to its current 100. Windmoor has the capability of adding 40 to 60 additional beds. Windmoor's parent corporation is Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (PSI), a publicly traded company based in Franklin, Tennessee, that also owns psychiatric hospitals in other states. PSI also owns at least seven other psychiatric hospitals in Florida, as well as other treatment facilities. PSI acquired all of its Florida facilities within the past five years, including Windmoor in 2006. On November 15, 2010, PSI was acquired by Universal Health Systems, which owns and operates psychiatric hospitals and general acute care hospitals throughout the United States, including Florida. This is the first CON proceeding in which Windmoor has participated. District 5 Providers District 5 consists of Pasco and Pinellas Counties. At the time the CON application was filed, Pasco County had two adult inpatient psychiatric providers: Community and Florida Hospital Zephyrhills with 15 beds. The Pinellas County providers were Morton Plant Hospital (Clearwater), St. Anthony's Hospital, Sun Coast Hospital (now known as Largo Medical Center- Indian Rocks) (Largo), and Windmoor. Windmoor was the only Class III specialty psychiatric hospital in District 5. Additionally, new CON-approved adult psychiatric beds included 17 at Largo, and approval for Ten Broeck Tampa, Inc., to construct a new 35-bed Class III adult psychiatric hospital in Pasco County. Also, Morton Plant North Bay Recovery Center (NB Recovery Center) had received CON exemptions to establish 56 adult psychiatric beds at its new Class III facility in Pasco County which had already been approved for 10 child/adolescent psychiatric beds. NB Recovery Center is a new entrant into the market, having opened its Class III psychiatric hospital in August 2010. This Class III psychiatric hospital is on the same license as North Bay Hospitals' Class I general acute care hospital (North Bay). North Bay is located about one mile north of Community. The approximate distances of the District 5 providers from Community are: NB Recovery Center, 19 miles; Florida Hospital Zephyrhills, 40 miles; Morton Plant Hospital, 24 miles; and Windmoor, 26 miles. Also, Largo, like Community, is an HCA affiliated hospital located approximately nine miles north-northwest of Windmoor, and two to four miles south of Morton Plant. St. Anthony's Hospital is located in downtown St. Petersburg. CON approvals and exemptions are no longer reliable predictors of bed inventory since existing psychiatric facilities can add beds through CON exemptions at will. Service Areas No overlap exists between Community and Windmoor's service areas. Community's primary service area (PSA) is a nine zip code area located in western Pasco County. Community's secondary service area (SSA) consists of four zip codes in Hernando County to the north, a few zip codes in eastern Pasco County, and a single zip code in the far northwestern corner of Pinellas County - 34689. Community's PSA accounts for 79.4% of its psychiatric discharges. An additional 9.1% of its discharges are from its SSA, defined as any non-PSA zip code from which it receives at least 1% of its discharges. The remaining 11% of Community's discharges are scattered among other areas. All of Community's PSA zip codes are within Pasco County. The only SSA zip code in Pinellas County is in the northwestern corner of the county – 34689, from which Community received only 2% of its discharges. Community derives 84.4% of its discharges from Pasco County, while only 6.9% of discharges originate from Pinellas County residents. Another 5.6% of Community's discharges originate in Hernando County which is outside District 5. Community's psychiatric service area is not expected to change with the implementation of the CON. While Community received 1367 discharges from its PSA, Windmoor received only 97 of its discharges from that PSA. On a percentage basis this is 79.4% versus 4.7% of discharges, respectively. Windmoor did not derive even 1% of its discharges from any single zip code within Community's PSA. When a provider receives less than 1% of its discharges from a particular zip code, that zip code is not appropriately considered part of the provider's PSA or SSA. Further, Windmoor has no significant market share in Community's SSA. On a county basis, while Community derived 84.4% of its psychiatric discharges from Pasco County residents, Windmoor received only 5.9% of its discharges from Pasco County. Conversely, Community derived only 6.9% of its discharges from Pinellas County compared with 73.6% for Windmoor. During the year ending June 2009, among all providers of inpatient psychiatric services to Community's PSA, Community had a 70% market share compared with Windmoor's 4% market share. For Pasco County as a whole, Community had a 52% market share compared with Windmoor's 4% market share. Like Windmoor, Morton Plant had only a 4% market share for both Pasco County and Community's PSA. The conclusion from this analysis is that Community is predominantly a Pasco County provider while Windmoor is predominantly a Pinellas County provider. Windmoor is not a significant provider in either Community's PSA or in Pasco County. Further, there is no physician overlap between the psychiatrists on the respective medical staffs of Community and Windmoor. Community's CON Proposal In its State Agency Action Report concerning Community's CON application, AHCA summarized the proposal: "[t]his project is to keep 46 existing adult inpatient psychiatric beds at their present location following completion of the replacement facility authorized by CON #9539." The proposal is to allow Community's psychiatric facility to remain in the same location with the same bed complement, which will remain unchanged in terms of its historical operations. The psychiatric unit at Community has been located at its current site since at least 1981. A CON is required only because, upon occupancy of the Trinity replacement facility, the continued use of the existing site for its inpatient psychiatric activity would fall within the statutory criteria for projects subject to CON review as an "establishment of additional healthcare facilities." With respect to both hospital campuses, Community will own, operate, and be the licensee of both facilities. All components of patient care will be controlled by a single governing body, and will have a single medical staff, chief medical officer, and CEO. Florida is home to other similarly situated hospitals that own and operate a Class I general acute care hospital and an affiliated Class III licensed specialty hospital on separate campuses. In each case, the Class I and Class III facilities share the same license and license number, owner, and CEO. These facilities include Westchester General Hospital and its affiliated Class III Southern Winds Hospital; Halifax Health Medical Center and its affiliated Halifax Psychiatric Center North; Shands Hospital at the University of Florida and Shands at Vista; and Morton Plant North Bay Hospital and NB Recovery Center. AHCA issues an actual license certificate for each facility for general display at each campus. The approximate distances between the two campuses of these Class I and Class III single license facilities are: Westchester General Hospital and Southern Winds Hospital – nine miles; Halifax Health Medical Center and Halifax Psychiatric Center – 1.5 miles; Shands at the University of Florida and Shands at Vista – 10 miles; and Morton Plant North Bay and NB Recovery Center – 20 miles. The scenario of a Class I hospital with an affiliated Class III hospital with a single license number is considered one licensee with two premises. Psychiatric Services at Community Will Remain Unchanged Implementation of the CON will result in no changes in the current level of health care services provided to patients for both psychiatric and non-psychiatric medical conditions. Those patients who might currently be transported internally to the psychiatric unit behavioral health unit or (BHU) upon discharge from non-psychiatric medical units of the hospital will now be transported by vehicle to the BHU campus if the patient requires transport assistance. The transport of psychiatric patients is not material to the discussion of whether the two campuses are, in fact, one hospital. Patients cannot be admitted to the BHU until they have been medically cleared of any non-psychiatric medical conditions that would require inpatient medical care. "Medically cleared" means the patient no longer requires medical/surgical inpatient care. Those processes and requirements will not change as a result of implementation of the CON. Community currently provides transport services for all types of patients. Those services will continue for patients between the two campuses, including any psychiatric patients who may need transport assistance. AHCA has never had a regulatory issue involving the movement of patients among different facilities that are operated by one licensee. AHCA has no concern about the ability of hospitals to transport patients among their various facilities, including any hospital provider-based services. Under federal regulations such services may be provided at locations up to 35 miles from the main hospital campus. A psychiatric patient presenting to a hospital's emergency department (ED) is handled the same initially as any patient. The patient undergoes triage and is seen by an ED physician. If the patient exhibits both psychiatric and non- psychiatric medical conditions, the ED physician calls a psychiatrist and together they will determine the primary diagnosis. If an ED patient has achieved medical stability, and is ready to be medically discharged from the ED, yet still suffers from a psychiatric condition, the ED physician will call in a psychiatrist to participate in the disposition of the patient. If the primary diagnosis for a patient is medical or emergent, but with a secondary or co-morbid psychiatric condition, the patient receives medical/surgical care with a psychiatrist serving as a consulting physician. If deemed appropriate, the patient would be admitted to the medical/surgical unit for care until reaching medical stability. While on the medical/surgical unit, the patient needing psychiatric care would receive it from a psychiatrist while on the medical/surgical unit. Once medically cleared for discharge, the patient requiring further inpatient psychiatric care would be transferred to the BHU. Once in the BHU, the patient would still receive any necessary care for any non- psychiatric conditions from the appropriate physicians. This system will not change with the implementation of the CON. Coverage of the BHU by hospitalists and other members of the medical staff who do rounds will not change as a result of implementation of the CON. Some patients will achieve medical stability for both the psychiatric and non-psychiatric conditions from which they suffer, and will therefore not be admitted to the BHU upon discharge from the ED or medical/surgical unit. As reflected in Community's policies and procedures, all BHU patients must be admitted under the care of a psychiatrist, and can only be discharged by a psychiatrist. Every BHU patient also receives a general medical history and physical examination performed by a consulting medical physician. Non-psychiatrist medical staff physicians are always available for consultation to the psychiatrist and other clinical staff while the patient stays in the BHU. Community's current practices with respect to psychiatric patient services and physician coverage will not change due to implementation of the CON. AHCA's Review of Community's CON Application AHCA gave notice of its intent to approve CON No. 10074 in the June 25, 2010, Florida Administrative Weekly. In AHCA's view, the status quo will be maintained by the issuance of the CON. Nothing will be different in the way Community delivers its health care services in District 5. This is a case where the applicant has to go through the CON process to arrive at the same place it already was. AHCA expects no change at all. AHCA concluded that "this project is not likely to change the current competitive structure of the existing market." By that conclusion, AHCA intended to convey a lack of adverse impact on existing providers based upon CON approval. Particularly due to deregulation, AHCA believes there have already been significant changes to the competitive structure of the District 5 market, such as psychiatric bed additions through CON exemption, CON approval of a new Ten Broeck psychiatric hospital, and upcoming shifts toward greater Medicaid HMO reimbursement and associated federal health care reform legislation. Conversely, the Agency projects no impact from Community's CON. Lack of Adverse Impact Adverse impact analyses typically arise from a new entrant to the market. Community's proposal does not present a new entrant to the market for inpatient psychiatric services. Adverse impact will occur when a new provider enters a service area or an existing provider increases its capacity to offer services. Neither of those will occur as a result of Community's CON. None of the conditions that could lead to an adverse impact is present. Implementation of the Community CON will have no adverse impact or effect on existing providers because Community will continue to have the same historic PSA and its market shares will remain the same, except for potential market changes unrelated to the CON, such as entrance of new providers. This case is unique. For example, Ms. Patricia Greenberg, Windmoor's highly qualified and experienced expert in health care planning, has never been involved in a case such as this where the applicant sought approval to remain at its current location. The typical CON application seeks permission for a new provider, facility, for beds, or services to enter a particular market for the first time. In the typical case, health care planners will agree that some shift in market share will occur among existing providers as the result of the new entrant to the market. Ms. Greenberg's adverse impact analysis did not take into account the new market entrants such as Ten Broeck and NB Recovery Center, even though she expects them to have a greater impact on Community, due in part to geography. Health care planners develop adverse impact analyses that attempt to estimate the future shift in market shares. From there, the planner will attempt to project a number of lost patients per provider, and then apply a financial impact. Regarding Community's proposal, since there will be no new entrant into the market, the typical adverse analysis cannot be performed. Windmoor, through Ms. Greenberg, creatively developed four theories of adverse impact that could result from the status quo. Each of Windmoor's theories is premised on assumptions that Community will cease providing certain clinical services that will result in Community losing the capability to serve some of its psychiatric patients. However, Windmoor provided no clinical evidence to support its alleged changes to Community's clinical services. Indeed, all clinical evidence in the record confirms that Community can and will continue its current clinical services to all patients, including its BHU patients. The four impact theories offered by Windmoor are each based upon the unproven assumption that CON implementation will transform Community into two separate unaffiliated hospitals as opposed to a single hospital with two campuses. From that assumption, Ms. Greenberg contended there are two, and only two, categories of psychiatric facilities, which she labeled as either a "hospital based unit" or a "freestanding" facility. Ms. Greenberg defined "hospital based unit" (HBU) as either located inside a hospital or on the campus of a general hospital. She defined "freestanding" as any facility that is not co-located with a general hospital on the same campus. Ms. Greenberg did not consider or address a category of commonly owned and operated Class I general acute care hospitals affiliated with Class III psychiatric hospitals. Ms. Greenberg did not recognize the existence in Florida of several general hospital affiliated Class III psychiatric hospitals. The fact that two hospital campuses of Class I and Class III facilities exist is irrelevant, so long as in reasonable proximity to one another. The relevant factors are whether the two campuses share the same: 1) license number, 2) ownership, 3) hospital administration, and 4) medical staff. If these factors are present, it is incorrect to characterize one of the two facilities or campuses as "freestanding" because that implies no connection to a general acute care hospital. Community is a general acute care hospital with an affiliated psychiatric facility which is in no sense "freestanding." Ms. Greenberg's attempt to compare statewide data for various patient characteristics between facilities that she defines as "freestanding" versus HBUs is not persuasive, primarily because it is built upon the incorrect assumption that Community and other Florida hospitals cannot operate a Class I general acute care hospital and a Class III specialty psychiatric hospital under the same license. Characteristics such as payor source or patient mix are influenced by a number of factors other than simply whether an inpatient program is "freestanding" or "hospital based," as defined by Ms. Greenberg, including influences such as age composition of the service area, income distribution, and whether the hospital is located in an urban or rural area, to cite but a few. Attempts to draw generalizations from such data and then conclude that Community will be more like a HBU than a freestanding or vice versa, is without merit. Ms. Greenberg's data indicates that Community falls into her defined HBU categories in some respects while, in other respects, falls into her freestanding categories. This type of analysis is not sound. Community will not transform into a "freestanding" facility as defined by Ms. Greenberg, as a result of this CON. Moreover, many people with a primary diagnosis of psychosis are treated in hospitals that do not have inpatient psychiatric beds. In 2008, psychosis was the number one discharge diagnosis for all males in Florida hospitals, and was the number three diagnosis for all females behind conditions associated with pregnancy. Simply looking at discharge data by diagnosis between freestanding and HBUs as defined by Ms. Greenberg is not a meaningful analysis. Every adverse impact scenario presented by Windmoor is based upon the incorrect premise that implementation of Community's CON will result in Community becoming a "freestanding" facility as defined by Ms. Greenberg. For this reason alone, none of Ms. Greenberg's adverse impact theories is valid and each must be rejected. Another common thread running through Windmoor's impact theories is the assertion that, based again upon the false "freestanding" presumption, Community's patient mix will change due to changes in clinical services available to patients, such as ED services, no medical environment for comprehensive treatment, and certain patients allegedly no longer clinically appropriate for Community's HBU. There is no evidence in the record to support such claims, either operationally or clinically. All of Ms. Greenberg's impact theories lead to the contention that CON implementation will result in Community being adversely affected by its own CON through the loss of psychiatric patients. Ms. Greenberg further speculates that because of her asserted loss of patients, Community would need to replace those patients ("backfill") with patients who might otherwise be admitted to a competing hospital. As explained previously, however, there is virtually no overlap of service area or competition between Windmoor and Community as reflected by their respective service areas. Community does not contact health care providers in Windmoor's service area regarding the availability of Community's psychiatric services. In fact, Largo, a sister facility of Community, is an inpatient provider located between Community and Windmoor. Community would not actively seek patients in those areas of Pinellas County. It is neither reasonable to expect, nor was any credible evidence presented, that to make up for lost patients, Community would go outside its current PSA into the Windmoor area to seek patients when it has its sister Largo facility near Windmoor. As stated above, Windmoor, through Ms. Greenberg, offered four adverse impact scenarios. All four scenarios are premised upon the assumption that CON implementation will transform Community's BHU into a "freestanding" facility. The premise is not correct for the reasons stated above, primarily that AHCA recognizes the ability of hospitals in Florida to have Class I general acute care facilities along with Class III specialty psychiatric hospitals under the same license, ownership, management, etc. Further, all four scenarios are based upon Ms. Greenberg's theory of "backfill" under which Community will have to make up lost patients by intruding into Windmoor's service area. The evidence supports the assertion that Community expects no lost admissions because its PSA and SSA will not change, nor will the type and extent of services it provides, including ED, medical/surgical, and a unified medical staff, change upon implementation of the CON. Medicaid Windmoor asserted that Community would lose its eligibility to receive reimbursement for services under the Medicaid program if the CON were implemented. This assertion was not supported by the evidence presented by Windmoor. Moreover, the evidence presented by Community and AHCA negated Windmoor's assertion. Prior to the filing of the CON application omissions response, Community representatives met with AHCA personnel and confirmed its continued Medicaid reimbursement eligibility, which to Community was never an issue. Community's CON application proposed a Medicaid CON condition, and contained numerous statements of expected continued ability to serve Medicaid fee-for-service patients. AHCA accepted the proposed CON condition when recommending approval of the application. Community expects to satisfy the Medicaid CON conditions. AHCA's Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, Roberta Bradford, subsequently confirmed by letter to Community that, based upon Community's representations of satisfaction of certain applicable criteria, Community's proposed 46-bed inpatient psychiatric hospital would continue to be eligible for Medicaid participation. The determination of a facility's Medicaid reimbursement is a state determination, rather than a federal CMS decision. In Florida, that determination is ultimately made by AHCA's Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, Ms. Bradford. Windmoor elicited testimony from Community to show that each of the following services would not be physically present on the campus of the Class III psychiatric hospital portion of Community following CON implementation: ED, emergency cardiac catheterization and angioplasty services, surgical and operating suites, stroke center designation, CT equipment, and the full range of medical services currently available on site at Community. Community will, however, continue to operate all of these services in the Class I acute care hospital campus, which will be under the unified license with the psychiatric campus. Satisfaction of the Medicaid letter criteria from AHCA was confirmed at hearing. The criteria include: Community will own and operate both locations and be the licensee of both facilities; all components of patient care at the facilities will be controlled by a single governing body; one Chief Medical Officer will be responsible for all medical staff activities at both facilities; one Chief Executive Officer will control both facilities' administrative activities; and the two facilities are situated closely enough geographically that it is feasible to operate them as a single entity. Mr. Jeffrey N. Gregg, AHCA's head of CON review, is satisfied that the Class III licensed Community facility will maintain its Medicaid eligibility. Southern Winds, Halifax Psychiatric Center, and Shands at Vista receive Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement, and are similarly situated to Community. Mr. Gregg also expects NB Recovery Center to receive this type of Medicaid reimbursement when it initiates its service. Ms. Greenberg has been aware for at least 10 years that Class III psychiatric facilities affiliated with general hospitals in Florida receive fee-for-service reimbursement. She testified that if AHCA determines that Community is Medicaid eligible, her scenario related to Community losing its Medicaid eligibility "would go away." Moreover, due to recent legislative changes that will expand the use of Medicaid HMOs, the majority of Medicaid reimbursement is soon going to be under Medicaid HMOs. Class III psychiatric hospitals that are not affiliated with or on the same campus as a general acute care hospital, such as Windmoor, are eligible for Medicaid HMO reimbursement versus Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement. Summary of Impact Analysis Conclusions All of Windmoor's adverse impact claims are based on a series of false and erroneous assumptions, none of which is supported by the evidence of record. In fact, most of the claims in the form of four scenarios are based upon ignoring the fact that what Community proposes here is not so unique in Florida. Many Florida health care facilities currently operate both Class I general acute care hospitals and Class III specialty psychiatric hospitals under the same license, management, and receive Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement, while maintaining two physically separate campuses. This should have been common knowledge for an existing provider such as Windmoor, which based its entire case, adverse impact scenario, and decision to go forward with the hearing in this case on a series of erroneous assumptions. Windmoor offered several theories about how it would suffer a substantial and adverse impact in the event Community's CON application is approved, yet offered no competent evidence to support its claims. Windmoor failed to demonstrate that Community would lose any psychiatric patient admissions and be forced to seek admissions from Windmoor's PSA or SSA to keep its beds full. Windmoor failed to provide competent evidence that it will be adversely affected by the approval of Community's CON. Community's CON will have no impact on Windmoor.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order dismissing Windmoor's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing due to lack of standing to challenge the award of CON No. 10074. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Bruce Elliott, Esquire Smith & Associates 2873 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Joseph Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In 1993, the US Health Care Financing Administration gave Respondent approval to design and implement a pilot program for the delivery of mental health services in part of Florida. The pilot program is limited to Medicaid Area 6, which consists of Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk counties. The purpose of the pilot program is to change the way in which the State of Florida pays for mental health services under the Medicaid program. At present, the State makes "fee-for- service" payments based on predetermined fees for defined services. RFP, 1.1 KK. Under the new method, the State will make "capitation" payments consisting of a monthly fee paid in advance to the contractor for each enrolled Medicaid recipient, regardless whether the enrollee receives the services during the payment period. RFP, 1.1.H. On November 23, 1994, Respondent issued Request for Proposals 9501 (RFP). The purpose of RFP 9501 is to procure a contract with a "single, comprehensive mental health care provider on a prepaid, capitated basis, to provide mental health benefits to Medicaid recipients who are residents of Medicaid Area 6 . . .." RFP, 1.4. The second paragraph of RFP 1.4 identifies four goals of the procurement: that the procurement proceed in a timely manner, (2) that the . . . RFP . . . encourages free and open competition, (3) that the procurement effort and resulting new contract operations be completed in a timely manner without disruption of service to Medicaid clients, and (4) that the procure- ment result in a single contractor for Area 6 with sufficient resources to provide services to all AFDC related and SSI Without Medicare Medicaid eligibles in Area 6. Section 2.2 requires that the contractor provide "[i]npatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[o]utpatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[p]sychiatric physician services," "[c]ommunity mental health care," "Mental Health Targeted Case Management," and "Mental Health Intensive Case Management." Section 2.3 defines the six categories of services identified in the preceding paragraph. Referring to "Community mental health care" as "Community Mental Health Services," Section 2.3 states: Community Mental Health Services Community Mental Health Services are rehabil- itative services which are psychiatric in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychia- trist; or medical in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychiatrist or other physician. Such services must be provided in accordance with the policy and service provision specified in the Community Mental Health Services Provider Handbook. The term "Community Mental Health Services" is not intended to suggest that the following services must be provided by state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" or to preclude state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" from providing these services: There are eight categories of mental health care services provided under community mental health: Treatment planning and review; Evaluation and testing services; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a psychiatrist or physician; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a direct service mental health care provider; Rehabilitative services; Children's mental health services; Specialized therapeutic foster care, Level 1 and 2; and Day treatment programs. Community mental health services for children in specialized therapeutic foster care and resi- dential treatment will be provided by HRS District 6 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office to the same degree as in the past. Services are limited to those covered services provided by or under the recommendation of a psychiatrist or physician and related to a plan of care provided or authorized by a psychiatrist or physician, as appropriate, based on the patient's diagnosis. Targeted Case Management The contractor shall adhere to the requirements of the Medicaid Case Management Services Provider Handbook, but will not be required to seek certifications from the HRS Districts' Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office in regard to clients, agency designation, or mental health care case manager qualifications. Case manager training materials will be made available through the agency for reproduction by the contractor. Intensive Case Management This is a new mandatory service which is intended to provide intensive, team case management to highly recidivistic persons who have severe and persistent mental illness. Section 2.5 requires that the contractor "adhere to the following minimum staffing, availability, and access standards": The contractor shall provide access to medically necessary mental health care (with the exceptions noted in section 2.4 B.) The contractor shall make available and accessible facilities, service locations, and service sites and personnel sufficient to provide the covered services (specifically, non-hospital outpatient, emergency and assessment services) throughout the geographic area, within thirty minutes typical travel time by public or private transportation of all enrolled recipients. (The typical travel time standard does not apply to waiting time for public transportation--it applies only to actual time in transit.) The contractor must allow enrollees to choose one of the capitated services, as provided in Section 5.1 F.1., when the plan offers another service, not reimbursed under the contract, as a downward substitution. The maximum amount of time between an enrollee's request for mental health services and the first point of service shall be as follows: For emergency mental health services as defined in section 1.1 BB., service shall be immediate. For persons initially perceived to need emergency mental health services, but upon assess- ment do not meet the criteria for emergency care, they are deemed to require crisis support and services must be provided within twenty-three hours. For routine outpatient intake, assessment shall be offered within seven calendar days. Follow-up service shall be offered within fourteen calendar days after assessment. Minimum staffing standards shall be as follows, and failure to adhere to these staffing standards, or the staffing standards indicated in the winning proposal, whichever are greater, may result in termination of the contract (if the contractor's "staff" person does not fill one of the "key staff" positions listed on page 81, the staff persons may be a subcontractor.): * * * The contractor's outpatient staff shall include at least one FTE direct service mental health care provider per 1,500 prepaid members. The Agency expects the contractor's staffing pattern for direct service providers to reflect the ethnic and racial composition of the community. The contractor's array of direct service mental health care providers for adults and children must include providers that are licensed or eligible for licensure, and demonstrate two years of clinical experience in the following specialty areas: Adoption, Separation and loss, Victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, Victims and perpetrators of physical abuse, Court ordered evaluations, and Expert witness testimony. Mental health care case managers shall not be counted as direct service mental health care providers. The contractor shall provide Spanish speaking and Spanish literate direct service providers at each service location at which there are Spanish speaking enrollees. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide psychological testing. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitation and support services to persons with severe and persistent mental illness. For all persons meeting the criteria for case management as specified in the Medicaid Case Management Provider Handbook, the contractor shall adhere to the staffing ratio of at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 20 children, and at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 40 adults. Direct service mental health care providers shall not be counted as mental health care case managers. * * * Section 2.10 provides, in part: The contractor shall be responsible for the coordination and management of mental health care and continuity of care for all enrolled Medicaid recipients through the following minimum functions: A. Minimizing disruption to the enrollee as a result of any change in service providers or mental health care case manager occurring as a result of the awarding of this contract. An offeror may not propose rates exceeding Medicaid's upper payment limit, which "is that amount which would have been paid, on an aggregate basis, by Medicaid under fee-for-service for the same services to a demographically similar population of recipients." 4.11. Section 1.1 TTT defines "Upper Payment Limit" similarly: "The maximum amount Medicaid will pay on a capitated basis for any group of services, based upon fee-for- service Medicaid expenditures for those same services." Section 4.11 sets the range of payment rates at 92-98 percent of the upper payment limit. Each offeror is required to propose a specific payment percentage within the range. Section 4.17 allows offerors to propose a risk corridor of up to 16 percentage points plus and minus the proposed range. The corridor must be equal above and below the capitation rate. The RFP illustrates the risk corridor by applying an 8 point corridor to a 95 percent capitation rate. In this case, the contractor absorbs any plan costs up to 4 percent over the actual payments made to the plan by Respondent or retains any excess plan payments up to 4 percent over the actual costs. Beyond the corridor, the contractor and Respondent share equally in the costs or savings, subject to Respondent's upper payment limit. In no event, however, shall the contractor be entitled to payment from Respondent for "start- up" or "phase-down" costs. Section 4.18 addresses subcontractors: The contractor is fully responsible for all work performed under the contract resulting from the RFP. The contractor may, with the consent of the agency, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The contractor must have subcontracts with all administrative and service providers who are not salaried employees of the plan prior to the commencement of services under this contract. The contractor shall abide by the requirements of Section 1128A(b) of the Social Security Act prohibiting HMOs and other such providers from making payments directly or indirectly to a physician or other provider as an inducement to reduce or limit services provided to Medicaid enrollees. The contractor must submit signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Any additional subcontracts must be submitted to the agency twenty days prior to the subcontract effective date. Subcontracts must be approved in writing by the agency's Technical Project Manager prior to the effective date of any subcontract. No subcontract which the contractor enters into with respect to performance under the contract resulting from the RFP shall in any way relieve the contractor of any responsibility for performance of its duties. Amendments to subcontracts must be approved by the agency before taking effect. The contractor shall notify the agency in writing prior to termination of approved subcontracts. The contractor will agree to make payment to all subcontractors within 35 days of receipt of all invoices properly documented and submitted by the subcontractor to the plan. All subcontracts executed by the contractor under the resulting contract must meet the following requirements and be approved by the agency in advance of implementation. All subcontracts must adhere to the following requirements: Be in writing. Specify the functions of the subcontractor. Identify the population covered by the subcontract. Specify the amount, duration and scope of services to be provided by the subcontractor, including a requirement that the subcontractor continue to provide services through any post- insolvency period. Provide that the agency and DHHS may evaluate through inspection or other means the quality, appropriateness, and timeliness of services performed. Specify that the subcontractor has read and agreed to the subcontract and the service provision requirements under section 2 of RFP, for services to be provided under the subcontract, and to the contractor's admission and retention criteria for the services the subcontractor will provide as indicated in the subcontractor's response to section 5.1 F3.b,(5). Provide for inspections of any record pertinent to the contract by the agency and DHHS. Specify procedures and criteria for extension and renegotiation. Provide for prompt submission of information needed to make payment. Require an adequate record system be maintained for recording services, charges, dates and all other commonly accepted information elements for services rendered to recipients under the contract. Require that financial, administrative and medical records be maintained for a period of not less than five years from the close of the contract and retained further if the records are under review or audit until the review or audit is complete. Prior approval for the disposition of records must be requested and approved by the contractor if the subcontract is continuous. Require safeguarding of information about recipients according to 42 CFR, Part 431, Subpart F. Require an exculpatory clause, which survives the termination of the subcontract including breach of subcontract due to insolvency, that assures that recipients or the agency may not be held liable for any debts of the subcontractor. Provide for the monitoring of services rendered to recipients sponsored by the contractor. Specify the procedures, criteria and requirements for termination of the subcontract. Provide for the participation in any internal and external quality assurance, utilization review, peer review, and grievance procedures established by the contractor. Make full disclosure of the method and amount of compensation or other consideration to be received from the contractor. Provide for submission of all reports and clinical information required by the contractor. Make provisions for a waiver of terms of the subcontract, if appropriate. Contain no provision which provides incentive, monetary or otherwise, for the withholding of medically necessary care. Require adherence to the Medicaid policies expressed in applicable Medicaid provider handbooks. Require that the subcontractor secure and maintain during the life of the subcontract worker's compensation insurance for all of its employees connected with the work under this contract unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by the provider. Such insurance shall comply with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and Contain a clause indemnifying, defending and holding the Agency and the plan members harmless from costs or expense, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the extent proximately caused by an negligent act or other wrongful conduct arising from the subcontract agreement. This clause must survive the termination of the subcontract, including breach due to insolvency. The contractor shall give the agency immediate notification in writing by certified mail of any action or suit filed and prompt notice of any claim made against the contractor by any subcontractor or vendor which in the opinion of the contractor may result in litigation related in any way to the contract with the agency. In the event of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against a principal subcontractor or the insolvency of said subcontractor, the contractor shall immediately advise the agency. The contractor shall assure that all tasks related to the subcontract are performed in accordance with the terms of the contract. The contractor shall identify any aspect of service that may be further subcontracted by the subcon- tractor. Subcontractors shall not be considered agents of the agency. For evaluation purposes, the RFP divides proposals into two parts: technical and rate, including any rate corridor. The six categories under the technical part, with point values in parentheses, are: Management Summary (0 points), Organization and Corporate Capabilities (100 points), Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities (250 points), Operational Functions (400 points), Mental Health Care Service Delivery (400 points), and Transition Workplan (100 points). RFP, 6.1. Section 5.1.C describes the 100-point Organization and Corporate Capabilities as follows: The proposer shall provide in this tab a descrip- tion of its organizational and corporate capabi- lities. The purpose of this section is to provide the agency with a basis for determining the contractor's, and its subcontractors', financial and technical capability for undertaking a project of this size. For the purpose of this tab, the term proposer shall refer to both the contractor and its major subcontractors. It does not refer to the plan's "parent company" unless specifically indicated. Section 5.1 D states the elements of the 250-point Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities. Section 5.1 D.3 requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, including psychiatrists, case managers, psychologists, nurses, and social workers. Section 5.1D.4 requires the offeror to explain how the plan will allocate staff to meet various demands, such as for adoption, sexual and physical abuse counseling, and psychological testing of children. Section 5.1 D.5 requires the proposal to: Describe how the plan will ensure that it has the staff resources appropriately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitative and support services to low income adults with severe and persistent mental illness and, under separate heading, to children with severe and persistent mental illness. Denote the number and percent of total FTEs which will be filled by persons with this type of experience and who will be providing these types of services. Explain the contractor's rationale for the staffing levels indicated and provide a brief, one or two line, description of the training and exper- ience of such persons who will provide these services under the plan. Section 5.1.E describes the elements of the 400-point Operational Functions, in part, as follows: Within this tab, the proposer shall explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations. Separately, the proposer shall address the member services the plan will offer, grievance procedures, quality assurance procedures, the contractor's proposed reporting systems, and the contractor's proposed handling of subcontracts. Service Area of Proposed Plan 42 CFR 434.36 Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement specified in section 2.5 A.1. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for child psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.2. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for adult psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.1. * * * Section 5.1.F describes the 400-point Mental Health Care Service Delivery category. Section 5.1 F states, in relevant part: This section shall include a detailed discussion of the proposer's approach to providing mental health care. The proposer must be able to document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services for both children and adults who experience impairments ranging from mild to severe and persistent mental illness. Plans must provide services up to the limits specified by the RFP. They are encouraged to exceed these limits. However, in no instance may any service's limitations be more restrictive than those specified in the Florida Medicaid fee- for-service program. The plan cannot require payments from recipients for any mandatory services provided under this contract. Summary of Services * * * The following is a summary list of the services which may be provided . . . * * * Optional Services Crisis Stabilization Unit * * * z. Other Services (List) * * * Care Coordination 42 CFR 434.52; 10C-7.0524(16), F.A.C. Attach the plan's written protocol describing the plan's care coordination system, which should include the plan's approach to care coordination, utilization review, and assuring continuity of care, such as, verifying medical necessity, service planning, channeling to appropriate levels of treatment, and develop- ment of treatment alternatives when effective, less intensive services are unavailable. The protocol should also address the following questions: * * * 3. Indicate how the contractor will establish services in such a way as to minimize disruption of services, particularly to high risk populations currently served by the department, for children and, separately, for adults. * * * Section 6.3 describes the criteria for evaluating proposals. For Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities, the evaluation criteria include, at 6.3 B.3.c: The ability of the proposer to ensure it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support to children who are in the care and custody of the state or who have special needs, such as children who have been adopted or have been physically or sexually abused. About a year ago, Respondent issued RFP 9405, which also sought to procure mental health services on a capitated basis for Medicaid Area 6. Respondent received four proposals, which contained numerous deficiencies. Respondent later withdrew RFP 9405 for revisions to encourage more competition. Concerns over competition involve the role of Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) in the procurement. CMHCs are publicly funded, not-for-profit entities that traditionally have provided five types of services: emergency, outpatient, day/night, inpatient, and prevention education. CMHCs now also operate crisis stabilization units and supply case management services, as well as specialized children's services, services for aged persons with severe and persistent mental illness, and services for persons with alcohol or drug dependencies. The RFP calls for a wide range of mental health care services, only part of which are community mental health services or other services presently provided by CMHCs. However, CMHCs constitute the only available network of existing providers of community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Medicaid Area 6. Medicaid payments account for about 30 percent of the revenue of Area 6 CMHCs. In late 1992, six CMHCs in Area 6 formed Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. in response to competition from one or more other provider networks, such as Charter. The competitive network of six CMHCs consisted of Manatee Glens Corp., Mental Health Care, Inc., Northside Mental Health Hospital, Peace River Center for Personal Development, Inc., Winter Haven Hospital, and Mental Health Services. Although the six CMHCs are not all of the CMHCs in Area 6, they provide nearly all of the community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Area 6. By early 1993, Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. formed Florida Health Partnership with Options Mental Health, Inc., which is a managed-care provider owned by First Hospital Corporation--a behavioral health management company. With the assistance of Florida Health Partnership, Options Mental Health, Inc. submitted a proposal in response to RFP 9405. An oral or written agreement between Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. and Options Mental Health, Inc. prohibited the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to RFP 9405. This agreement continues to prohibit the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to the RFP. The six CMHCs have shared with Options Mental Health, Inc. cost and utilization information. The importance of the unpublished cost information is unclear, and Petitioner has not yet made a public records request to obtain this information. The same is true of unpublished utilization information, which includes information on waiting lists for community mental health services. Any delay in providing community mental health services would have a bearing on the projected demand and thus the cost of a capitated plan. After withdrawing RFP 9405, Respondent revisited the requirement that offerors propose an existing network of providers. In an effort to encourage competition, Respondent deleted a requirement in RFP 9405 that proposals contain existing provider networks. Respondent substituted a requirement that proposals describe provider networks generally, without necessarily including names of subcontractors. Petitioner did not prove any fraudulent, illegal, arbitrary, or dishonest act by Respondent. The main thrust of Petitioner's case is that the effect of the RFP is illegal or arbitrary. Petitioner asserts that the RFP requires a sole source provider or, at minimum, precludes free and open competition. Petitioner argues that the RFP illegally and arbitrarily favors offerors of CMHCs, in partnership with CMHCs, or with subcontracts with CMHCs. Through testimony and argument, Petitioner asserts that various provisions of the RFP either exacerbate or fail to ameliorate the advantages enjoyed by CMHCs, especially due to RFP requirements of implementation of the new provider network in 60 days and with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients. RFP 1.4(2) encourages open and free competition. RFP 2.3 D disclaims any intent that only CMHCs may supply community mental health services. Petitioner's chief witness, Dr. Ronald Mihalick, testified that RFP 2.3 D favors CMHCs because state regulations have designated them the sole provider of community mental health services and government grants have funded their capital expenditures. Neither Dr. Mihalick, Petitioner's other witness, nor Petitioner's counsel has suggested a practical means by which to eliminate this advantage of CMHCs, which cannot, by executive or legislative fiat, be stripped of their buildings, equipment, or experienced staffs, nor of the advantages that may accrue to them by virtue of such assets. It would be counterproductive to eliminate CMHCs from direct or indirect participation in the subject procurement. Nor is Respondent required, if it were legally able, to assign to CMHCs the status of universal providers in order to eliminate illegality or arbitrariness from the RFP. The RFP seeks a broad range of mental health services, of which a substantial part are community mental health services. RFP 2.3 D represents a simple description of community mental health services and expressly negates the inference that only CMHCs may provide such services. RFP 2.3 E and F describes two of the five categories of mental health services: targeted case management and intensive case management, respectively. Intensive case management is a new service, and nothing suggests that Area 6 CMHCs have any direct experience that would give them an advantage in providing this new service, Targeted case management is an existing service provided by CMHCs. There is some doubt whether the RFP provides detailed cost information, including information about targeted case management. However, Petitioner has never made a public records request for such information from any of the CMHCs or Respondent. In any event, Petitioner has hardly presented sufficient evidence regarding targeted case management that the inclusion of such a service in the RFP is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 2.5 prescribes standards for minimum staffing, availability, and access. The minimum staffing standards do not require that existing service providers supply the specified services. For instance, "direct service mental health care providers" must be "licensed or eligible for licensure," as provided in RFP 2.5 B.3.a. Petitioner's objection is that the RFP expresses staffing standards in accordance with Medicaid guidelines, under which the CMHCs are already operating. This objection is puzzling because the procurement is for Medicaid services. In any event, the presence of such a provision does not render the RFP illegal or arbitrary for the reasons already stated. RFP 2.5 B.4 requires staffing ratios of one fulltime equivalency (FTE) per 20 mental health care case managers for children and one FTE per 40 mental health care case managers for adults. Again, though, the RFP does not require that such case managers must be currently employed by a CMHC or even currently providing such services. Petitioner legitimately objects to specifications expressed in terms of FTEs when applied to non-administrative services. The use of FTEs applies to fulltime employees, not to individual therapists who may see Medicaid clients on an occasional basis. The requirement that non-administrative services be expressed in FTEs unduly emphasizes process over product or outcome and is inconsistent with the spirit of the RFP. However, the use of FTEs in RFP 2.5 B.4 does not rise to the level of arbitrariness or illegality. As Respondent's chief witness, Marilyn Reeves, testified, an offeror may convert individual therapists to FTEs, even though the contractor may bear the risk of a faulty conversion formula. RFP 2.10 requires that the contractor implement the new capitated plan with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients, whose mental conditions may worsen from such disruption. Petitioner does not challenge this sensible provision. Petitioner instead argues that other pro-CMHC provisions preclude the implementation of a new plan with minimal disruption. Petitioner has failed to prove that the pro-CMHC provisions, except for 4.18 as discussed below, necessitate more than minimal disruption during the transition. RFP 4.17 provides that Respondent shall not pay the contractor's start-up or phase-down costs. Petitioner's objection is that government grants have paid for the capital expenditures of the CMHCs. For the reasons discussed in connection with RFP 2.3 D, Petitioner has failed to prove how this provision is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 5.1 D assigns 250 points for the proposed staffing pattern and requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, such as psychiatrists, case managers, and social workers. An offeror that has already identified its personnel may be able to provide a more detailed description and earn more points than another offeror that has yet to find its subcontractors. Likewise, RFP 5.1 D.5 requires a discussion of FTEs, although an offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors probably can satisfy this section with a more generic discussion and not lose points. In any event, to the extent that the specification in terms of FTEs favors CMHCs, such a provision is not so onerous or unnecessary as to be arbitrary or illegal, as discussed in connection with 2.5 B.4. RFP 5.1 E assigns 400 points for operational functions and requires the offeror to "explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations." Unlike RFP 5.1 C, which requires a proposal to address the contractor and its "major subcontractors," 5.1 E does not mention subcontractors, so this provision favors CMHCs even less than the other provisions of 5 and 6. Perhaps for this reason, neither Petitioner's witnesses nor Petitioner's proposed recommended order addressed RFP 5.1 E. RFP 5.1 F requires an offeror to provide a "detailed discussion," in which it shall "document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services . . .." An offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors will likely be unable to supply nearly as much detail as an offeror with subcontractors already in place, but this provision would, if challenged, not be deemed arbitrary or illegal. However, Petitioner challenges only RFP 5.1 F.1 (Optional Services) and 5.1 F.4.a.3. Section 5.1 F.4.a.3 reiterates the requirement that the new capitated plan be implemented so as to "minimize disruption of services." As noted above, Petitioner of course does not object to this requirement, but uses it to show how other provisions are arbitrary or illegal. Petitioner objects to the portion of 5.1 F.1 identifying crisis stabilization units as an Optional Service. Although only CMHCs are licensed to operate crisis stabilization units, the same services are available from other sources, although often not as economically. Moreover, the crisis stabilization unit is only an Optional Service, which Respondent mentioned only for illustrative purposes. The last-cited option, "Other Services (List)," encourages offerors to devise creative options that may not involve such traditional providers as crisis stabilization units. RFP 6.3 B.3.c requires the offeror to ensure that "it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support . . .." Satisfaction of the criteria of 6.3 B, like 5.1 C, D, and F, is easier for CMHCs and harder for contractors with as yet unidentified subcontractors. However, the advantage conferred upon CMHCs is not so great as to render 6.3 B arbitrary or illegal. To varying degrees, RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3 B.3.c prefer CMHCs or offerors affiliated with CMHCs. These provisions potentially conflict with the RFP provisions encouraging free and open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service. The potential conflicts are partially attenuated by the ability of an offeror, prior to submitting a proposal, to identify subcontractors that may provide similar services to non-Medicaid clients or provide similar services to Medicaid clients in other areas of Florida or other states. RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3B impose qualitative standards upon the contractor and any subcontractors, whose employees have direct contact with the Medicaid clients. Non-CMHC offerors may nonetheless be able to identify, at the proposal stage, their subcontractors so as to earn the maximum points in these categories. For instance, offerors may find non-CMHC subcontractors providing community mental health services to non- Medicaid clients or to Medicaid clients elsewhere in Florida or the United States. With greater difficulty, non-CMHC offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors may be able to project, at the proposal stage, features of their subcontractors. They may not be able to score as well as CMHCs and other offerors with already identified networks of community mental health service providers. However, to the extent that non-CMHCs are disadvantaged by these provisions, Petitioner has not shown that the inclusion of these provisions is arbitrary or illegal. These provisions ensure the delivery of quality mental health services. As likely as not, Petitioner has included these provisions after careful consideration of the benefits of further competitiveness and the costs of further limitations upon the participation of CMHCs. The final provision challenged by Petitioner is RFP 4.18, which acknowledges that the contractor may not itself provide the mental health services, but may contract with subcontractors for the provision of these services. Requiring that the contractor have subcontracts prior to the commencement of services under the new capitated plan, Section 4.18 adds that the contractor must submit for Respondent's written approval: signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 2.3 D, E, and F; 2.5 A and B.3 and 4; and 4.17 fails because these provisions confer upon CMHCs an insignificant advantage, an advantage upon that could not be removed without eliminating CMHCs from the procurement, or an advantage while specifying an important substantive requirement. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 5.1 D.5, 5.1 E.1, 5.1F.1, and 6.3 B.3.c fails because these provisions, even if conferring significant advantages upon CMHCs, impose important qualitative requirements upon the delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. However, RFP 4.18 is different from these other provisions. It does not involve the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Section 4.18 dictates only how long after signing the contract with Respondent the contractor has to implement the new capitation contract. The advantage conferred by 4.18 upon CMHCs is neither trivial nor necessary. The federal waiver runs two years from the actual start-up date of the new capitation plan. Obviously, an inordinate delay in implementation might suggest that the contractor is unable to do the job, but nothing in the record suggests that 60 days marks the beginning of an inordinate delay. Respondent understandably wants to get the pilot project started quickly, presumably in anticipation of important cost savings. But these considerations do not rise to the importance of other provisions involving the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Non-CMHCs, especially offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors, face a considerable task in plan implementation. For this procurement, only one offeror will have the assistance of the CMHCs, which gives that offeror a clear advantage in at least the community mental health and targeted case management categories. There is no good reason to increase this advantage by imposing an unrealistically short implementation timeframe on contractors. On the other hand, there are two reasons why the 60-day implementation timeframe is arbitrary and illegal: it conflicts with RFP provisions encouraging open competition and it conflicts with RFP provisions prohibiting more than a minimal disruption to clients. The new capitation plan represents a marked departure from past practice. The successful contractor is assuming considerable financial risks when it sets its fees and risk corridor, if any. This risk is spread over a wide geographic area containing some of Florida's most densely populated areas. Anticipated cost savings to the State may result in narrowed profit margins before the contractor can safely realize savings from reductions in the cost of mental health services provided to Medicaid clients. The success of the capitation plan is jeopardized if the contractor underestimates the revenue needed for the successful operation of the plan. The offeror without subcontractors at the time of submitting a proposal needs time to enlist the cooperation of CMHCs or other subcontractors. A witness of Respondent described a possible scenario in which CMHCs declined to cooperate with the contractor and were forced to terminate employees. Although these employees would be available to the contractor, they would not likely be available in a 60-day timeframe. A multitude of tasks confront the non-CMHC contractor, especially if the contractor does not have a subcontractor network in place when submitting the proposal. Not surprisingly, Respondent's witnesses did not offer a spirited defense of the 60-day implementation timeframe, as is partly illustrated by the following testimony of Respondent's chief witness: Q: Is there a reason that the language on Page 61 says "must have signed subcontract within 60 days?" A: No. What it is trying to get at there is that if you are going to start being operational within 60 days, you got to know that you got to get those subcontracts approved by us prior to being able to do that. Respondent's witness readily testified that the deadline would not be enforced, if the enforcement jeopardized the welfare of the Medicaid clients. Of course, given the vulnerability of the clients, Respondent would not require the implementation of an unfinished plan at the end of the contractual implementation timeframe, regardless of the duration of the implementation timeframe. But a rational deadline for implementation would not so readily invite discussions of waivers and extensions. The presence of an impractical deadline misleads offerors. Some offerors may obtain an unfair advantage by structuring their proposals without regard to the implementation timeframe, secure in the knowledge that it will not be enforced. Other offerors may limit Optional Services or avoid more creative delivery or administrative programs in order to ensure that their plans can be implemented within the arbitrarily short implementation timeframe. To eliminate arbitrary and illegal conflicts with other RFP provisions encouraging open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service, the implementation timeframe of 60 days must be extended to at least 120 days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order amending RFP 4.18 by inserting "120" days for "60" days in the second paragraph and making any necessary conforming changes elsewhere in the RFP, and, after making these changes, proceed with the subject procurement. ENTERED on January 31, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 31, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: (except that "poisonous" in paragraph 2 is rejected as melodramatic and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except for 4.18. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Petitioner did not challenge 5.1 E at the hearing or in the proposed recommended order. 8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not prove that the actual information shared by the CMHCs was crucial--only that certain information could theoretically be crucial. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, although other CMHCs operate in Area 6, but do not possess much share of the community mental health services market. 16-17: rejected as irrelevant. 18: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence (except for 4.18). 19-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as repetitious. 22: adopted. 23-25: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 25, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 26-27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29-33: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 33, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance. 35-36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-38: adopted or adopted in substance, although this was hypothetical testimony of one of Respondent's witness, not a formal statement of Respondent's "position." 39 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 39 (second sentence): adopted. 40-44 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 44 (third sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 45: adopted. 46-47: adopted or adopted in substance. 48: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 49: rejected as irrelevant and, except for 4.18, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: adopted or adopted in substance, except for 4.18. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: adopted or adopted in substance, at least to the extent that Petitioner failed to prove the contrary. 9 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9 (last sentence): rejected as speculative. 10-16: adopted or adopted in substance, although the extent of Petitioner's ability to respond satisfactorily is questionable, as is the rationale for the use of FTEs for non-administrative positions. Additionally, all proposed findings that RFP provisions do not place non-CMHCs at a disadvantage, when such proposed findings conflict with findings in the recommended order, are rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Seann M. Frazier Mark A. Emanuele Panza Maurer P.A. 3081 East Commercial Blvd. Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Paul J. Martin William H. Roberts Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for a certificate of need (CON), to construct a 100-bed free-standing psychiatric and substance-abuse hospital in Broward County, Florida, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposed Psychiatric Hospital Florida Psychiatric Centers (FPC), the applicant, is a partnership comprised of six general partners; Larry Levinson, Howard Israel, Ph.D.; Arnold Zager, M.D.; Bruce Jones, M.D.; Gerald Balsam, M.D., and Herbert Schwartz. Ronald Fieve, M.D., is a limited partner. FPC proposes to construct a 100-bed, free-standing psychiatric facility on a 10-acre site in the Plantation area of western Broward County. The total project cost, as stated in the application, is $12,039,299 or approximately $12 million. This figure is based on estimated construction costs of $80 per square foot. Since Mr. Levinson (a contractor), will build the facility at cost, and Dr. Jones, another partner, already owns a suitable site, the project costs should be considerably less. Also, the residential-type design of the facility means it will cost less to construct than a conventional hospital. There will be no heavy x-ray equipment, labs, operating rooms, or CAT Scanners. With industrial revenue bond financing, the project should be able to be built for under $10 million, reflecting a cost of $60-66 per square foot. The FPC facility is financially feasible. Based on the expected demand for psychiatric and substance abuse beds in Broward County, coupled with the unique design and treatment offered by the new facility, FPC can reasonable expect an occupancy rate of 64 percent and a $160,000 profit during the first year with an occupancy rate of only 45 percent. It can be financed either through the issuance of industrial bonds or conventional financing (available at a rate of 13.75 percent for a 30-year period). The FPC partners are financially capable of contributing, or raising, any additional equity funds or operating capital which may be required to build and begin operation of the hospital. Additional factors will contribute to the financial variability of the FPC hospital. Mr. Levinson, through his other related businesses, will provide equipment and supplies to the hospital on a discount basis. Dr. Fieve, a limited partner, can be expected to fill up to 10 beds with research patients, whose costs would be underwritten by pharmaceutical companies. The four partners who are local psychiatrists, Drs. Balsam, Israel, Zager, and Jones, have sizeable local practices; their patients, previously placed in other local hospitals, can be expected to fill many of the available beds at the new facility. FPC proposes 20 substance-abuse beds, 40 geriatric psychiatric beds, 25 adult psychiatric beds, and 15 adolescent psychiatric beds, all of which are short-term. DHRS, in preliminary free-form action, denied the FPC application for alleged failure to satisfy the standardized bed-need methodology for short-term psychiatric and substance abuse beds. DHRS did not explicitly evaluate the quality of psychiatric care being provided by existing facilities or the quality of care to be offered by the proposed facility. Most patients at the proposed FPC facility will be referred by the several psychiatrists who are principals, as will as other psychiatrists in the community. But due to the unique physical design of the facility and its innovative philosophy and treatment plan, it is expected that many patients from outlying counties will be referred by their psychiatrists. Moreover, Dr. Fieve, who practices psychiatry in New York, will refer patients to the proposed facility. Most patients will be private-pay or Medicare, not indigent or Baker Act (involuntary) patients. 5.75 percent of gross patient revenues will be allotted for indigent care. Since this will apply only to 60 beds (40 beds will be allotted for Medicare patients), the actual percentage expended on indigent patients rises to 9.5 percent. Only those patients meeting specific criteria will be admitted to the facility. The primary criteria are that the patients must be voluntary and be able to function within the hospital's unique open milieu. Patients who are homocidal or overtly dangerous to others will not be admitted. A patient who, once admitted, becomes violent or dangerous to others, will be transferred to a facility with a more controlled and restricted environment. Patients requiring acute detoxification services will not be admitted. Because the FPC facility will be a free-standing psychiatric hospital, it will be ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement. This distinction (for Medicaid reimbursement purposes) between attached and free-standing hospitals, is a curious, even confounding, one. The basis for it was not explained at hearing. The FPC facility will charge rates which are competitive, if not lower than, those charged by other psychiatric hospitals in Broward County. The FPC facility will have an admission policy unique among psychiatric hospitals in Broward County. Indeed, this policy - less restrictive than those in force at other hospitals is one of the motivating reasons behind the new hospital. 1/ Under the FPC admission policy, patients (otherwise appropriate for admission) will be admitted on evenings and weekends, regardless of whether the patients' ability to pay can be immediately verified. The FPC facility will serve as a research and training center for students, interns, and resident psychiatrists. Training affiliations will be actively sought with medical and osteopathic schools. Because of the facility's unique design, philosophy, and treatment program, it is reasonable to expect that it will become recognized as a place of innovative treatment for patients suffering from psychiatric illness or substance abuse. The State Health Plan has no application since it does not address the need for psychiatric beds in Broward County and the information in the plan is obsolete. FPC's proposed facility is generally consistent with the District 10 (Broward County) Local Health Plan, although that plan indicates that priorities should be given applicants proposing to convert under-utilized acute care beds to psychiatric beds. 2/ The physical design, philosophy, and treatment approach of the FPC facility will provide a needed alternative to the existing and approved psychiatric facilities in Broward County. The physical design is patterned after the well known Menninger Clinic, in Minnesota, and is designed to be conducive to and complement effective psychiatric care. Each of the four patient groups (geriatric, adolescent, adult, and substance abuse) will be housed in separate free-standing or home-like "villas". These villas will be located on a spacious, attractively landscaped 10-acre wooded site, which will look more like a college campus than a psychiatric hospital. There will be no locked wards or security guards to restrain patients, who will be voluntary and free to leave when they please. They will sleep in their villa rooms. All therapeutic activities will take place on the grounds or in the activity pavilion. There will also be medical and administrative pavilions and a dining pavilion, all of which will be connected to the villas by a network of covered walkways. Patients will freely participate in a spectrum of leisure and recreational activities which - in themselves - have therapeutic benefits. The facility will have a jogging track, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, gymnasium, exercise rooms, picnic areas, and a fresh water lake. Patients will be given maximum freedom of movement in an atmosphere designed to be aesthetically pleasing and affect patients in a positive way. It will be the least restrictive environment available in Broward County for providing in- patient psychiatric care. The philosophy and treatment approach of the FPC facility will be new and innovative - significantly different from that provided by existing psychiatric facilities in the county. Diagnosis and treatment activities will be conducted by integrated, interdisciplinary teams of psychiatrists and health care professionals. The various patient groupings will receive specialized psychiatric treatment. The FPC facility will have the only in-patient specialized psychiatric unit for geriatric patients in the county. This will be the first psychiatric hospital in Broward County designed and built, from the outset, solely to serve and treat psychiatric patients. Because of the facility's design and treatment philosophy, patients will be treated with deference, respect, and trust; it will be a place where patients' depleted self-confidence and self-esteem can be gently nurtured. The facility's environment will be hopeful, humane, and - insofar as possible - deinstitutionalized. Patients will not be warehoused, locked in wards, or isolated in smoke-filled day rooms with nothing to do but watch television. Instead, they will be free to engage in a variety of enjoyable and challenging activities. This is described as the holistic approach to psychiatric treatment. It provides patients with milieu environmental therapy - which requires ample space, a variety of engaging activities for patients, and a positive atmosphere which is neither frightening nor intimidating. Unlike patients in acute care hospitals, most psychiatric in-patients, who suffer from acute anxiety or depression, are physically strong and able to actively engage in leisure and recreational activities. When they are able to do so, they receive therapeutic benefits; they experience a sense of accomplishment and self-worth. With positive feelings about themselves, they are more able to face and cope with their problems. These are critical factors to their recovery and return to the community. The basic concepts embraced by the FPC facility have proven successful elsewhere, such as at the Menninger Clinic, Anclote Manor in Tarpon Springs, Florida, and the Florida Mental Health Institute. But there is nothing like it in Broward County. II. Existing Facilities: Quality Because of insufficient space and physical facilities, no existing or approved psychiatric hospital in Broward County - whether attached to a general hospital or free-standing - provides or is capable of providing milieu environmental therapy. All existing psychiatric hospitals are converted nursing homes, motels, or hospital wings. Although most admissions are voluntary, all of the psychiatric wards are locked, except for Ft. Lauderdale Hospital, which has one unlocked unit. Patients have little freedom of movement. Their access to the outdoors is limited and there are virtually no outdoor recreational activities available - although patients are sometimes bussed to nearby beaches and parks. Because the existing free-standing psychiatric hospitals are "locked in" by urban development, they cannot easily expand their facilities to provide outdoor leisure and recreational activities. Even existing parking space is limited. Patients, for the most part, resign themselves to lying in hospital beds (despite their physical vigor) or sitting in smoke-filled day rooms where they do little but watch television. Therapy consists of occasional visits by their psychiatrists and the administration of psychotropic drugs. This institutional environment, which can be harsh, unfriendly, and intimidating to patients, is not conducive to providing the most effective psychiatric care to patients. Prospective patients are often repelled by these conditions and the drab, uninviting atmosphere. As a consequence they refuse to admit themselves to these facilities and their psychiatrists are forced to refer them to facilities outside of Broward County. Psychiatric patients in existing facilities are not segregated and treated in accordance with their age or illness groupings. As a result, adolescents are often mixed with geriatrics - which is not conducive to providing therapy to either group. Specialized treatment programs are not systematically developed and provided patient groupings. Although Broward County has a large and expanding population of people 65 years or older, there is no specialized treatment program for geriatric patients. No existing or approved psychiatric facility in Broward County serves as a research or training center for the treatment of psychiatric patients. There is no evidence that any facility has expended resources for that purpose. III. Existing Facilities: Availability and Accessibility The existing psychiatric hospitals in Broward County are regularly crowded and frequently unavailable for new admissions. These include Hollywood Pavilion, Broward General Medical Center, Florida Medical Center, and Imperial Point Hospital. Existing substance abuse facilities, including Humana Hospital, Starting Place, the See, and the Care Programs at Memorial Hospital and Ft. Lauderdale Hospital are generally full and have patient waiting lists. Broward General Hospital serves as a central receiving hospital for acutely disturbed psychiatric patients. As stated by Dr. John Davison, Director of Emergency Services at Broward General - whose testimony is accepted as unbiased, credible, and persuasive - there is an urgent need for more psychiatric beds in Broward County. At Broward General, it typically takes three days to find a bed for a patient - and there are waiting lists at area hospitals for private/pay patients. Often patients must be strapped to emergency room beds and placed in emergency room hallways - where they sometimes languish for days - because of lack of space at Broward General and other area hospitals. Such treatment of acute psychiatric patients may actually worsen their condition and certainly does little to assist in their recovery. Existing psychiatric hospitals which have beds available are often, in actuality, inaccessible because of financially restrictive admission policies. They refuse to accept patients until insurance and financial ability to pay can be verified. In practice, this policy renders their beds unavailable to most patients (who cannot post immediate cash deposits) during evenings and weekends. IV. Need For The FPC Psychiatric Hospital DHRS normally, absent exceptional circumstances, will not issue a CON unless a need for additional beds is shown by the bed-need formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)(3), Florida Administrative Code. This formula computes numerical short-term bed-need by calculating the projected population (the latest mid-range population projected five years into the future by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida) and allotting 35 beds per 100,000 persons. (Projected 1988 population for Broward County, one of the fastest growing counties in Florida, is 1,252,660.) The number of existing and approved short-term beds is then deducted from the numerical bed need, yielding the number of any new beds needed. DHRS, in preliminarily applying its bed-need formula, deducted an incorrect number of "existing and approved" short-term beds. (DHRS relied on numbers derived largely from figures reported by local hospitals; no independent verification of the figures was made by DHRS.) Instead, the number of existing short-term beds established at hearing as reliable is as follows: Florida Medical Center-58; Hollywood Pavilion-35; and Ft. Lauderdale Hospital-80 (including psychiatric and substance-abuse). Coral Ridge Hospital was incorrectly assigned 74 short-term psychiatric beds and 12 substance-abuse beds. In actuality, Coral Ridge has no short-term beds. It offers a unique long-term care known as "ortho-molecular" treatment to patients, who are drawn from across the nation and abroad. This treatment, given under the guidance of its medical director, Dr. Moke Williams, typically continues for a year or more and is given patients who have not responded to conventional treatment. Few patients at Coral Ride come from Broward County. Short-term patients who seek admission are referred to Imperial Point Hospital or other local facilities. Although Coral Ridge's psychiatric beds are shown on DHRS books as 74 short-term and 12 substance-abuse, the beds are (and have been for sometime) used solely for long- term treatment. There is no evidence DHRS has taken, or will take, any action to force Coral Ridge to use its beds for short-term, as opposed to long-term treatment. DHRS, in initially applying the formula, determined that only 15 additional short-term beds were needed. When the formula is recomputed using the more correct figures (113 fewer short-term psychiatric beds and 12 fewer substance-abuse) a 1988 need in excess of 80 short-term psychiatric and 20 short-term substance abuse beds is shown. Apart from the projected need shown by a rigid mathematical formula, a balanced consideration of the other pertinent criteria of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1983), and Chapter 5-10, Florida Administrative Code, including accessibility, adequacy, availability, and quality of care of like existing facilities, indicates that the proposed FPC facility is needed. The statute and rule being implemented should not be used to prevent construction of new health care facilities which will provide innovative treatment which is an alternative to, and of higher quality than, that provided by existing facilities. This is particularly so when existing facilities, in actuality, are shown to be regularly filled, have patient waiting lists, and impose restrictive admission criteria which inflict an unreasonable hardship on those in need of care. Should construction of the FPC facility be allowed, it is likely that, through competitive forces, existing facilities will be spurred to improve the quality of their services. Finally, it has not been shown that, with the increased 1988 population projection, the financial viability of the existing facilities will be significantly affected by the construction of the FPC hospital.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's application to construct a 100-bed free-standing psychiatric facility (80 short-term psychiatric beds and 20 short-term substance abuse beds) in western Broward County be granted; and That the certificate of need be expressly conditioned upon fulfillment of all representations made in the application, as later amended and clarified at hearing. In particular, the proposed facility must be built on a wooded and attractively landscaped site of at least 10 acres and, from the outset, contain the full spectrum of leisure and recreational facilities described. As promised, the admissions policy must expressly provide that if a physician determines an emergency patient should be admitted, the patient will be admitted without delay, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of the time or day. If, after being admitted, it is determined that a patient lacks ability to pay, the patient will continue to receive treatment until he or she can be transferred to an appropriate facility. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of September, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant. The buildings at Shands Teaching Hospital are owned by the State of Florida. Shands Teaching Hospital is itself a not for profit Corporation authorized by statute. The hospital was previously owned by the State of Florida and was part of the University, but in 1979 the hospital corporation became a not for profit corporation responsible for the management of the hospital. The structure was changed so that the management and the operation of the hospital could be improved to meet the changing needs of medical education, research and patient care. The Board of Shands is made up of three major elements. The Board includes individuals who hold office at the University, examples being the President of the University of Florida, the Vice President for Health Affairs, the Dean of the College of Medicine and others in similar capacities. There is also representation by the Chairman of the Board of Regents, or someone appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The Chief Executive Officer of Shands is on the Board and then there are public members nominated by the Board itself and appointed by the President of the University. All of the initial members of the public were appointed by the University of Florida President. The Board of Shands has voted to support this application. The Health Center includes six colleges and the hospital. The most important college for the purposes of this case is the College of Medicine. Shands has sharing arrangements with the VA Hospital. The hospital contracts for many services with the College of Medicine. The chairmen of the College's clinical departments are also the chairmen of the hospital departments. In order to be on the hospital staff you must be on the faculty of the College of Medicine. The Dean is on the Board of the Hospital, and the Chief of Staff of the Hospital is also an Assistant Dean in the College. Shands is a statewide resource for providing health care to Florida residents. Among its unique programs are: The crippled childrens' program, set up by the Children's Medical Services Program Office of HRS, with the assistant of a Shands' pediatrician, Dr. Gerold Shiebler. It is the only approved hospital in HRS District III for participation in the program. Treatment programs for extremely complex childrens' problems. One of only 4 hospitals certified in Florida to do heart surgery under the Children's Medical Services Program. The only facility in the Southeastern United States doing bone marrow transplantation in children. The only children's rheumatic fever and rheumatology programs in HRS District III, and the only facility in District III doing sickle cell screening. It is the keystone of regionalized medical services for children. Shands is one of the top centers in the entire United States for musculo-skeletal tumor surgery for children's musculoskeletal problems, including myelodisplasia, cerebral palsy and other gait and neuromuscular disturbances in children. Shands has been designated by the Governor's Advisory Council on Spinal Cord Injury as a spinal cord injury center. A large brain tumor microsurgery program receiving patients from around the country. The only Florida hospital offering a new internal radiation treatment. The Proposed Project. Shands' application is for a certificate of need for a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit to be used in teaching and education programs by colleges of the University of Florida. The 20 proposed rehabilitation beds would be located on the tenth floor of an existing building at Shands. The tenth floor would be constructed along with the ninth and eleventh floors which have already been CON-approved. The gross square footage for the rehabilitation unit would be 35,500. In Shands' application, the estimated cost of the project was placed at $4.3 million. Shands' application proposes to designate eight of the 20 rehabilitation beds for pediatric services. Normally Shands does not allocate beds in advance for a particular service, since "political fallout negotiations for who gets what space" often changes the number of beds ultimately dedicated for a particular service or age group. The Intervenor. Intervenor, Alachua General Hospital ("Alachua General") is a 453-bed full service hospital in Gainesville. Alachua General is an active participant in the Medicare and Medicaid funding programs. Alachua General is the only area provider for Baker Act patients and has been since the inception of Baker Act. Alachua General is the only provider of services to Alachua County indigent patients through its service agreement with Alachua County. Criterion 381.494(6)(c)1. (The need for the health care facilities and services being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and State health plan). District Health Plan. Alachua County is situated in HRS District III. One of the purposes of the Local Health Council (LHC) is to assist HRS to provide community and local planning since it has a closer hands on sensitivity to the local needs than HRS. The Board of Directors of the District III LHC is appointed by county commissioners. This LHC is comprised of many health professionals, including nurses, physicians, hospital administrators, and the Director of the VA medical center. No representatives of Alachua General are on the LHC. The applicable District III Plan provides review guidelines and recommendations intended for use by HRS in making certificate of need decisions. These recommendations "state specific steps which should be implemented to most appropriately meet the region's (District III) needs." The two recommendations in the District III Plan for rehabilitation services are as follows: One comprehensive medical rehabilitation inpatient facility should be located in District III. Any additional comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds should be added only when those added in the initial facility have achieved a 75 percent annual occupancy rate. These recommendations were formulated after extensive research and input from many sectors of the health care industry. Drafts of these recommendations underwent public review and comment prior to final adoption. Both Alachua General and Shands participated in this public review. Shands did not oppose these recommendations. Also, Shands did not ask for special consideration as a teaching facility. Shands was assured that this was not necessary since special consideration already was engrafted on the CON statute. The District Plan takes no cognizance of the statewide educational and training needs to be met in a major teaching hospital, nor of the occupancies which can be projected for a state wide health care and teaching resource such as Shands. These recommendations were adopted by the LHC in December 1984. The effect of these recommendations was to carry over through at least 1985. These recommendations address concerns about cost containment and the rational development of new sophisticated services. These recommendations were intended to control even if there was a net need of beds per Rule 10-5.11(24) since they encourage the development of one facility and then allow for utilization of that facility prior to consideration of future development. The LHC will reevaluate the single location recommendation once the one facility has generated utilization. HRS uses and relies on LHC recommendations in making certificate of need decisions even if such recommendations are not adopted as agency rules. Alachua General's 40-bed comprehensive rehab hospital has been approved but was still under construction at the time of the final hearing. There is no other existing rehabilitation facility in the District, so there was no evidence of occupancy of existing facilities. In circumstances where a need for more than one facility exists, HRS in the past has approved more than one application without waiting for occupancy levels to be met and has done so where facilities had been previously approved but not yet built and where facilities already existed but had not reached desired occupancy levels. For example, a 40-bed rehabilitation hospital, was approved in one district while at the same time a 24-bed new patient unit in an existing acute care hospital was approved, both of which were approved while an outstanding 60-bed freestanding facility that had been approved was not yet built or operated. That was in HRS District VIII. In HRS District IX, two facilities were approved two weeks apart for separate individual free standing rehab hospitals. Third, in District X, Broward County, approval for a new rehab hospital had been given, but the facility was not constructed or licensed, yet the Department approved conversion of nursing home beds at another facility to comprehensive rehabilitation hospital beds. In addition, on three occasions the Department granted certificates of need in districts where beds were licensed and operating, but had not yet attained 85 percent occupancy levels. Here, Alachua General projects that the required occupancy levels will be met at its facility (assuming no new beds are added at Shands). Were it not for the peculiar nature of Shands and its proposal, an application for new rehabilitation beds in District III at a facility other than Alachua General would not be in compliance with the District Health Plan. However, the District Health Plan does not by its terms address Shands and its proposal and cannot be read to strictly govern this case. State Health Plan The state health plan incorporates the methodology for determining need for comprehensive rehabilitation beds contained in Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code. Under the rule methodology, there is a need for 58 comprehensive rehabilitation beds by 1988. At this time, the only licensed or approved comprehensive rehabilitation beds in District III are the 40 beds approved for Alachua General. The state health plan also incorporates subparagraph (b)3.b of Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code. That subparagraph calls for 85 percent occupancy of all existing rehabilitation facilities in the district during the preceding calendar year. As previously discussed, in circumstances where a need for more than one facility exists, HRS in the past has approved more than one application without waiting for occupancy levels to be met and has done so where facilities have been previously approved but not yet built and where facilities already existed but had not yet reached desired occupancy levels. Criterion 381.494(6)(c)3. (The ability of the applicant to provide quality care.) Shands generally has the ability to provide quality comprehensive rehabilitation care. Shands proposes to dedicate eight of the 20 rehabilitation beds for pediatric patients. This was not expressed or implied in its CON application, and Shands is not certain whether eight beds would in fact ultimately be designated for pediatric patients given the politics at Shands. Shands does not know how many rooms or patient rooms will be equipped for pediatrics at this point. If beds are dedicated to pediatric patients, several problems with quality care are presented. Pediatric comprehensive rehabilitation requires different kinds and modes of care and separate equipment and treatment areas. Shands' proposal would require dual commitment in terms of space, equipment, staffing, training and programming. Separate recreational areas, dining areas and therapy areas may be required. However, it is not necessary to totally segregate pediatric rehabilitation patients from adult rehabilitation patients by setting up units on different floors although this is typically done by hospitals treating pediatric and adult patients for communicable diseases. The Shands' proposal includes ample floor space (35,500 square feet) to enable Shands to resolve the problems presented by serving both an adult and pediatric rehabilitation patients in its proposed unit. Some of Shands' rehabilitation equipment for its proposed comprehensive rehabilitation unit on the tenth floor already has been purchased and is in use in occupational and physical therapy areas on the sixth floor of the same building. At least some of this equipment probably will remain where it is on the sixth floor. Ideally, occupational and physical therapy areas should be as close to the patients as possible. But Shands' plans are not unprecedented and need not seriously detract from the quality of rehabilitation care Shands will be able to give. The evidence was not clear whether there are bed rails and hand rails on the sixth floor to accommodate the needs of rehabilitation patients. However, if there are not, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Shands can and will accommodate the needs of its rehabilitation patients. On the other hand, integration of Shands' proposed rehabilitation unit into its acute care hospital will make available backup medical services as may be necessary for rehabilitation patients. Normally, an essential for patient eligibility for comprehensive rehabilitation treatment is sufficient recovery from acute care medical problems. Rehabilitation units normally do not accept a patient who has continuing or serious acute medical problems; needed minor treatment is normally administered at free standing rehabilitation hospitals by qualified medical specialists on staff. However, Shands and Shands' proposal is somewhat unique. First, being a tertiary hospital, Shands cares for patients who generally have more severely acute conditions and are more likely to require intensive medical care even during rehabilitation. In addition, Shands' proposal envisions beginning comprehensive rehabilitation at an earlier stage than normally begun at a freestanding hospital. The Shands rehabilitation unit would enable Shands to think in terms of comprehensive rehabilitation and actually begin comprehensive rehabilitation at the earliest possible date. These features of Shands' proposal will enable Shands to give even better quality care than a free standing rehabilitation hospital normally is capable of giving, especially to patients of the kind Shands cares for in its acute care hospital. Criterion 381.494(6)(c)4. (The availability and adequacy of other health care facilities and services in the service district of the applicant, such as outpatient care and ambulatory or homecare services, which may serve as alternatives for the healthcare facilities and services to be provided by the applicant.) There is no available or adequate alternative that would meet a need for comprehensive rehabilitation beds. Criterion 381.494(6)(c)8. (The availability of resources *** for project accomplishment and operation; effects on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service district; accessibility to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes; alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services; and accessibility to all residents of the service district.) The parties have stipulated that the staffing of Shands' proposed rehabilitation unit could be obtained and that the full time equivalent employees set out in the application was appropriate or at least not challenged. Manpower requirements are not an issue. Shands has the funds necessary for capital and operating expenditures. Shands has reserve funds available (working capital reserve) of between $8 and $9 million. In addition, there are between $5 and $8 million of other uncommitted funds available for construction. Shands' proposed project will enhance professional training programs in District III, meet clinical needs for those programs, and be accessible to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes. The services will be available to all residents of District III and the State of Florida. Criterion 381.494(6)(c)11. (The needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located or in adjacent service district.) Shands provides, and proposes to provide in its application, a substantial portion of its facilities and services to individuals not residing in the service district or in adjacent service districts, including both students and patients. Patients. As previously mentioned, Shands is a tertiary acute care hospital, attracting patients with severely acute medical conditions from throughout the State of Florida and the southeast. Alachua General's 40-bed free standing comprehensive rehabilitation hospital can be expected to be used to meet primarily the need for comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with less severely acute medical conditions and residents of District III. Not many patients from outside District III needing rehabilitation from less severely acute medical conditions can be expected to go to Shands. There are 442 approved rehabilitation beds not yet on line in Florida. Also, existing rehabilitation beds are located in adjoining service districts. Referring an acute care patient to Shands for a short length of stay is not the same as a referral for a more complicated and lengthy rehabilitation treatment. Family participation is an integral part of the rehabilitation process, and preference to be near one's family is a factor. However, it still can be anticipated that substantial services will be rendered to patients from outside District III and the adjoining service districts who have more severely acute medical conditions and need comprehensive rehabilitation. Students. Shands intends to use its comprehensive rehabilitation unit in part to start an educational residency program in physical medicine and rehabilitation ("PMR'). Students in other medical internship and residency programs including neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics and other disciplines also will benefit from exposure to PMR and the comprehensive rehabilitation unit. In addition, the allied medical specialties of medical technology, physican assistants, clinical and community dietetics, physical therapy, occupational therapy and rehabilitative services also are taught at the University of Florida College of Health-Related Professions. These students also would benefit from exposure to PMR and the comprehensive rehabilitation unit as part of their education. A substantial number of these students can be expected to be from outside District 111 and the adjoining service districts. Additionally, the populations whom they will ultimately serve after their education will be substantially outside District 111 and the adjoining service districts. 1. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)7. (The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to institutional training programs and community training programs. for health care practitioners and for doctors of osteopathy and medicine at the student, internship, and residency training levels.) Absence of a program in physical medicine and rehabilitation is a significant deficit in the overall quality of medical and medically related education at the University of Florida. At this time there are no PMR programs in the State of Florida. There is a need for educational programs in PMR in Florida to meet the anticipated need for physiatrists (PMR specialists) in Florida in the future. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)6. (The need in the service district of the applicant for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas.) Shands' proposal will not meet any need in District III for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)12. (The probable. impact of the proposed project on costs. of providing health services proposed by the applicant.) If eight of Shands' proposed twenty beds are designated for pediatric patients, only twelve will remain to compete with Alachua General's forty beds. Of those twelve, a substantial portion probably will be used by nonresidents of District III (although Alachua General will be sufficiently affected as an existing provider to have standing to intervene as a substantially affected party). Those which are directly competitive with Alachua General's forty rehabilitation beds will likely have a positive effect on the cost of providing comprehensive rehabilitative services in District III. There is sufficient need generated in District III to support the Alachua General facility and the directly competitive Shands beds without duplication of services. As a result, the competition will likely contribute to improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of those health services and promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(0)2. (The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services . . . in the service district of the applicant.) Patient Care. Alachua General's free standing comprehensive rehabilitation unit will be just as available and accessible to District III residents at Shands proposed unit. Alachua General will also be able to provide quality comprehensive rehabilitation appropriate to the medical needs of most of the patients residing in District III. However, Alachua General does not serve pediatric patients, and there are no comprehensive rehabilitation services for pediatric patients in District III. In addition, a number of Shands' patients can be anticipated to be suffering from too severely acute medical conditions for it to be appropriate to refer them to Alachua General for comprehensive rehabilitation services, at least at first. It is recognized that comprehensive rehabilitation services generally only come into play after a patient is able to be released from an acute care hospital. But being a tertiary hospital and university hospital, Shands' patients do not all fit the norm. Without a Comprehensive rehab unit at Shands, those patients would be deprived of comprehensive rehabilitation services at an earlier and, in their case, more appropriate point in their recovery. There is a need under the HRS rule methodology for fifty-eight comprehensive rehabilitation beds in District III. Alachua General's forty beds can be expected to be efficiently utilized. Occupancy rates in the second year of operation are expected to be between 75 and 85 percent. As a result, Alachua General will not be adequate or available to handle all of the need in District III. In addition, as a tertiary and university hospital, Shands might attract some patients not even accounted for in the rule methodology. Education. Shands did not prove that it has fully explored the possibility of operating its educational and residency programs in PMR out of the Alachua General facility. The evidence was that it might be possible to create such a program and have it accredited. Alachua General made a proposal to Shands along those lines, but Shands has not responded. Although there exists a possibility of using Alachua General's comprehensive rehabilitation beds to support Shands' education and residency programs in PMR, such an arrangement would not be ideal. Only one or two such programs exist in the United States. All other PMR education and residency programs are based at a teaching hospital. This enables the educators to control the educational and residency programs. It also allows more stability for planning purposes to know that the continued existence of the program does not depend upon the will of another institution. Finally, it allows the PMR students to have the benefit of being totally integrated into the medical educational institution and affords the other medical and health related students to have the benefit of being integrated into the PMR programs. Alachua General's free standing comprehensive rehabilitation facility is located seven to nine miles from Shands. In addition to the disadvantages mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph, the distance between the two facilities would pose significant logistical problems in operating Shands' education and residency programs in PMR out of the Alachua General facility. Many educational and residency programs in PMR that are based at teaching hospitals are affiliated with other hospitals through which its students rotate for periods between three months and a year. It would be beneficial to Shands' educational and residency programs to affiliate with Alachua General to provide additional opportunities for Shands' students to rotate through the Alachua General facility. Alachua General would be the closest available facility for such purposes. Affiliation with Alachua General would enable Shands to expand its PMR programs in a reasonable way to be available to more students. And a rotation through the Alachua General facility would expose Shands' students to comprehensive rehabilitation provided in a different setting and to patients who have generally less severely acute medical conditions at the time of their rehabilitation than the patients at Shands. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)5. (Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources.) As just mentioned, there is the potential for Shands and Alachua General to share the use of their facilities to form an educational and residency program in PMR that would be stronger than such programs operated exclusively at either one or the other of those facilities. In addition, at the Shands facility itself, Shands already has substantial equipment and services in physical and operational therapy on the sixth floor of the building in which the rehabilitation unit is proposed on the tenth floor. That equipment and those services can be integrated into the comprehensive rehabilitation unit. Finally, as a tertiary acute care hospital, Shands will have substantial equipment and services of other kinds that would be available for use in treating comprehensive rehabilitation patients as might become necessary in the course of their rehabilitation. This potential for sharing services is significant since Shands can be expected to be providing comprehensive rehabilitation services to patients who are still suffering from more severely acute medical conditions than one would normally expect in a comprehensive rehabilitation unit. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)9. (The immediate and long-term financial feasibility proposal.) Immediate Financial Feasibility. Shands has reserved funds available (working capital reserve) of between $8 million and $9 million dollars. In addition to that, there are between $5 and $8 million dollars in other uncommitted funds available for construction. Shands estimates the cost of its proposed project at $4,320,000. This estimate is too low. Actually, a more reasonable estimate of what it will cost Shands to construct its rehabilitation unit on the tenth floor of its existing building would be approximately $5.5 million dollars, or approximately $275,000 per bed. This more accurate estimate adds a ten percent construction contingency factor, an additional 3.5 percent of construction costs for architects/engineering fees, a 2.5 percent of construction cost fee for construction supervision, and an additional $160,000 for elevators. Shands' $160,000 equipment cost estimate normally would be low but is reasonable in this case since much of the equipment Shands plans to use in the proposed rehabilitation unit already has been purchased and is in operation on the sixth floor. Normally, total project costs for a rehabilitation bed proposal should be in the range of $125,000 to $145,000 per bed, and within a maximum of $175,000 per bed. However, in this case, Shands is building its unit on the tenth floor of an existing building in conjunction with the construction of the ninth and eleventh floors of the building. The difficulties of that type construction explain the high cost of construction of Shands' proposed project. In addition, Shands' proposed unit will take up approximately 35,500 square feet. This is approximately 500 square feet per bed larger than usual even for a teaching hospital needing oversized nursing stations as well as classrooms and support areas for the educational/training programs. Given Shands' proposal to have a comprehensive rehabilitation unit in its teaching hospital, Shands had no choice but to add a floor to its present structure. And given that type of construction, Shands has little choice but to build the entire tenth floor. For these reasons, the cost and square footage of Shands' proposed project, while very high by all standards, is reasonable in this case. In addition, the additional square footage per bed will give Shands flexibility in accommodating pediatric patients within the proposed comprehensive rehabilitation unit. Even with a $5.5 million dollar cost estimate, Shands' proposed project is immediately financially feasible. Shands could finance its proposed project through operations or by borrowing from the capital markets. Long-Term Financial Feasibility. Financed over 30 years, the additional 1 to 1.2 million dollars of construction costs would result in approximately $35,000 per year additional cost of operation. If Shands operates at 85 percent occupancy, an additional charge of approximately $6 per patient day would pay the additional cost. Shands' utilization estimates are based on an internal demand analysis. The internal demand analysis probably is somewhat unreasonably inflated. Shands projects an average length of stay for its rehabilitation patients of 52 days. It also projects a 125 day average length of stay for spinal cord injured patients. The average lengths of stay probably are overstated, but the internal demand analysis projects approximately 20 percent more demand than the proposed 20-bed unit could accommodate. In addition, it does not take into account any referrals for comprehensive rehabilitation services from any acute care hospitals other than Shands . Taken as a whole, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the demand for Shands' rehabilitation unit will result in enough utilization to keep the unit at least 85 percent occupied, especially if some of the beds are designated for pediatric patients. Shands' financial pro formas do not include a line item for interest to be paid on project debt. If the project is financed by borrowing from the capital markets, an interest expense line item should be included in the pro forma. However, it is not clear at this time that Shands will borrow from the capital markets to finance its rehab project. If critical to the long term financial feasibility of the project, Shands could pay for the rehab project out of operations. Given Shands' expected utilization, its comprehensive rehabilitation unit will be financially feasible in the long run if Shands charges approximately what it proposes to charge per diem for comprehensive rehabilitation services -- approximately $555 for January 1, 1999 and approximately $600 for January 1, 1990. The projected charges are reasonable and feasible. Section 381.494(6)(d). As mentioned, it would be possible to accomplish part of what Shands proposes by using Alachua General's facilities. That alternative certainly would be much less costly and, in that sense, more efficient. But the findings do not demonstrate that it would be more appropriate. Using Alachua General's facility to meet the need for comprehensive rehabilitation beds in District III would leave pediatric patients without comprehensive rehabilitation. In addition, patients suffering from more severely acute medical conditions frequently admitted at Shands would be deprived of the opportunity to begin comprehensive rehabilitation at an earlier stage in their recovery. Alternatively, if those patients were transferred to Alachua General at earlier stages of recovery than normal, the transfer could be anticipated to result in acute medical situations which Alachua General is not equipped to handle. Even disregarding those special attributes of Shands' proposal, Alachua General only meets 40 of the 58 bed need for comprehensive rehabilitation beds in District III. Regarding the educational and residency program in PMR which Shands proposes, the alternative of using Alachua General as the base for those programs is a possibility but is less than ideal and fraught with difficulties. For these reasons, although the Shands project is very costly, it is appropriate under the circumstances to spend the money it will take to accomplish the project. It is anticipated that Alachua General's 40 bed facility will be used in an appropriate and sufficient manner by the time Shands proposal would become operational. There are no alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, available in this case. Pediatric patients and certain Shands patients suffering from more severely acute medical conditions will experience problems in obtaining care of the type proposed in the absence of Shands' proposed new services. P. Balanced Consideration of the Criteria. Balancing all the criteria that have been considered, it is found that there is need and sufficient justification to grant Shands' application in this case. The cost of the proposal is very high and would be cause for denial of an application for comprehensive rehabilitation beds in other circumstances. In addition, there is the possibility that some of the need addressed by the proposed project could be met using Alachua General's 40-bed facility. But the special needs of a top quality educational and residency program in PMR, of some of Shands' patients suffering from more severely acute medical conditions and of pediatric patients justify the expenditure despite the high cost and other partial alternatives.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, grant the application of Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., for a Certificate of Need for a twenty-bed comprehensive rehabilitation unit to be used in conjunction with the teaching and education programs of colleges of the University of Florida on the condition that 8 beds are designated for pediatric patients. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of April, 1986. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2090 PARAGRAPH A - RULINGS ON SHANDS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT. In part rejected as part irrelevant and in part a Conclusion of Law and in part covered by Findings 23 and 65 to the extent necessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by Findings 5 and 48-49 and in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 45. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, in part is argumentative and in part as Conclusion of Law. Rejected as contrary to Finding 45 and the greater weight of the evidence. Covered by Finding 1. Covered by Finding 2. Covered by Finding 3. Covered by Finding 4. Covered by Finding 5. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 9 through 22. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 9 through 22. Covered by Finding 25. In part covered by Finding 15 and in part unnecessary and irrelevant. See Finding 19. In part covered by Finding 20 to the extent necessary and not subordinate, cumulative or argumentative and in part rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See Finding 20. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Covered by Finding 21. Covered by Finding 15. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In part covered as necessary by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 65. Rejected as subordinate and not relevant or necessary except as covered by Findings 40, 48 and 65. Most of the internal demand generated at Shands already is included in the 58 bed need in 1988 generated by the rule methodology. $ The first two sentences are not contested and are accepted. The third sentence also is accepted and is covered as necessary by Finding 65. Not contested and accepted. Covered in part by Findings 27 and 36. The second sentence is not contested and is accepted. Otherwise rejected as subordinate, cumulative and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 24. Covered by Finding 35. Covered as necessary by Finding 49. Rejected as subordinate, irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in large part as subordinate, cumulative and unnecessary. Covered as necessary by Findings 50-53 and 68. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 45-53 and 68. Covered by Finding 27. Covered by Finding 35. Covered by Finding 55. Covered by Findings 42 and 43. Covered by Findings 39-41. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. In part rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and in part covered by Findings 36 and 57- 67. Rejected in large part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. Rejected in large part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. Rejected in large part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. Rejected in large part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. Rejected in large part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 36 and 57-67. Covered by Finding 59. In part covered by Finding 58 and in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Findings 60-62, in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Subordinate and unnecessary. Subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 64. Covered by Finding 64. Covered by Finding 42. Covered by Finding 43. Covered by Findings 36 and 37. Covered by Finding 38. Covered by Findings 39-41. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 45. Covered by Findings 45-53. Covered by Findings 45-53. Covered by Findings 45-53. Covered by Finding 70. Covered by Finding 71. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. Whether Shands "meets all of the criteria" is not the question. See Finding 72. RULINGS ON ALACHUA GENERALS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Covered by Finding 8. Rejected as subordinate, irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate, irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate, irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 9. 10. 11. Covered by Findings 6 and 7. Covered by Findings 6 and 7. Covered by Findings 6 and 7. Covered by Findings 6 and 7. Rejected as cumulative. Subordinate to Finding 61 and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to Findings 30, 61 and 62. Subordinate to Finding 61 and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to Finding 62. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent necessary covered by Finding 30. Covered by Finding 60. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 58. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Finding 60. Covered by Finding 58 and cumulative. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 59. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Covered by Finding 58. Rejected in part as cumulative and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 58. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 28-31 and 59. Rejected in part as subordinate in part as unnecessary and in part as contrary to Finding 45. To the extent necessary, covered by Finding 45. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered by Finding 40. To the extent necessary, covered by Finding 40. Subordinate to Finding 45. Subordinate to Finding 45 and unnecessary. Accepted, but unnecessary. Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary and in part as contrary to Finding 45. Accepted, but unnecessary. Accepted, but unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 64A. Covered by Finding 9. Covered by Finding 10. Rejected in part as cumulative, in part as subordinate and in part as unnecessary. Covered by Finding 11. Covered by Finding 12. Covered by Finding 13. Covered by Finding 14. Covered by Finding 16. Covered by Finding 17. Covered by Finding 18. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Covered by Finding 19. Rejected in part as Conclusion of Law and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and in part as Conclusion of Law. In part covered by Finding 46 and in part rejected as Conclusion of Law and irrelevant. First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and the remainder covered by Finding 40. To the extent necessary, covered by Findings 40 and 65. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. First two sentences rejected as cumulative, last sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See Findings 46-53 and 68. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings 46-49. Rejected as Conclusion of Law, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary and as an attempt to illegally obtain comparison of Alachua General's later batched application with the Shands application. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary t9 Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. Also in part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. In part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, in part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. In part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, in part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. In part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, in part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. In part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, in part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. In part rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, in part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 50-53 and 68. In part covered by and in part rejected by Findings 28 30. In part covered by and in part rejected by Findings 28 30. In part covered by and in part rejected by Findings 28 30. In part covered by and in part rejected by Findings 28 30. In part covered by and in part rejected by Findings 28 30. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 31-34. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 31-34. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 31-34. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Findings 31-34. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 66. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 66. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as cumulative. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 65. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 65. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 65. In part covered by and in part rejected as contrary to Finding 65. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William C. Andrews, Esquire Scruggs and Carmichael P. O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 1, Suite 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue in these cases is whether the Petitioners are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Health Care Cost Containment Board pursuant to Chapter 407, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact La Amistad. Standing. By letter dated April 27, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, the managing director of La Amistad requested "exemption from HCCCB reporting requirements due to its considerable likeness to Daniel Memorial Hospital, which was exempted in October, 1989." La Amistad's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial Hospital v. Health Care Cost Containment Board, DOAH Case No. 89-1839H, in which Daniel Memorial Hospital was determined by the Board to not be subject to the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed La Amistad that La Amistad's "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed La Amistad that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if La Amistad wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. La Amistad filed a Petition for Formal Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that La Amistad was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. La Amistad's Petition for Formal Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed La Amistad's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against La Amistad prior to its request for exemption. La Amistad has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. La Amistad Foundation, Inc., the predecessor of La Amistad, was issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), certificate of need number 3064 to operate a 27-bed intensive residential treatment facility for children and adolescents in Maitland, Florida. In agreeing to issue certificate of need number 3064, the Department required La Amistad Foundation, Inc., to apply for licensure of its facility pursuant to the requirements of Rule 10D-28.100, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. A certificate of need is a prerequisite to licensure as a health care facility in Florida. The certificate of need issued to La Amistad and the stipulation upon which it was based do not expressly provide that the facility is a "specialty hospital" or otherwise state that it is a "hospital" under Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. Licensure. On August 17, 1988, La Amistad Foundation, Inc., d/b/a La Amistad Psychiatric Treatment Center, was issued a license by the Department to "operate a SPECIAL PSYCHIATRIC hospital with 27 beds." On September 30, 1988, the license issued on August 17, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT hospital with 27 beds." On August 17, 1990, the license issued on September 30, 1988, was replaced by a license to La Amistad to "operate a INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT-SPECIALTY hospital with 27 INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY beds." La Amistad operates and is surveyed by the Department, the agency responsible for licensing health care facilities in Florida, pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad's Location and Facilities. La Amistad's facility is located in a residential neighborhood at 201 Alpine Drive, Maitland, Florida. The facility provides a noninstitutional, residential setting and environment. Residents at La Amistad live in one of three small single-story buildings in a family-style atmosphere. The grounds of the facility include a play area and a multipurpose building which is used for recreational activities and therapy. Residents live in individual rooms which do not contain standard hospital equipment. La Amistad's facility does not include any seclusion rooms, restraints, treatment or procedure rooms that are required of general acute care or specialty psychiatric hospitals. There are no locked doors at La Amistad but residents are prohibited from leaving the facility without permission. La Amistad's facility does not have designated areas for diagnostic x- ray, clinical laboratory, surgery or obstetrical services. La Amistad's Residents. Residents at La Amistad are six to eighteen years of age. Residents suffer from a full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. The average length of stay at La Amistad is 221 days to one year. Ninety-five percent of the residents of La Amistad are referred from acute care specialty psychiatric or general hospitals. The payer mix at La Amistad is approximately 55% CHAMPUS (a government payer program), 25% from the Department and 25% nongovernment or private insurance. CHAMPUS payments to La Amistad include payments for all services whether provided by La Amistad or by referral. La Amistad's Staff. The full-time staff of La Amistad consists of mental health workers or psychiatric assistants, mental health counselors, registered nurses, marriage and family therapists, occupational therapists and recreational therapists. There is no physician "directly" employed on La Amistad's payroll. La Amistad has four psychiatrists, including a medical director, on its staff. They are independent contractors. Services Provided Directly to Residents. La Amistad provides diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Treatment of La Amistad residents is definitive psychiatric medical treatment. Psychiatry is a medical specialty and psychiatric treatment is a form of medical treatment. La Amistad is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. All residents at La Amistad are admitted only with a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis of a psychiatric illness or disorder by a psychiatrist. Admitting diagnoses, which are determined by the admitting psychiatrists, run the full range of psychiatric illnesses and disorders. La Amistad does not treat "acutely or extremely suicidal" persons. Although direct psychiatric therapy is not regularly provided by a physician, psychiatric therapy is in fact provided by physicians and through a multi-disciplinary treatment team, which includes the psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is available to provide services twenty-four hours a day. A psychiatrist is ultimately responsible for each resident's care and treatment. Only a psychiatrist may admit or diagnose a resident, prescribe medication, monitor medication and determine when to discharge a resident. The only psychiatrists who can admit to La Amistad are the four independent contractor psychiatrists on La Amistad's staff. Psychiatrists regularly review medical and clinical records of residents at La Amistad to insure proper treatment. Treatment of residents may include the prescription of psychotropic medications, group therapy, recreational therapy and/or occupational therapy. Medications prescribed for residents are dispensed by a nurse, normally at the nurses' station. La Amistad complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. La Amistad residents attend public schools. The Orange County public school system provides a fully-accredited educational program on-site. La Amistad provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. La Amistad does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Although clinical laboratory services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, such services are ordered when necessary by an attending physician and are available through an agreement with an outside provider which provides such services pursuant to an agreement bid on a national basis by La Amistad's parent organization. Samples for clinical laboratory analysis, including blood samples, are collected on the premises. La Amistad does not provide x-ray services on its premises. Although x-ray services are not actually needed on a frequent basis, diagnostic x-ray services are available through a letter of agreement with Florida Hospital, an acute care hospital. La Amistad does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care. No person in need of obstetric services or in need of acute care services normally provided at a general or special acute care hospital, or having a primary diagnosis of drug or chemical dependency or suffering from an acute psychiatric disorder is eligible for residency at La Amistad. La Amistad does not have a pharmacy on its premises or a license to fill prescriptions. La Amistad provides pharmacy services through a "working relationship" with a local pharmacy in Winter Park, Florida, to fill residents' prescriptions. La Amistad provides dental treatment and routine and emergency medical treatment to residents through agreements with outside providers. Emergency medical services for residents are available pursuant to a letter agreement with Florida Hospital. Ultimate responsibility for deciding where a resident of La Amistad receives clinical laboratory services, x-ray services or pharmacy services remains with the parents of residents. If a parent does not exercise his or her right and the services are necessary, La Amistad will insure that the services are provided. Payment for such services are made directly from parents or insurance companies for some residents. The referral agreements between La Amistad and providers do not require that La Amistad make referrals exclusively to that provider. Pediatric diagnostic and treatment services are not regularly made available by La Amistad. Referrals for such services are made by the residents' attending physicians or parents. Accreditation. La Amistad is accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (hereinafter referred to as "JCAHO"). La Amistad is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. JCAHO's consolidated standards are "designed for use by organizations that provide mental health services, alcohol and drug abuse services, and services to mentally retarded/developmentally disabled persons, and in a variety of settings, including forensic facilities and community mental health centers. " Among the eligibility criteria for survey under the consolidation standards is the following: [t]he organization is not eligible for survey as a hospital under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, what constitutes a "hospital" for JCAHO purposes. Additionally, the eligibility criteria under the consolidated standards indicate that an entity which qualifies under the consolidation standards may still constitute a hospital even for JCAHO purposes. The standards provide, in pertinent part, that "the accreditation process is intended primarily for the following types of organizations . . . : . . . Hospitals not eligible for survey under the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals . . . ." [Emphasis added]. Manatee Palms. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for Manatee Palms requested that a determination be made by the Board that Manatee Palms was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." Manatee Palms' request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed Manatee Palms that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed Manatee Palms that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if Manatee Palms wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. Manatee Palms filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that Manatee Palms was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. Manatee Palms' Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed Manatee Palms' Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against Manatee Palms prior to its request for exemption. Manatee Palms has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. Manatee Palms was built in 1986. It opened on or about January 12, 1987, as a 60-bed residential treatment facility for children and adolescents. Manatee Palms was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, Manatee Palms filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "licensure as a specialty hospital under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, for a 60-bed intensive residential treatment center for children and adolescents, currently operating as Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center " Licensure. Manatee Palms was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child caring" facility and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In January 1989, Manatee Palms filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 60 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On October 25, 1989, a license was issued by the Department to Manatee Palms "to operate a Intensive Residential Treatment Facility - Specialty hospital with 60 IRTF beds." Manatee Palms is currently operating under this license. Manatee Palms operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms' Location and Facilities. Manatee Palms is located at 1324 37th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The Manatee Palms facility consists of a single building. Patients at Manatee Palms reside in semiprivate rooms. Manatee Palms' facility is a locked facility. Patients at Manatee Palms cannot leave the facility without permission because of the locked doors. Manatee Palms has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility: "some very, very severely emotionally disturbed children, some of which have come even from the state hospitals." Transcript page 181, lines 20-21. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. Manatee Palms' Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. Patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range of psychiatric disorders. Some patients have failed at other facilities and are very aggressive. The average length of stay at Manatee Palms is 97 days. Most of Manatee Palms' patients are referred from other facilities: "[w]e get some kids from other hospitals, acute care hospitals. We get some from therapists in the communities . . . ." Transcript page 180, lines 5-6. Manatee Palms' patients are physically healthy. Manatee Palms' Staff. Manatee Palms' staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. There are six psychiatrists who provide treatment planning and care at Manatee Palms. Services Provided Directly to Patients. Manatee Palms provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. Manatee Palms is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. A psychiatrist must approve every admission to Manatee Palms. Patients are admitted only upon an order of a medical doctor and upon a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. Although the facility administrator must ultimately decide whether a patient is admitted, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the facility administrator may veto or modify the medical decision of a psychiatrist to admit a patient. Within twenty-four hours of admission, a psychiatrist completes a psychiatric evaluation of each patient. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team identifies each patient's problems and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for approximately one-half to one hour a week; more if required by a patient. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team once a week to evaluate a patient's progress and adjust treatment as needed. The multi-disciplinary team provides care and nurturing in a group setting designed to enhance the patient's experiences in the areas in which he or she is not successful. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. Most patients attend school at the facility. School is conducted by teachers from the Manatee County School Board. Patients at Manatee Palms are considered to be in treatment from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed at night. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Manatee Palms is able to provide detoxification treatment for patients. Manatee Palms complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. Manatee Palms provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. Manatee Palms does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by Manatee Palms personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. Manatee Palms provides diagnostic x-ray services through an agreement with Quality X-Ray of Sarasota, Inc., a non-affiliated provider. X-ray services are typically provided off-site but are also provided at Manatee Palms' facility through portable equipment. Manatee Palms does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Manatee Palms has a contract with a pharmacist. The pharmacist fills prescriptions at the facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through Manatee Memorial Hospital, a non-affiliated hospital. Manatee Palms has a referral agreement with the hospital. Manatee Palms has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. Manatee Palms projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $108,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $350,000.00 from drug sales; and c. $17,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. Manatee Palms also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $50,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $61,000.00 for drug sales; and c. $16,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services. I. Accreditation. Manatee Palms is accredited by JCAHO. Manatee Palms is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. RTCPB. Standing. By letter dated March 29, 1990, to the Executive Director of the Board, counsel for RTCPB requested that a determination be made by the Board that RTCPB was "not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the HCCCB except for those reporting requirements found in Sections 407.07(1)(b) and 407.13, Florida Statutes, and therefore need not file any budget or actual reports from this point forwards." RTCPB's request for exemption was premised on the Board's Final Order in Daniel Memorial. By letter dated July 25, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed RTCPB that its "request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied." The Board informed RTCPB that it could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, if RTCPB wished to contest the Board's denial of its request. RTCPB filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated August 15, 1990, challenging the Board's notice that RTCPB was subject to the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. RTCPB's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing alleged that there were disputed issues of material facts in this matter. Therefore, the Board filed RTCPB's Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 1990, for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. There is no provision in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, which allows persons to request an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, or authorizes the Board to declare any person to be "exempt" from the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Board had taken or planned to take any immediate action against RTCPB prior to its request for exemption. RTCPB has failed to prove that it has standing to institute the instant proceeding. Certificate of Need. RTCPB was built in 1986-1987. It opened on or about June 1, 1987, as a 40-bed residential treatment facility for adolescents. RTCPB was built and opened without obtaining a certificate of need from the Department. Subsequent to its opening, RTCPB filed an application for a certificate of need which was issued by the Department on November 29, 1988, for "establishment of a licensed 40-bed intensive residential treatment facility in Palm Beach County . . . . Licensure. RTCPB was initially licensed by the Department as a "residential child care agency" and by the Department's Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program office to provide services. In May 1989, RTCPB filed an application for licensure with the Department. There was not a category for intensive residential treatment program under the column titled "hospital bed utilization" on the application. Therefore, the initials "IRTF" were hand written on the application with a notation that all 40 beds are used in an intensive residential treatment program. On May 29, 1990, a license was issued by the Department to RTCPB "to operate a Specialty Intensive Residential Treatment Facility hospital with 40 Intensive Residential Treatment Facility beds." RTCPB is currently operating under this license. RTCPB operates and is surveyed by the Department pursuant to Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB's Location and Facilities. RTCPB is located at 1720 Fourth Avenue, North, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. The RTCPB facility consists of a single building. The facility is divided into two 20-bed wings. Boys reside on one wing and girls reside on the other wing. Patients at RTCPB reside in semiprivate rooms. There are no private rooms. RTCPB is a locked facility. Patients are not allowed to leave the facility without permission. RTCPB has seclusion and restraint capabilities because of the type of patients cared for at the facility. Detoxification facilities for the treatment of substance abuse patients are available at the facility. RTCPB's Patients. Patients are six to eighteen years of age. RTCPB patients suffer from chemical dependencies and a wide range or psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, conduct disorders and attention deficit disorders. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, the average length of stay at RTCPB was 218 days. RTCPB routinely treats patients referred by the Department. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1990, 24% of total patient days were provided to patients referred by the Department. Ninety-five percent of all patients admitted to RTCPB are patients who were previously treated in an acute psychiatric care setting. RTCPB patients are physically healthy. RTCPB's Staff. RTCPB's staff consists of psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. Services Provided Directly to Patients. RTCPB provides diagnosis and twenty-four hour a day treatment of psychiatric illnesses and disorders to children and adolescents. RTCPB is an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents. Patients are admitted to the facility by a director of admissions and an admissions committee. A psychiatrist provides a diagnosis justifying admission. Psychiatric care is provided to patients through an interdisciplinary team composed of a psychiatrist, nurses, social workers, recreational therapists, psychologists and teachers. The team reviews the background, psychiatric and psychological assessment, and social history of each patient and develops a treatment plan for each patient. A psychiatrist meets with each patient for a few minutes each day, five days a week. The psychiatrist also meets with the treatment team for approximately one and one-half hours a day, four days a week. The multi-disciplinary treatment team provides care and nurturing in a variety of therapies provided in a highly structured setting. Treatment includes counseling, psychotropic medications, adjunctive therapies and schooling. School is conducted at the facility by teachers from the Palm Beach County School Board. A psychiatrist prescribes and monitors the use of psychotropic medications. Such medications are administered at the facility by a nurse. Registered nurses are at the facility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A psychiatrist is always on call to deal with emergencies. Detoxification treatment is available at the facility. RTCPB complies with the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code. RTCPB provides the services referenced in Section 395.002(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Other Services. RTCPB does not provide clinical laboratory services on its premises. Blood and urine samples are, however, taken by RTCPB personnel upon admission and from time to time after admission upon a physician's orders. Clinical laboratory services are available through an agreement with a non- affiliated laboratory. RTCPB provides diagnostic x-ray services and dental services by referring the patient to an off-site provider. RTCPB does not provide treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care at its facility. Emergency medical services are provided off-site to patients through non-affiliated hospitals. RTCPB has a referral agreement with Bethesda Memorial Hospital. RTCPB has an agreement with a group of family practice physicians. These physicians conduct physicals upon admission of a patient and when medically indicated. RTCPB projected in a 1990 budget filed with the Board that it would have the following approximate revenues: a. $131,000.00 from laboratory services; b. $176,000.00 from drug sales; c. $6,000.00 from diagnostic radiology services; d. $11,000.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $3,600.00 for electrocardiography services. RTCPB also projected in the 1990 budget the following approximate expenditures: a. $46,000.00 for laboratory services; b. $22,000.00 for drug sales; c. $2,500.00 for diagnostic radiology services; d. $400.00 for CT scanner services; and e. $1,600.00 for electrocardiography services. I. Accreditation. RTCPB is accredited by JCAHO. RTCPB is accredited and surveyed under JCAHO's consolidated standards. Daniel Memorial. On October 26, 1989, a Recommended Order was issued in Daniel Memorial. In the Conclusions of Law in Daniel Memorial, the Hearing Officer concluded that a medical facility is subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, only if it is a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes, which in turn incorporates the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer also concluded that Daniel Memorial Hospital was not a "hospital" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, was not subject to most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer in Daniel Memorial made the following conclusion of law: To meet the provisions of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra, Daniel Memorial would have to provide the services set forth in both Subparagraphs (a) and (b), above. Because Daniel Memorial does not regularly provide the services defined in Subparagraph (b), above, it is not a hospital with[in] the scope of Subsection 396.002(6) [sic], supra. However, Subsection 395.002(8), supra, defines Intensive Residential Treatment Programs (IRTP's) as specialty hospitals without reference to the provisions of Subsection 395.002(6), supra. It is under Subsection 395.002(8), supra, that Daniel Memorial specifically is licensed. Its beds are excluded specifically from consideration under Subsections (6) and (14) of Section 395.002, supra. It is concluded that IRTP's are not specialty hospitals defined by Subsection 395.002(14), supra. The staff of the Board filed exceptions to the Recommended Order in Daniel Memorial. The exceptions filed by the staff of the Board were rejected by the Board in a Final Order issued on March 1, 1990. In the Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial, the Board adopted the Recommended Order issued by the Hearing Officer in its entirety. The Final Order issued in Daniel Memorial has not been appealed or overturned. All of the Petitioners in these cases requested that the Board declare them exempt from most of the requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, because of their similarity to Daniel Memorial Hospital. Counsel for Manatee Palms and RTCPB also suggested that those facilities were exempt under the holding in Daniel Memorial simply because they are "intensive residential treatment programs." In a memorandum to the Board dated July 11, 1990, the Executive Director of the Board informed the Board of his action with regard to requests from entities like the Petitioners which had suggested that they were similarly situated to Daniel Memorial Hospital. In pertinent part, the Executive Director stated that "we are responding negatively to requests for exemption from these facilities for the reasons outlined." The reasons referred to by the Executive Director were set out in a memorandum dated June 25, 1990, from the Senior Attorney of the Board to the Executive Director. In essence, the Senior Attorney concluded that the "operation and licensure" of each entity seeking treatment similar to the treatment afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital should be reviewed to determine whether that entity constituted a "hospital" under Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Senior Attorney recommended the following: Accordingly, I recommend that this agency deny any specialty hospital IRTP's request to be relieved of Chapter 407 requirements and recommend that administrative complaints be filed against those which fail to comply with Chapter 407, Florida Statutes. The Board has not, however, taken any action against the Petitioners. In denying the Petitioners' request for exemption, the Executive Director of the Board indicated the following: The information you have provided is insufficient to establish that your facility falls within the narrow exception from reporting requirements afforded Daniel Memorial Hospital. Accordingly, your facility's request for an exemption from the reporting requirements of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes, is denied. The Board has failed to enunciate how, if at all, the Petitioners differ in their operation from Daniel Memorial Hospital. The Board did not take any action against the Petitioners inconsistently applying its Final Order in Daniel Memorial. The Board took the position during these proceedings that any medical facility which is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is a "hospital" under Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board's Position. The Department's Interpretation of Relevant Sections of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department is charged with the responsibility of licensing "hospitals" pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The term "hospital" is defined by Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "specialty hospital" are defined by Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). This definition incorporates by reference the definition of "hospital" contained in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The terms "intensive residential treatment program" are defined by Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets the terms "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(8), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to mean "specialty hospital" as used in Section 395.002(14), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). The Department interprets Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, to allow an intensive residential treatment program to be licensed as a "specialty hospital" if it meets the requirements of Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D-28.111, Florida Administrative Code. It is the Department's position that Rules 10D-28.100 through 10D- 28.111, Florida Administrative Code, require as a condition of licensure that intensive residential treatment programs provide services consistent with the services required to be provided by a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that all intensive residential treatment programs licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, are "hospital's" as defined in Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). It is the Department's position that the Petitioners must continue to meet the definition of a "hospital" pursuant to Section 395.002(6), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), to be entitled to continued licensure by the Department. The Board's Reliance on the Department's Licensure of a Facility. It has been the position of the Board that the fact that a facility is licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, constitutes the best evidence of whether the facility constitutes a "hospital" as defined in Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. The Board did not adequately explicate its policy of relying upon the Department's licensure action under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because of the failure of the Petitioners to prove that they have been substantially affected by any action of the Board; or That the Board, if it rejects recommendation number 1, issue a Final Order dismissing the Petitions in these cases because the Petitioners have failed to prove they are not "hospitals" under the definition of Section 407.002(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. La Amistad's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.B.1. 2 I.B.2. 3 I.B.1. 4 I.B.3. 5 I.B.4. I.C.1. The Department's action was consistent with the stipulation between the Department and La Amistad. Not relevant. 8 I.C.2. 9 I.A.1. 10 I.A.1-2. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. IV.7. and hereby accepted. The Executive Director's memorandum was sent in July instead of June. 14 I.A.3. 15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 16 I.A.3. 17-18 Hereby accepted. 19 See V.B.1. 20-22 Hereby accepted. 23 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 24 I.G.1. 25 I.D.1. 26 I.D.2. 27 I.E.3. 28 I.D.4. 29 I.E.4. See I.D.5. See I.F.1. See I.G.2. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 33 I.E.5. 34 Not relevant. 35 I.G.9. 36 I.H.10. 37 I.H.6. 38 I.H.4. 39 I.H.3. Not relevant. See I.H.1. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that La Amistad "does not regularly make available clinical laboratory services to its residents." Hereby accepted. 43 I.H.8. 44 I.H.9. The last sentence is not relevant. 45 I.H.8. 46-47 I.H.5. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49 I.I.2. 50-51 See I.I.3. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See I.H.1-10. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. Not relevant. Conclusion of law. La Amistad failed to prove exactly what the agreement with Florida Hospital was. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The failure of the Board to provide such evidence does not preclude a proper application of unambiguous statutory law. Manatee Palms' and RTCPB's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 III.B.1. 3 III.C.1. 4 III.B.2. 5-6 III.B.3. 7 III.C.2. 8 III.C.3. and D.1. 9 III.G.1. 10 III.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 11 III.G.3. 12 III.E.5. 13 III.E.6. 14 III.G.5. 15-16 III.G.6. III.G.8. III.H.6. III.G.2. and 9. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 III.H.1-2. III.H.3. and 5. III.H.3. III.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. 25-27 III.E.4. 28-30 Hereby accepted. The last sentence of 30 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. III.A.1. III.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. II.B.1. and II.D.1. 35 II.B.1. 36 II.C.1. 37 II.B.2. 38-39 II.B.3. 40 II.C.2. 41 II.C.3. 42 II.G.1. 43 II.I.1. and I.I.2-3. 44 II.G.4. 45 II.E.4. 46 II.E.5. 47 II.G.6. 48-49 II.G.7. 50 II.G.10. II.H.7. The last sentence is not relevant. II.G.2. and 11. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The suggestion that "individual psychiatric treatment is not routinely provided" is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 53 II.H.1-2. II.H.6. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See II.H.3. II.H.4. The suggestion that "other definitive medical treatment of similar extent" is not provided is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. 59 II.E.3. 60-62 Hereby accepted. 63 Not relevant. 64 II.A.1. 65 II.A.3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence; too speculative. IV.1. See IV.2. The Hearing Officers' comment concerning whether all intensive residential treatment programs are not hospitals is dicta. IV.3. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 69 IV.4. 70 IV.5. 71-72 Hereby accepted. Not relevant. Cumulative. 75-81 Hereby accepted. 82-83 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant. 84 V.A.3. 85 Not relevant. 86-87 Hereby accepted. 88 Not relevant. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 I.C.1. 2 I.G.1. 3 I.G.2. 4-5 I.G.3. 6 I.E.3. 7 I.E.4. 8 I.G.1. 9 I.H.1-9. 10 I.G.7. 11 I.G.8. 12 I.I.1. III.C.3. III.G.1. III.G.2. III.E.2. See III.D.5. III.G.3. III.G.4. and 7. III.D.6-7. and III.G.6. III.E.3. III.E.5. See III.H.1-5. III.H.7. 25 III.H.11. 26 III.I.1. 27 II.C.3. 28 II.G.1. 29 II.G.2. 30 II.D.5. and II.E.2. 31 II.D.4-5. 32 II.D.6. 33 II.F.1. and II.G.2. and 4. 34 II.G.2. and 4-5. 35 II.G.9. 36 II.E.3. 37 See II.H.1-6. 38 II.H.8. 39 II.G.13. 40 II.I.1. 41 V.A.1. and 6. 42 V.A.5. 43 V.A.7. 44 V.B.1. The Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Not supported by the weight of the evidence or a correct conclusion of law. Not relevant. 3 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 4 V.A.5. 5-6 Law. 7 I.A.1., II.A.1. and III.A.1. 8 IV.7-8. 9, 11, 16, 18, 30, 32-33, 41, 43, 46-47, 51 and 64 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They are only relevant, however, as they relate to one or more of the Petitioners. 10-11 I.G.1. 13 I.G.3. I.G.3, II.G.2. and III.G.3. I.G.6, II.G.7. and III.G.6. 17 Hereby accepted. 19 I.D.2., II.D.2-3. and III.D.2-3. Hereby accepted. II.D.4. and III.D.5. III.D.4. III.D.3. Hereby accepted. 25 I.D.4. II.D.5. and III.D.6. Hereby accepted. II.D.6. and III.D.7. 29 I.C.2. 31 II.D.4. and III.D.5. 34 I.G.3. 35 II.G.8. 36 I.G.7. 37 I.G.7. and I.H.6. 38-39 I.F.3. 40 I.G.2., II.G.2. and III.G.2. 42 Law. 44 I.G.2-5. 45 I.G.1. 48-50 Law. 52 I.G.2-5. 53 Law. 54 I.E.5. 55 I.G.5. 56-61 Hereby accepted. 62-63 V.A.5. 65 Not relevant. 66 V.A.8. 67 V.A.1. 68 V.A.9. See V.A.9. Hereby accepted. See V.A.9. 72 I.C.1., II.C.3. and III.C.3. 73 Not relevant. 74 I.A.4., II.A.4. and III.A.4. 75 Not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julia P. Forrester General Counsel Health Care Cost Containment Board 301 The Atrium 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Stephen M. Presnell Associate Public Counsel Peter Schwarz Associate Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Street Room 812 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
The Issue The issue is whether Hialeah Hospital, Inc. may be licensed for a 21-bed psychiatric unit, without first obtaining a certificate of need, on the basis that it provided psychiatric services before a certificate of need was statutorily required.
Findings Of Fact Background of the Controversy The Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the Department) is responsible for determining whether health care projects are subject to review under the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 381.701- 381.715, Florida Statutes. It also licenses hospitals under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities renders decisions about requests for grandfather status which would exempt a psychiatric service offered at hospital from certificate of need review. The Department's Office of Licensure and Certification issues licenses but does not grant grandfather exemptions. A hospital will not receive separate licensure for psychiatric beds unless a certificate of need has been obtained for those beds, or the beds are in a psychiatric unit which had been organized before certificate of need review was required. See Section 381.704(2), Florida Statutes (1987). A hospital can provide inpatient psychiatric services to a patient in one of three ways: a) as a patient housed among the general hospital population, b) as a patient housed in a special unit organized within the hospital and staffed by doctors, nurses and other personnel especially to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses, or c) in a hospital organized as a psychiatric specialty hospital. Serving patients through methods b and c requires special certificate of need approval and licensure. Most community hospitals place psychiatric patients among the general patient population; few hospitals create a distinct psychiatric unit; fewer hospitals still specialize as psychiatric hospitals. Hialeah Hospital, Inc. is a 411-bed general hospital in Hialeah, Florida. It does not currently hold a certificate of need for licensure of a distinct psychiatric unit. As a result, its reimbursement for psychiatric services from the Federal government for Medicare patients is limited. The Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) generally reimburses hospitals for services based upon flat rates which are paid according to categories known as diagnostic related groups. Hialeah Hospital now receives reimbursement for services it renders to psychiatric patients on this basis. If it is entitled to a grandfather exemption from certificate of need review, and its distinct psychiatric unit is separately licensed by the Department, Hialeah Hospital will receive cost-based reimbursement for services to psychiatric patients, which will result in higher income to the hospital. Approval of the grandfathering request will not result in a) any capital expenditure by the hospital, b) the addition of staff, or c) a change in the type of services currently offered at the hospital. Just before July 1, 1983, the hospital had an average daily census of 16-17 psychiatric patients. If the psychiatric services the hospital has offered do not qualify for grandfathering, Hialeah Hospital may apply for a certificate of need for a distinct psychiatric unit. Even without a psychiatric certificate of need, Hialeah is still entitled to continue to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses among its general population, and to receive the lower diagnostic related group reimbursement for those services from HCFA. Palmetto General Hospital is a licensed general hospital with 312 acute care beds and 48 separately licensed psychiatric short-term beds operated as a distinct psychiatric unit. It is located near Hialeah Hospital, and both hospitals serve the same geographic area. The primary markets of both hospitals overlap. They compete for patients, including psychiatric patients. Agency Action Under Review From 1973 to 1979 the license issued to Hialeah Hospital by the Department bore a designation for 21 psychiatric beds, based on information submitted in the hospital's licensure application. The hospital then dropped the psychiatric bed count from its licensure applications. This change probably was caused by a problem generated by an announcement from the Northwest Dade Community Health Center, Inc., the receiving facility for psychiatric emergencies in northwestern Dade County, which includes Hialeah. That center had written to the Hialeah Police Department, informing the police that when the center was not open, it had a crisis worker at the Hialeah Hospital emergency room, and that persons needing involuntary psychiatric hospitalization should be taken to the Hialeah Hospital emergency room. The only other hospital in Hialeah treating psychiatric patients was Palmetto General Hospital, which did not accept, as a general rule, patients who could not pay for care. The Hialeah Police Department thereafter began dropping psychiatric patients at Hialeah Hospital, much to the distress of the Hialeah Hospital emergency room staff. The Hospital thereafter dropped the designation of any of its beds as psychiatric beds on its annual licensure applications. It still received psychiatric patients from Jackson Memorial Hospital when that hospital reached its capacity for psychiatric patients. On its 1980 licensure application Hialeah Hospital collapsed all of its medical, surgical and psychiatric beds into a single figure. This was consistent with its practice of serving medical, surgical and psychiatric patients throughout the hospital. Hialeah Hospital filed similar licensure applications in 1981, 1982, 1983. In 1984 there was a dispute over the total number of beds to be licensed, which was resolved in early 1985. In 1985, after a change in the licensing statute which is discussed below, the Department informed Hialeah Hospital that its application for licensure was incomplete and could not be processed until Hialeah explained its basis for seeking separate licensure for 20 short-term psychiatric beds. In its response, Hialeah's Vice President stated: [W]e felt it was appropriate to indicate that Hialeah Hospital did accept psychiatric admissions. These patients have been randomly placed in the institution, many times based on other primary or secondary diagnoses. The application indicates bed usage, not that it is currently a discrete unit. Hialeah Hospital does currently have a Letter of Intent [on file] for establishment of a discrete med/psych unit. Hialeah Ex. 24a On August 1, 1985, the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification informed Hialeah Hospital by certified mail that the application for licensure of 20 short-term psychiatric beds was denied for failure to have obtained a certificate of need for them or to have obtained an exemption from review [both could only come from the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities]. The hospital was provided a clear point of entry to challenge this determination through a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, but Hialeah filed no petition for review of that decision. Instead, Hialeah pursued the certificate of need application which it had filed in April, 1985 for separately licensed psychiatric beds. There was no reason to challenge the August 1, 1985, denial because the factual bases alleged by the Department were true--the hospital had no certificate of need for psychiatric beds and had not yet asked the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities to decide whether Hialeah qualified for grandfathered beds. On October 21 and 23, 1986, Hialeah Hospital wrote to the Office of Community Health Facilities seeking a determination that it was entitled to have 21 pyschiatric beds grandfathered on its license. In certificate of need application 4025 Hialeah Hospital sought the establishment of a distinct 69 bed psychiatric unit at Hialeah, with separately licensed beds. The application went to hearing and was denied on its merits on February 17, 1987, in DOAH Case 85-3998. In his recommended order, the Hearing Officer discussed the issue of whether Hialeah Hospital was exempt from certificate of need review because it already had a psychiatric unit. He found that the issue was not appropriately raised in the proceeding before him, which was Hialeah Hospital's own application for a certificate of need to establish a psychiatric unit. He therefore found he lacked jurisdiction to consider the grandfathering issue. Hialeah Hospital v. HRS, 9 FALR 2363, 2397, paragraph 5 (HRS 1987). The Department adopted that ruling in its May 1, 1987, final order. Id. at 2365. A letter dated December 5, 1986, from the Office of Community Medical Facilities denied Hialeah's request to grandfather 21 short-term psychiatric beds on its license and thereby exempt them from certificate of need review, as requested in Hialeah's letters of October 21 and 23, 1986. The Department denied the grandfathering request for four reasons: When the Department conducted a physical plant survey on June 1, 1980, there were no psychiatric beds in operation at the hospital; The hospital bed count verification form returned to the Department on January 31, 1984 by the Director of Planning for Hialeah, Gene Samnuels, indicated that the hospital had no psychiatric beds; An inventory of psychiatric beds had been published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 17, 1984 which showed that Hialeah Hospital had no psychiatric beds, and Hialeah never contested that inventory; The Department had not received evidence demonstrating that psychiatric services were provided "in a separately set up and staffed unit between 1980 and 1985." This letter again gave Hialeah a point of entry to challenge the Department's decision to deny licensure of psychiatric beds and it was the genesis of Hialeah's petition initiating this case. It is significant that the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities gave Hialeah a clear point of entry to challenge the December 5, 1986, grandfathering denial with full knowledge that the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification had denied a request from Hialeah Hospital on August 1, 1985, to endorse psychiatric beds on Hialeah's 1985 license. The Departmental personnel knew that those two denials involved different issues. Once the Office of Licensure and Certification told the hospital it had to produce either a certificate of need or a grandfathering approval to have psychiatric beds endorsed on its license, the hospital had to turn to the Office of Community Health Facilities to get a ruling on its grandfathering claim. The letter of December 5, 1986, was the first ruling on the merits of Hialeah Hospital's claim that it was entitled to have 21 beds grandfathered. History of the Department's Specialty Bed Recognition Psychiatric Beds in Florida Hospitals Before July 1, 1983 Before April 1, 1983 no state statute or Department rule required that psychiatric beds in a hospital be located in physically distinct units. Psychiatric patients could be located throughout a hospital. They were not required to be placed in rooms having distinguishing characteristics, or to use group therapy rooms, dining rooms, or other rooms exclusively dedicated to use by psychiatric patients. There were, of course, hospitals that had distinct psychiatric units, and some entire hospitals which were specifically licensed as psychiatric hospitals. After 1983, a hospital had to obtain a certificate of need to organize what had previously been diffuse psychiatric services into a distinct unit dedicated to serving patients with psychiatric diagnoses. Today no special certificate of need is required to serve psychiatric patients in the general hospital population, but without separate licensure the hospital receives Medicare reimbursement from the federal government for psychiatric patients at the level established by the diagnostic related groups, not cost based reimbursement. Before July 1, 1983 annual hospital licensure application forms asked hospitals to identify their number of psychiatric beds as an item of information. The hospital licenses issued, however, were based on the hospital's total number of general medical-surgical beds, a category which included psychiatric beds. The 1983 Amendments to the Florida Statutes and the Department's Rules on Specialty Beds In April of 1983, the Department adopted a rule which established a separate need methodology for short-term psychiatric beds, Rule 10-5.11(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the Legislature amended the statutes governing the hospital licensing, Section 395.003, Florida Statutes (1983) by adding a new subsection (4) which read: The Department shall issue a license which specifies the number of hospital beds on the face of the license. The number of beds for the rehabilitation or psychiatric service category for which the Department has adopted by rule a specialty bed need methodology under s. 381.494 shall be specified on the face of the hospital license. All beds which are not covered by any specialty bed need methodology shall be specified as general beds. Section 4, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida (underlined language was added). In the same Act, the Legislature amended the planning law to require hospitals to apply for certificates of need to change their number of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds. Section 2, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 381.494(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). The Department's rules defined short-term psychiatric services as: [A] category of services which provide a 24- hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Rule 10- 5.11(25)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1983), effective April 7, 1983. A minimum size for any new psychiatric unit was prescribed in Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)7., which states: In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short-term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. After the effective date of the rule, April 7, 1983, no hospital could organize its psychiatric services into a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff unless the unit would have at least 15 beds. This did not mean that a hospital which already had organized a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff had to have at least 15 beds in its unit to continue operation. Whatever the number of beds, whether fewer or greater than 15, that number had to appear on the face of the hospital's license. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). To change that number, the hospital had to go through the certificate of need process. Section 381.494(1)(g) Florida Statutes (1983). Those hospitals whose pre-existing units were endorsed on their licenses can be said to have had those units "grandfathered". There is no specific statutory exemption from certificate of need review for pre-existing units, but such treatment is implicit in the regulatory scheme. The Department's Grandfather Review Process To know which hospitals were entitled to continue to operate discrete psychiatric units without obtaining a certificate of need, the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities had to identify hospitals which had separate psychiatric units before the July 1, 1983, effective date of Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). An inventory of beds in the existing psychiatric units also was necessary to process new certificate of need applications. The Department's rule methodology authorized additional beds in psychiatric units based upon a projected need of 15 beds per 10,000 population. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1., Florida Administrative Code (1983). The Legislature approved the psychiatric service categories which the Department had already adopted by rule when it enacted Section 4 of Chapter 83- 244, Laws of Florida. The Legislature thereby validated a process the Department had initiated in 1976 with its Task Force on Institutional Needs. That group had developed methodologies to be used throughout the state to determine the need for different types of medical services, because local health systems agencies were reviewing CON applications based upon idiosyncratic methodologies. To develop review criteria for psychiatric services, the Task Force had to both define psychiatric services and determine how it should measure them. In doing so, the Department looked for assistance to publications of entities such as the American Hospital Association and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. According to the American Hospital Association, psychiatric services are services delivered in beds set up and staffed in units specifically designated for psychiatric services. In the Task Force report, a psychiatric bed was defined as: A bed in a clinical care unit located in a short-term, acute care hospital or psychiatric hospital which is not used to provide long-term institutional care and which is suitably equipped and staffed to provide evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of persons with emotional disturbances. An inpatient care unit or clinical care unit is a group of inpatient beds and related facilities and assigned personnel in which care is provided to a defined and limited class of patients according to their particular care needs. HRS Exhibit 14 at 92 and 1-5. The definition of a psychiatric bed in the Report of the Department Task Force on Institutional Needs is compatible with the requirements of the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board in its Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting Manual. Reports made by hospitals to the Hospital Cost Containment Board include information about services provided in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units. The information provided to the Board assisted the Department in determining which Florida hospitals already were providing psychiatric services in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units before separate licensure became necessary. The Department surveyed hospitals to determine the number of existing beds in distinct psychiatric units. It also looked to old certificates of need which referenced psychiatric services at hospitals, reports hospitals had made to the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board, to past licensure applications the Department had received from hospitals, and to the Department's 1980 physical plant survey. These sources of information were, however, imperfect, for the reasons which follow: 1. Certificates of Need Issued 22. Before July 1, 1983, certificates of need were required for the initiation of new services which involved capital expenditures above a certain threshold dollar amount. Hospitals which had a long-standing psychiatric units would have had no occasion to request a certificate of need for psychiatric services. Review of certificates issued would not turn up a hospital with a mature psychiatric service. 2. Hospital Cost Containment Board Information 23. The reports from hospitals during the early years of the Hospital Cost Containment Board are not entirely reliable, because the hospitals did not yet have uniform accounting systems in place, despite the Board's attempt to establish uniform accounting methods through its reporting system manual. Hospitals commonly made errors in their reports. If the reports were prepared correctly, they would identify hospitals with discrete psychiatric units. Hialeah's HCCB Reports for 1981, 1982 and 1983 indicated that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff, no psychiatric beds and no psychiatric services. 3. Departmental Survey Letters 24. In Spring, 1983, the Department tried to verify the existing inventory of beds for specialty services such as psychiatric services, comprehensive medical rehabilitation services and substance abuse services. There is no record, however, that this survey letter was sent to Hialeah Hospital. In late 1983 or early 1984, the Department again attempted to establish inventories for psychiatric beds and rehabilitation beds. It distributed a cover letter and a form entitled "Hospital Bed Count Verification", which asked hospitals to confirm the Department's preliminary count of the hospital's "number of licensed beds". Hialeah's planner returned the form verifying that Hialeah Hospital was licensed for 411 "acute general" beds and that it had no short or long term psychiatric beds. The answer was correct, for that is the figure which appeared on Hialeah's license at that time. The Department did not ask the hospitals for an average daily census of short-term psychiatric patients. The cover letter for the survey form told hospital administrators that the Department was seeking to verify its preliminary bed count for services for which a special bed need methodology had been established, viz., long and short term psychiatric beds, substance abuse beds and comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds. The cover letter drew attention to the Department's intention to use the data collected from the responses to the form as a beginning inventory for short-term psychiatric beds. The cover letter also cautioned hospitals that when completing the form, they should "keep in mind the service definitions". Copies of the definitions were attached to the form. The appropriate inference to be drawn from the answer given by Hialeah Hospital to the survey form was that in January, 1984, the hospital had no beds organized into a short term psychiatric unit. This is consistent with the later letter from the hospital's vice president quoted in Finding of Fact 6, above. The Department published on February 17, 1984, its base inventory of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The publication stated that "any hospital wishing to change the number of beds dedicated to one of the specific bed types listed will first be required to obtain a certificate of need." 10 Florida Administrative Weekly at 493. Hialeah was shown as having no psychiatric beds. Id. at 498. The notice did not specifically inform the hospitals of the right to petition for a formal hearing to challenge the inventory figures published. 4. Licensure Files 25. Although, the Department's licensure application form listed "psychiatric" as a possible hospital bed utilization category before 1983, these categories were set up for informational purposes only. No definitions were given to hospitals describing how beds should be allocated among the categories available on the form, making those figures unreliable. Before 1980 Hialeah Hospital had listed psychiatric beds on its licensure applications, see Finding of Fact 5, above. Since 1980 it listed no psychiatric beds. 5. Physical Plant Survey The Department performed a physical plant survey in 1980 to determine the total number of beds in service at each hospital. That survey did not attempt to make distinctions between different types of services listed on the survey form. The Department's architect who performed the survey did not attempt to evaluate the quality or intensity of the psychiatric services provided at any hospital. Each of the types of information the Department examined to determine the existing inventory of short-term psychiatric beds in 1983 had weaknesses, and no single source is dispositive. It is difficult to credit the assertion that Hialeah Hospital had a distinct psychiatric unit before July, 1983 which was not reflected in any of these sources of information. The use of multiple sources of information served as a cross-check on information from each source. It is understandable that Hialeah would not have applied for a certificate of need to operate a separate psychiatric unit. Before 1983, no such application was needed if the establishment of the unit entailed an expenditure of money below a threshold amount. All of its reports to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, however, indicate that there was no separate psychiatric service at the hospital and that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff. With respect to the Department's survey letters, while the 1984 survey form itself did not specifically inform hospital administrators that their responses would be used to establish a base inventory of psychiatric beds, the cover letter did make that clear. This should have put the hospital's planner, who filled out the form, on notice that if Hialeah had a discrete, short-term psychiatric service the number of beds in that unit should be listed. What is perhaps the most significant point is that the hospital reported no psychiatric beds on its licensure application at all from 1980 to 1985. Medical doctors in general practice can and do treat psychiatric patients, in addition to doctors who specialize in psychiatry. No doubt patients commonly were admitted to the hospital who had primary diagnoses of psychiatric illnesses. The hospital's licensure filings, however, since 1979 fail to record any psychiatric beds. This is important evidence that the hospital did not regard itself as having any distinct unit organized to provide psychiatric care. The Hospital's 1985 correspondence from the Hospital's vice president to the Department, quoted in Finding of Fact 6 confirms this. The failure to list any psychiatric beds at Hialeah on the Department's 1980 physical plant survey is not significant, since determining the number of psychiatric beds was not the focus of that survey. It is true that the Department never conducted site visits at all hospitals to determine whether they had a) distinct psychiatric units, b) psychiatric medical directors, c) written psychiatric admission and treatment policies, or d) psychiatric policy and procedures manuals. The efforts the Department did make to establish the beginning inventory of psychiatric beds were reasonable, however Hialeah Hospital's Licensure History and Efforts to Obtain Grandfather Status The entries on Hialeah's applications for annual licensure from the Department are cataloged above, and need not be repeated. During the years 1980-84, after it ceased listing psychiatric beds on its licensure application, psychiatric services were still being provided to patients throughout the hospital. In 1984, the hospital engaged in correspondence with the Department over the appropriate number of licensed beds for the hospital as a whole. Ultimately the hospital and the Department agreed that 411 beds should be licensed. In its 1985 licensure application, Hialeah then requested that 20 short-term psychiatric beds be listed on the license. The Office of Licensure and Certification questioned this. Ultimately, the Office of Licensure and Certification refused to endorse those 20 psychiatric beds on the license because there was no certificate of need on file for them, nor any statement from the Office of Community Medical Facilities granting the hospital an exemption from that licensure requirement. Hialeah Hospital did not challenge that decision in a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The discussions between the hospital and the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities continued, and by late October, 1986, Hialeah requested the Department to approve 21 short-term psychiatric beds at the facility, and sent the Department backup material which it believed justified a grandfather determination. After review, the Department denied the grandfather request by letter dated December 5, 1986. The Department's Action Regarding Other Grandfathering Requests Hialeah's is not the first request the Department received for grandfathering beds. After June of 1983, when the Legislature required CON approval for hospitals to change their number of psychiatric or rehabilitation beds, a number of institutions made similar requests. 1. Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation Beds The rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds was developed by the Department at the same time as the rule on psychiatric beds. The Department used a similar process to determine the existing inventory of both types of beds. The Department determined that preexisting comprehensive medical rehabilitation units at Parkway General Hospital, Naples Community Hospital, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Holy Cross Hospital, and University Community Hospital entitled those facilities to grandfathering of their comprehensive medical rehabilitation services. The Department has also determined that a preexisting distinct psychiatric unit at Palmetto General Hospital entitled that institution to grandfather status for its psychiatric beds. Parkway General Parkway General Hospital did not specify rehabilitation beds on its licensure applications for the years 1980 through 1984. The Department denied Parkway's request for endorsement of 12 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds on its 1985 license because Parkway had not obtained a certificate of need for them or an exemption from review. The Department thereafter determined that Parkway had been providing comprehensive medical rehabilitation services before June, 1983 in a physically distinct and separately staffed unit consisting of 12 beds. It then endorsed 12 beds on Parkway's license, even though the rule which became effective in July, 1983 would require a minimum unit size of 20 beds for any hospital organizing a new comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit. See Rule 10-5.011(24), Florida Administrative Code. Naples Community Hospital The Department granted Naples Community Hospital a grandfather exemption for its rehabilitation beds in February, 1987. In had not listed the rehabilitation beds on its license application for the years 1983-1985, had not returned the Department's bed count verification form, nor did it challenge the bed count which the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The hospital had applied for and received a certificate of need in January of 1981 to establish a 22-bed rehabilitation unit and that unit began operation in late 1982. The Department ultimately determined that the hospital had provided rehabilitation services in a physically distinct unit and the services were organized and delivered in a manner consistent with applicable regulatory standards. It granted a grandfather request in February, 1987. Orlando Regional Medical Center A grandfather exemption for 16 rehabilitation beds was granted to Orlando Medical Center in 1986. The 16-bed brain injury unit had been authorized by the Department through certificate of need number 2114 before the Department had adopted its rule governing comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds in 1983. The services were provided in a physically distinct unit. The Department determined the 20-bed minimum size for a new unit did not apply to a unit which qualified for grandfathering. Holy Cross Hospital The Department granted a grandfather exemption for comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds to Holy Cross Hospital after a proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings to require the Department to recognize the existence of a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation center. The Department determined by a site visit that Holy Cross had established a separate unit, probably in 1974, long before the Department's comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit rule became effective in July, 1983. The unit had its own policy manual, quality assurance reports, patient screening criteria, and minutes of multidisciplinary team staff conferences. The hospital had neglected to report the unit in its filings with the Hospital Cost Containment Board but the hospital contended that it never treated the unit as a separate unit for accounting purposes, and had not understood the need to report the unit as a distinct one under Hospital Cost Containment Board reporting guidelines. The hospital corrected its reporting oversight. The grandfathering is consistent with the hospital's actual establishment of the unit long before the Department's rules went into effect. University Community Hospital A dispute over whether to grandfather a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit which went through a Chapter 120 administrative hearing and entry of a final order involved University Community Hospital (UCH). The Department initially determined that the nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds at UCH had been in existence before July, 1983 and were exempt from certificate of need review. That decision was challenged in a formal administrative proceeding by a competing hospital, Tampa General. The competitor was successful, for both the Hearing Officer in the recommended order and the Department in the final order determined that University Community Hospital's 9 bed rehabilitation unit was not entitled to be grandfathered. University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 11 FALR 1150 (HRS Feb. 14, 1989). In determining that grandfathering was inappropriate, the Department found that the hospital had not prepared separate policies and procedures for its rehabilitation unit before the rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds became effective, and that the unit did not have a physical therapy room on the same floor as the patients. The beds supposedly dedicated to rehabilitative care were mixed with non- rehabilitative beds, so that a semiprivate room might have one bed used for rehabilitative care and another for an unrelated type of care. This conflicted with the requirement that the rehabilitation unit be physically distinct, with all patients and support services located on the same area or floor, rather than scattered throughout the hospital. The Department also determined that many hospitals offer physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy, but that to qualify as a comprehensive medical rehabilitation center, these services had to be coordinated in a multidisciplinary approach to the patient's needs, which had not been the case at University Community Hospital. The common strand running through the grandfathering decisions on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds is that grandfathering is appropriate when a hospital demonstrates that before the comprehensive medical rehabilitation rule became effective in July, 1983, it had a separate unit which met the standards and criteria for a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit (other than the minimum size for new units). Psychiatric Beds Tampa General Hospital Only two cases involve a decision on whether psychiatric services at a hospital qualify for grandfathering. Tampa General Hospital, which was owned by the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, operated 93 psychiatric beds in 1981, 71 at Hillsborough County Hospital and 22 at Tampa General Hospital. A certificate of need granted in 1981 authorized the expenditure of $127,310,000 for the consolidation of both hospitals and an overall reduction of 14 psychiatric beds after the hospitals were integrated. When the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority obtained its certificate of need, it was not necessary to differentiate between general acute care beds and psychiatric beds for licensure purposes. Increased demand for acute care beds led Tampa General to close its psychiatric unit and make those 22 beds available for ordinary acute care. After the 1983 statutory and rule changes regarding the separate licensure of psychiatric beds, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority told the Department that Tampa General had no psychiatric beds in operation. On its 1985 licensure application, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority applied for licensure for 22 psychiatric beds at Tampa General and 77 at Hillsborough Hospital. The Department denied the request for the psychiatric beds at Tampa General. The Final Order entered in Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 8 FALR 1409 (Feb. 16, 1986), determined that there had been a discontinuation in the use of psychiatric beds at Tampa General, and that to allow Tampa General to add psychiatric beds after the statutory and rule changes in 1983 would frustrate the certificate of need process and would be detrimental to good health care planning. Palmetto General Hospital Palmetto General Hospital participated in an administrative hearing in 1975 regarding the disapproval of its proposed expansion, which included the dedication of one floor and 48 beds as a psychiatric unit. The Hearing Officer found that there was a need for psychiatric beds in the community and recommended that the Secretary of the Department issue a certificate of need "for that portion of the applicant's proposed capital expenditures relating to the addition of a 48 bed psychiatric unit". Palmetto General Exhibit 32, at 12, paragraph 2. The order of the Hearing Officer was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal in Palmetto General Hospital, Inc. v. Department of HRS, 333 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The approval of the 48 psychiatric beds is clear only from a review of the Hearing Officer's order. Certificate of Need 292X was issued for the 48 psychiatric beds. Palmetto General exhibit 45. Palmetto received Medicare certification for its psychiatric inpatient unit, and listed 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its licensure applications each year from 1979 to 1983. It failed to show its psychiatric beds on the bed count verification survey form sent by the Department. Palmetto General's chief financial officer told the Department on June 10, 1983 that Palmetto General did not have psychiatric beds in a separately organized and staffed unit. This resulted in the issuance of a license which showed no psychiatric beds. The Department itself wrote to the administrator of Palmetto to learn why the 48 short-term psychiatric beds had not been listed on Palmetto's application for licensure in 1985. Palmetto wrote back and acknowledged that it did have 48 short-term psychiatric beds. A license showing those 48 beds was then issued. Thereafter, staff from the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning took the position that the 48 short-term psychiatric beds should not have been listed on the license, and the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification requested that the 1985 license containing the endorsement for those 48 psychiatric beds be returned to the Department for cancellation. Palmetto then sought an administrative hearing on the attempted cancellation of the license. Palmetto and the Department entered into a Final Order dated March 9, 1986 which agreed that Palmetto met all the requirements for the designation of 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its license. Palmetto, had, in fact, operated a 48 bed psychiatric unit on its third floor since 1981, but moved that unit to the sixth floor in 1985. It was dedicated exclusively to psychiatric patients and there were specific policy and procedure manuals developed and used in dealing with psychiatric patients since 1981. The history of Palmetto's licensure is certainly one replete with contradictions. It is inexplicable that the chief financial officer of the hospital would have told the Department in 1983 that it had no separately organized and staffed psychiatric unit when, in fact, it had such a unit. It was also unclear why it would have shown no psychiatric beds on the bed count verification form returned in late December or early January, 1984, or why its April, 1983, and its 1985/1986 license application forms listed no psychiatric beds. Nonetheless, it had obtained a certificate of need for a psychiatric unit after administrative litigation and an appeal to the District Court of Appeal. The unit was opened and remained continuously in existence. It had appropriate policies and procedures in place for a distinct psychiatric unit as the 1983 statutory and rule amendments required for separate licensure of psychiatric beds. History of Psychiatric Bed Services at Hialeah Hospital Since at least 1958, Hialeah Hospital has had psychiatrists on its medical staff, and the number of psychiatric physicians on staff has increased. Thirteen psychiatrists had admitting privileges at the hospital by 1983; there are now 23 psychiatrists with privileges. As is true with most community hospitals, physicians specializing in psychiatry would admit patients to the general population at Hialeah Hospital if they needed intensive psychotherapy or medication which needed to be monitored by nurses. Patients who were homicidal, suicidal or intensely psychotic were not admitted to Hialeah Hospital. Those patients need a more intensive psychiatric environment, either in a locked psychiatric unit or in a psychiatric specialty hospital. The persons physicians placed at Hialeah through 1983 did not need the intensive services of a discrete psychiatric unit. Hialeah Hospital indicated on its licensure application to the Department that it had 21 psychiatric beds throughout the 1970's, but ceased this listing in the 1980's as set forth in Finding of Fact 5 above. The nature of the services available at the hospital had remained constant. Under the psychiatric diagnosis coding system published in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual III, (which is commonly used by psychiatrists) Hialeah Hospital had an average daily census of 25 patients with primary or secondary psychiatric diagnoses in 1980, and 18 in 1981. Only about 25 percent of those patients had a primary psychiatric discharge diagnosis. The additional patients had secondary psychiatric diagnoses. Hialeah must rely on these secondary diagnoses to argue that its average daily census for psychiatric patients approached 21 beds. It was not until 1985 that Hialeah consolidated its psychiatric services to a medical/psychiatric unit. That unit serves patients with medical and psychiatric diagnosis as well as patients with solely psychiatric diagnoses. Before 1983, there was no medical director of psychiatry at Hialeah Hospital, and no separate policies and procedures for the admission of patients to a psychiatric unit, nor any staff dedicated to the care of psychiatric patients. To be sure, the hospital was in a position to provide quality psychiatric care to patients whose needs were psychotherapy, monitored medication, or individual counseling by psychiatric physicians and nurses. This reflects the reality that not all patients who need to be placed in the hospital for psychiatric care require the services of a separate medical/psychiatric unit. Patients with more acute psychiatric illness do need interdisciplinary approaches to their care. These interdisciplinary approaches are more expensive than serving psychiatric patients in the general hospital population. This is why the Federal government provides higher, cost-based reimbursement to the hospitals with specialty psychiatric licenses. Hialeah has not proven that the psychiatric services it was providing before 1983 were significantly different from those provided in typical community hospitals which did not have distinct psychiatric units. Hialeah's long-standing relationship with the Northwest Community Mental Health Center is not especially significant. Certainly, the Center was aware that Hialeah was a potential source of psychiatric care. Baker Act patients who needed hospitalization were taken there between 1980 and 1983. There was a flow of patients back and forth between the Center and the hospital's inpatient population, and discharge plans by Hialeah's social workers included referrals back to the Mental Health Center for follow-up and outpatient care. Similarly, the Dade-Monroe Mental Health Board knew that Hialeah was a potential provider of inpatient psychiatric services. The predecessor to the current local health council, the health systems agency of South Florida, recorded that there were psychiatric admissions at Hialeah Hospital in the early 1980's, and the health systems agency recommended a conversion of existing beds to psychiatric services because of a need for additional psychiatric services in the area. None of this, however, means that Hialeah had operated a distinct psychiatric unit before 1983 which entitles it to grandfather status.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Hialeah Hospital for grandfather status for 21 short-term psychiatric beds, and the inclusion of those short-term psychiatric beds on its license and on the Department's bed inventory be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1989.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center, Inc.'s ("PBMC"), application for a certificate of need ("CON") to build a 60-bed inpatient rehabilitation hospital in Palm Beach County, Florida, should be approved, or denied (as proposed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") in preliminary action.). By petition filed with HRS on August 1, 1984, PBMC invoked Section 120.57(1) remedies to contest DHRS' preliminary denial of its application for a CON authorizing establishment of an inpatient rehabilitation hospital at its medical campus in Jupiter, Florida, by converting 60 existing skilled nursing beds to comprehensive medical rehabilitation inpatient beds. On August 14, 1984, HRS forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer to conduct the requested proceedings. Petitions to intervene for the purpose of contesting issuance of a CON to PBMC were subsequently filed by NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute, Rehab Hospital Services Corporation, and University Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (collectively referred to a "NME"). Intervention was granted and final hearing was set for May 1-3, 1985. On PBMC's subsequent unopposed motion for continuance, hearing was reset for July 8-10, 1985; then, on Intervenor's unopposed motion, continued and reset for October 21-23, 1985. At final hearing on October 21-23, 1985, PBMC presented (in support of its application) the testimony of Dino Cagni, Frank Griffith, Richard Chidsey, M. D., Thomas Schultz, and Woodrin Grossman. Elizabeth Dudek testified on behalf of HRS. NME presented (in opposition to PBMC's application) the testimony of Mark Rottenberg, M. D., Jerry Ingran, Tom R. Futch, and Dan Sullivan. PBMC exhibit Nos. 1 thorugh 20, HRS exhibit nos. 1, 2A, and 2B, and NME exhibit nos. 1 thorugh 9 were received in evidence. The parties stipulated that the CON application at issue is governed by statutory criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, except for Section 381.494(6)(c) and (13), which they agreed were either inapplicable or were satisfied by the PBMC application. They agreed that rule criteria in DHRS Rule 10-5.11(1)-(9), (11), (12), and (24), Florida Administrative Code, also applied. The transcript of hearing was filed on December 2, 1985. PBMC and NME filed post-hearing memoranda and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (including responses) by January 20, 1985--within the time agreed on at hearing. (Explicit rulings on their proposed findings are contained in the attached Appendix.) HRS filed no proposed findings or memorandum of law. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the following facts are determined.
Findings Of Fact Background PBMC, a nonprofit corporation organized in the early seventies to serve the health care needs of residents of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County, owns and operates a community not-for-profit hospital known as Jupiter Hospital. Jupiter Hospital is a 156-bed acute care hospital. It is the northernmost hospital in Palm Beach County and provides health care services to the residents of northern Palm Beach and southern Martin Counties. PBMC also owns and operates a nonprofit 120-bed nursing home known as the Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion, located in the same complex as Jupiter Hospital. PBMC is governed by an eight-member Board of Directors. Jupiter Hospital is governed by a Board consisting of 22 members: 11 are physicians and 11 are lay persons from the community. PBMC also has a management contract with HCA Management Company. Pursuant to this contract, HCA Management Company provides an administrator and a finance director. All other employees are employed by PBMC. Overall policy decisions regarding the operation of Jupiter Hospital and Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion are made by the PBMC Board. The Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion, however, has a separate Board of Directors which has never voted on the CON application at issue here. On or about March 15, 1984, PBMC submitted an application for a CON to establish a 60-bed comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation facility on the PBMC campus in Jupiter. The application called for the conversion of 60 nursing home beds in the Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion to rehabilitation ("rehab") beds, and renovations and improvements to the first floor of the two-story nursing home to accommodate the new rehab facility and the services it would offer. (PBMC Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) On or about July 2, 1984, HRS (preliminarily) denied PBMC's application. (HRS Exhibit No. 1) PBMC filed a timely petition for a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge HRS' decision. On September 12 and October 9, 1984, NME Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitation Institute, Rehab Hospital Services Corp., and University Rehabilitation Services, Inc., moved to intervene in this proceeding. On October 2, 1984, and January 21, 1985, these motions were granted. NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute is a 60-bed for-profit comprehensive inpatient rehab hospital under construction in Delray Beach, south Palm Beach County, on the campus of Delray Medical Center. The name of the hospital was changed recently to Seacrest Hospital. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. will have operational responsibility for Seacrest Hospital-- scheduled to open in the spring of 1986. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. is a for-profit corporation that operates comprehensive rehab facilities. It also owns and will operate Treasure Coast Hospital, a 40-bed freestanding comprehensive rehabilitation hospital under construction in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. This hospital, like Seacrest, is scheduled to open in the spring of 1986. NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute and Rehab Hospital Services Corp., are wholly-owned subsidiaries of National Medical Enterprises. National Medical Enterprises is one of the largest for-profit chains of acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, long-term facilities, and rehabilitation hospitals in the world. National Medical Enterprises acquired Rehab Hospital Services Corp. in February, 1985. PBMC proposes to convert the first floor of its two story nursing home into a comprehensive inpatient rehab facility. On the first floor, there are two wings (with 30 beds in each) that will be converted. In addition, approximately 10,000 square feet of new construction will be necessary to house some of the rehab services. (PBMC Exhibit No. 2) The second story of the building will remain in service as a 60-bed nursing home. At hearing, PBMC proposed, in the alternative, to convert only 30 of the nursing home beds to inpatient rehab beds. This alternative calls for conversion of only one wing of 30 beds on the first floor of the nursing home. New construction required to accommodate the proposed rehab services would remain the same. (PBMC Exhibit No. 2) The 30-bed proposal has been approved by a majority of the members of the PBMC Board, although the nursing home's Board has not voted on it. REHAB BED NEED IN DISTRICT IX PBMC is located in Palm Beach County, which is in HRS District IX. District IX also includes the counties of Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, and Indian River. (NME Exhibit No. 9) Although at the time of hearing, there were no existing, licensed inpatient rehab beds in District IX, there are 100 CON-approved beds. (PBMC Exhibit No. 10; NME Exhibit No. 9) The total CON-approved beds consist of the 60-bed Seacrest Hospital and the 40-bed Treasure Coast Hospital, both of which are owned by NME, but under the operational control of Rehab Hospital Services Corp., a corporate subsidiary. HRS measures the need for inpatient rehab beds using Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code. The need determination of Rule 10-5.11(24) has two components. The first part, set out at subsection (c)1., consists of a mathematical formula with which HRS initially calculates the numerical need for rehab beds. The second part of the rule enumerates the following factors that should also be considered in measuring the need for additional rehab beds: historic, current and projected incidence and prevalence of disabling conditions and chronic illness in the population in the service district by age and sex group; trends in utilization by various categories of third party payors; existing and projected inpatients in need of rehab services; and the availability of specialized staff. (Rule 10 5.11(24)(c)2., Fla. Admin. Code) Numerical Need Numerical bed-need is calculated using the mathematical formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(24). (NME Exhibit No. 9) If applied to District IX for the year 1990, a numerical need for 83 beds is shown. HRS already has, however, already approved 100 beds in District IX. Thus, under this formula, all parties agree there is an excess of 17 rehab through 1990. (NME Exhibit No. 9) Other Indicia of Need But the fact that the mathematical formula shows no need for additional rehab beds does not require denial of an application. Need may be shown using the other factors listed in the rule, irrespective of whether the formula shows numerical need. For the purpose of demonstrating need under these additional indicia of the HRS rule, PBMC presented a methodology and need analysis developed by Richard Chidsey, M. D. (a psychiatrist on the staff of PBMC), and applied by Thomas Schultz, as health care planner. Dr. Chidsey selected various categories of diagnostically related groupings ("DRGs") which he considered to be categories of acute care patients who would be candidates for treatment in an inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Then, based on his experience, he designated a percentage in each DRG category to represent those patients who he felt would need such rehab hospitalization. Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz then identified six area hospitals in Palm Beach and Martin Counties which they considered to be within the catchment area for PBMC's proposed rehab beds. Mr. Schultz then obtained 1984 DRG discharge data (in the categories designated by Dr. Chidsey) from each of the six hospitals. Using this information, Mr. Schult projected that those six hospitals would generate 919 referrals to the rehab beds at PBMC. Based on these projected referrals, Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz concluded that the beds proposed by PBMC were needed and would attain the requisite levels of occupancy mandated by HRS rehab rule. For several reasons, this methodological is rejected as lacking in credibility. Dr. Chidsey, a staff psychologist at PBMC, has not had an inpatient rehab practice since the mid 1970s. His practice in Palm Beach County does not involve inpatient rehab services and only a small portion of his practice involves patients needing rehabilitation for major disabilities. In opposition to the DRG analysis made by Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz, NME presented the testimony of Mark Rottenberg, M.D., and Dan Sullivan, an expert in health care planning and finance. Dr. Rottenberg is a pyschiatrist who lives in Detroit, Michigan, and maintains an active inpatient rehab practice. Dr. Rottenberg was critical of the DRG categories and referral percentages chosen by Dr. Chidsey, and testified that Dr. Chidsey's analysis significantly overstates the number of patients needing inpatient rehabilitation in many of the categories chosen. Dr. Chidsey's methodology is one which is not generally used or accepted by health care planners, and has not been subject to verification. This methodology, admittedly an institution specific methodology for looking at bed need and utilization, if applied to District IX as a whole, would predict the need for approximately 800 inpatient rehab beds or ten times the number predicted by the HRS rule. This is a gross overstatement of need, one which even PBMC does not defend. The weight to be given Dr. Chidsey's opinion on the need for the proposed hospital is also affected by his obvious personal stake in the outcome. If approved, the proposed rehab hospital would, in all likelihood, be under his direction and control. He has worked to establish such a rehab hospital for many year, yet he opposed earlier applications for rehab beds in Palm Beach County because they would have competed with outpatient units with which he worked. Dr. Rottenberg testified in a more detached manner and his recent inpatient rehab experience is more extensive than Dr. Chidsey's. His criticism of Dr. Chidsey's analysis is persuasive and Dr. Chidsey's methodology, as applied by Mr. Schultz, is rejected as lacing in credibility. The lack of need for additional rehab beds in District IX reflected by the mathematical formula is corroborated by the fact that Dr. Chidsey refers only a very small number of his patients to existing and available inpatient beds in Broward or Dade County. These counties are close enough so that if the need for beds is as pressing as PBMC suggests it is reasonable to expect that Dr. Chidsey would be referring more patients for inpatient rehab care. Another factor supporting a finding that the proposed rehab inpatient beds are not needed is the absence of any existing utilization data relating to the 100 approved (but not yet operational) beds in District IX. Since the district is already overbedded (according to the numerical formula), prudent health care planning would suggest that the two proposed facilities be allowed to open and their actual utilization determined before further rehab beds are added. PBMC correctly points out that, as a group, elderly people have a greater need for inpatient rehab services than younger people, and that Palm Beach County has a higher percentage of elderly people than the state as a whole. But the elderly nature of the population is a factor which has already been taken into account in the acute care discharge portion of the rehab methodology. The availability of ample outpatient rehab facilities has a tendency to reduce the average length of stay of patients at inpatient rehab facilities. There are numerous outpatient rehab facilities available in Palm Beach County. There is a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility ("CORF") in West Palm Beach and another CORF has recently been approved at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, a short distance from PBMC. Also, most of the acute care hospitals and home health care agencies in the area provide outpatient rehab services. Both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will offer outpatient rehab services. The existence of these services can reduce the length of stay of patients in a rehab hospital, thereby reducing the number of beds needed to serve the area. It has not been proven, however, that the availability of these outpatient facilities would reduce the average length of stay ("ALOS") at inpatient rehab facilities in Palm Beach County below the 28-day ALOS standard HRS now uses in its bed-need methodology. There has been an increasing trend toward recognition of rehab services by third-party payors, although recognition by private pay insurers (such as Blue Cross, Aetna and Prudential) is still fairly limited. The advent of the Medicare prospective payment system and DRGs, has also increased the demand for rehab services. Prior to implementation of the DRG system, Medicare reimbursed hospitals on a cost basis; patients could remain in hospitals long enough to receive needed rehab services and hospitals would be reimbursed for services. In contrast, the DRG system pays hospitals a fixed amount per admission based on diagnosis--this encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, sometimes before needed rehab services are provided. One effect of these financial incentives has been to increase the demand for inpatient rehab beds. The extent and likely duration of that increased demand has not, however, been shown. PBMC asserts that less weight should be accorded the calculation of bed-need by the numerical formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(24), because it fails to reflect these recent changes in health care delivery. As proof of the rule's asserted understatement of need for rehab beds, PBMC applied the formula to actual utilization in Broward County, District X, which has three rehab facilities. When the rule's 85 percent occupancy standard is applied, there is a need shown for 127 rehab beds in 1990--46 more than the 891 shown by the numerical formula. But the formula's apparent understatement of need in District X does not translate to understatement of need in District IX. This is because factors which affect rehab bed utilization in the two districts are not the same. While the two districts are contiguous, and the size and characteristics of their population are similar, the location of the populations and the concentrations of physicians (both of which can affect demand for rehab persons) are different. Accessibility Rule 10-5.11(24) also requires that at least 90 percent of the target population of a proposed facility reside within two hours driving time. Ninety percent of PBMC's target population is located within 30 minutes driving time of the proposed facility. Both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will, however, provide available and accessible alternatives to the proposed PBMC facility. The average automobile travel time on the major north/south highways between Seacrest and Treasurer Coast Hospitals is approximately two hours. Since the proposed PBMC facility would be located between these two hospitals, and the main population concentration of District IX is located along the coast, the two hospitals should be within two hours travel time (under average traffic conditions) for most of the residents of the District. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, AND EFFICIENCY OF LIKE AND EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES As reflected by the rule methodology and other developments in delivery of health care, there is a clear demand for inpatient rehab services in District IX. Although there are no existing inpatient rehab facilities in the District, it is likely that Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals--at the southern and northern ends of the district--will adequately satisfy that demand until at least 1990. Seacrest Hospital is approximately 50 minutes driving time south of the proposed PBMC facility, while Treasure Coast Hospital is approximately 1.3 hours driving time north of the facility. When completed, both hospitals will offer services similar to and at least as intensive as those proposed by PBMC. Because of the travel times and distances involved, PBMC maintains that Seacrest Hospital (to the south) and Treasure Coast Hospital (to the north) will not be reasonably accessible to the patients in its proposed service area. Regular involvement of a patient's family in rehab therapy is an important factor and many rehab patients are elderly. A round trip to either of these NME facilities from the PBMC service area is estimated to take at least 1.5 hours-- 45 minutes each way. Because family involvement in a patient's therapy requires three to five visits a week, PBMC asserts that a one-way driving time of more than one-half hour is unreasonably burdensome to family members. With less family participation, the quality of care declines. PBMC's contention that one- way travel times from one half hour to 45 minutes are unreasonable is, however, rejected as not substantiated by the weight of the evidence. Dr. Rottenberg's testimony to the contrary is accepted as persuasive. Moreover, HRS Rule 10- 5.11(24)(c)3.c, contains an accessibility standard for rehab inpatient services. By requiring applicants to demonstrate that at least 90 percent of the target population resides within two-hours driving time of the proposed facility, the rule implies that driving time of up to two hours are acceptable and not unreasonably burdensome. HRS' interpretation--that this rule encompasses a two- hour driving time accessibility standard--is a reasonable one. Although it is possible that one-way travel times of from one-half hour to 45 minutes may affect the frequency of visits by family members and he patient's primary care physician, the extent which any reduced visitation rate may affect the quality of care provided is open to conjecture and has not been meaningfully established. PBMC proposes an average charge of $335 per day during the first year of operation of its rehab hospital, and $358 per day the second year. While these charges are significantly lower than the $465 per day charge proposed for both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospital, PBMC has seriously underestimated the number of registered nurses (with specialized rehab training) it would be required to employ. A 60-day hospital offering intensive and quality rehab services normally requires between 25 and 30 registered nurse FTEs; yet PBMC projects only four for its entire facility. If PBMC was required to hire additional registered nurses, its projected charges per day would increase significantly but--due to the cost savings derived from converting an existing structure--it is reasonably expected that the charges would still be less than, or comparable to, those of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospital. In summary, while there are no existing rehab inpatient facilities in District IX reasonably available to serve the patients in PBMC's proposed service area, there soon will be. Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals, opening in the spring of 1986, will offer quality rehab services at least as intensive as those proposed by PBMC; their charges will be comparable to or somewhat more than those proposed by PBMC. QUALITY OF CARE The proposed PBMC rehab hospital will meet the standards published by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities ("CARF") and deliver quality medical care to its patients. PBMC is committed to this objective and will hire the staff and purchase any equipment necessary to achieve it. The medical program will be run by a qualified psychiatrist. Physicians with staff privileges will be allowed to admit patients to the facility, but a psychiatrist will be assigned to co-manage each patient. There are two features of PBMC's proposal which, while adequate, are less than optimum. One--the understatement of the number of registered nurses needed to provide quality services has already been mentioned. This problem would, in all likelihood, be remedied by the hiring of additional staff. The other shortcoming is PBMC's plan to serve two of the patients' daily meals in their bedrooms, rather than in a central dining area. It is important that patients with disabilities be able to practice their social skills and interact with others in preparation for their return to the community. Dining together in a congregate setting facilitates this kind positive socialization experience. Since PBMC patients would dine together only once a day, their exposure to this socialization experience would be limited. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF OTHER HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES As already mentioned, there are numerous home health agencies, nursing homes, and acute care hospitals which offer outpatient rehab services in District IX. Although these services are not a substitute for comprehensive inpatient rehab services (which offer more intense services to patients with more severe disabilities or ambulatory difficulties), the existence of such outpatient services may allow patients to be discharged earlier than otherwise and lessen demand for inpatient beds. Although there are no existing comprehensive rehab inpatient facilities in District IX which provide an alternative to the PBMC proposal, these soon will be in the form of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. ECONOMIC AND SHARED SERVICES PBMC intends to enter into referral agreements with acute care hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies in the service area of its proposed rehab hospital. The proposed hospital will benefit from being located close to Jupiter Hospital. Rehab inpatient services can complement the other medical services offered on the PBMC campus. The location of the rehab facility on the first floor of the nursing home will ease the transfer of patients to the nursing home on the second floor. The proposed rehab hospital would purchase ancillary services from, and share engineering and support services with, Jupiter Hospital. This would obviate the need to duplicate equipment and services already available in Jupiter Hospital and will allow for more efficient use of existing equipment and services. The rehab facility would also share services with the nursing home, such as dietary, maintenance, purchasing, housekeeping, and laundry. The existing outpatient rehab services at Jupiter Hospital would be relocated in the new rehab hospital. Integration of the inpatient and outpatient services will improve the efficiency and quality of rehab services. By sharing services with Jupiter Hospital and the connecting nursing home, the proposed rehab facility would achieve economies of scale and improve the overall quality of service. NEED FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FACILITIES Currently, there are no existing acute care of rehab facilities in District IX that have training programs for physicians interested in rehab medicine. If granted a CON, PBMC will attempt to establish a training program in affiliation with the University of Miami Medical School and the Veterans Administration Hospital in Miami. PBMC also proposes to establish a residency program in rehab medicine at its new facility, in cooperation with medical schools at the University of Miami and Temple University. Such a residency program would provide further opportunities for training health care practitioners. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND ACCESSIBILITY TO PATIENTS PBMC has sufficient funds to undertake and complete the project. At the time of hearing, PBMC had 10 million dollars in reserves which could be used to construct and operate the proposed rehab hospital, and cover any shortfall. The projected construction costs for this facility are only 1.2 million dollars. The PBMC Board is committed to this project, although the separate Board of the nursing home has not voted on it. It is reasonably anticipated that there would be enough qualified physicians and personnel available to staff and operate the proposed facility. Dr. Chidsey, a board certified psychiatrist with 20 years of experience in rehab medicine, is the architect of the proposed program and will be one of the principal admitting physicians. Other qualified psychiatrists have expressed an interest in the proposed facility and would be recruited if PBMC's application is approved. PBMC expects to hire new employees to staff the proposed rehab hospital. It plans to hire a total of 68.4 FTEs for the facility's first year of operation, which includes six registered nurses, 22.6 nurse's aides, 3.4 occupational therapists, and 7.1 physical therapists. (PBMC Exhibit No. 13) As already mentioned, the projection of six registered nurses appears to be an understatement of expected actual needs. PBMC should be able to recruit enough qualified nurses, nurse's aids, and technicians to administer its proposed program. Jupiter Hospital has been offering rehab services to inpatients and outpatients, so PBMC has experience in hiring rehab personnel. It has received applications for employment from rehab nurses in the last few months. Should a problem arise, PBMC can use the recruiting resources of Hospital Corporation of America, which operates and/or manages over 400 hospitals. A number of acute care hospitals in the area have been forced to lay off personnel as patient utilization and census have dropped, resulting in an increase in the number of available qualified health care personnel. In addition, PBMC has trained personnel at its disposal who have been providing rehab services to patients in Jupiter Hospital and in Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion. Also, PBMC has numerous volunteer workers who could be trained to assist in administering the rehab program. PBMC's location near several major traffic arteries make it more accessible to its target population. The same population, however, has reasonable access to Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. At Jupiter Hospital, PBMC treats all patients regardless of their ability to pay. It is against PBMC policy to deny medical care based on inability to pay, and there is no evidence that it has ever done so. PBMC's nursing home has a Medicaid contract, and twenty per cent of its patients are Medicaid patients. Jupiter Hospital does not have a Medicaid contract, but has treated Medicaid patients regularly and simply "written off" the costs of care. Because the volume of Medicaid patients has steadily increased, Jupiter Hospital has now applied for a Medicaid contract and is awaiting approval. Presently about one percent of its patient population is Medicaid patients. It also has a contract with Palm Beach County to provide ambulatory surgery to indigents. Approximately fifty per cent of the admissions at Jupiter Hospital in 1985 were Medicare patients. (NME Exhibit No. 13) PBMC's proposed rehab facility would also accept Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent patients. A patient mix of ten percent Medicaid, sixty percent Medicare, two percent indigent, and four percent bad debt is projected. Approval of PBMC's proposal would enhance access to comprehensive rehab services for medically underserved groups, as well as other residents in the catchment area, although it has not been shown that such services will not be reasonably available at Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Since PBMC has not shown need for its proposed rehab hospital or demonstrated that it will meet occupancy levels needed to become self- sustaining, it cannot be concluded that the hospital is financially feasible in the short-term (without a continuing subsidy) or the long-term. The pro formas provide little assurance of the hospital's financial feasibility. They simply assume occupancy levels of seventy per cent in the first year and eight five percent in the second year--then test financial feasibility against those levels. The underlying assumptions were not shown to be reasonable or based on reliable or verifiable data. The pro forma projections are also deficient because they reflect an understatement of the number of registered nurses needed to staff the facility, thereby underestimating salary and benefit expenses by as much as $600,000. (This is the approximate cost of increasing the number of registered nurse FTE's from 4 to 25.) The pro formas assume a combined level of seventy per cent Medicare and Medicaid utilization. In order to qualify for Medicare reimbursement--on which the proposed hospital would financially depend--there must be 24-hour coverage by registered nurses with specialized rehab training or experience. It is unlikely that the staffing levels reflected in the pro formas would be adequate to meet the Medicare standard, thus placing a major financial assumption of the project in question. IMPACT ON COSTS OF HEALTH CARE AND COMPETITION PBMC projects an average daily charge significantly lower than NME's projected charges of its two facilities in District IX (Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals), and the actual charge of its existing facility in Sunrise, Florida. However, PBMC's projected charges depend on it achieving occupancy rates which have not been substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, projected cost savings for patients in District IX are speculative and uncertain. At the present time, both of the approved inpatient rehab facilities (Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals) in District IX are owned by NME. In addition, NME owns and operates a 108-bed rehab hospital in Sunrise, Broward County, Florida, which is approximately 45 minutes driving time south of the Seacrest Hospital site. NME also owns and will operate a new 60 bed rehab hospital in Melbourne, Florida. Melbourne is in Brevard County, immediately to the north of Indian River County. The Melbourne facility is about 45 minutes driving time north from the Treasure Coast Hospital site. Approval of PBMC's application will increase competition among providers of inpatient rehab services to residents of District IX. Increased competition may contribute to a lowering of health care costs for District IX. It is also likely that PBMC would draw a significant number of admissions and patient days which would otherwise accrue to Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals, thereby causing them substantial financial injury. The approval of PBMC's application would also enhance the bargaining position of HMOs and PPOs, which negotiate with health care providers for discounts or lower costs. In the absence of the proposed PBMC hospital, NME--as the only provider of inpatient rehab services in District IX--would have less incentive to negotiate with HMOs and PPOs, or reduce its charges. ALTERNATIVES Both parties admit that instead of converting the 60 nursing home beds into comprehensive rehab beds, PBMC could convert acute care beds at the adjacent 156-bed Jupiter Hospital. Since 1982, the nursing home has experienced an occupancy level exceeding ninety percent. In contrast, the hospital has experienced a sharp decline in utilization. The average patient census in 1983 was 70.5 percent; by 1985, it had dropped to 50.3 percent. In terms of serving the needy, 20-30 percent of the nursing home residents are Medicaid patients, compared to only one percent of the hospital's patients. Citing these figures, NME contends that conversion of "needed" beds in the nursing home to rehab beds- -when "un-needed" hospital beds abound next door is an inappropriate choice by PBMC. PBMC responds that there is an excess of nursing homes in District IX; that a new 120-bed nursing home is opening up nearby; and that the configuration and layout of the nursing home made the conversion and construction of additional areas for rehab therapy relatively inexpensive. These assertions were not refuted by NME. Moreover, the record does not contain a cost comparison between the two alternative sources of rehab beds. NME has failed, therefore, to prove that PBMC's decision to convert nursing homes rather than hospital beds was inappropriate. ALTERNATIVES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION PBMC's proposal calls for a limited amount of new construction. To a significant extent, the new rehab facility will utilize existing space on the first floor of the nursing home. The nursing home was constructed in accordance with standards and specifications suitable for an inpatient rehab facility. The additional areas that need to be constructed are relatively minor and of minimal cost. By converting space in the nursing home, rather than building an entirely new facility, PBMC has adopted an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to constructing an entirely new facility, assuming that the rehab hospital is needed in the first place. STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS PBMC's application exceeds the 3.9/1000 ratio of rehab beds to projected acute care admissions set forth in the State Health Plan. If PBMC's application was approved, there would be an excess of 7 rehab beds in District IX in 1990. In addition, the District IX Local Health Plan states that "comprehensive medical rehabilitation services should be available to all residents of the district." When Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals open in the spring of 1986, this requirement will be satisfied. 30-BED PROPOSAL As an alternative to its 60-bed application, PBMC proposes to convert only 30 of its nursing home beds. The same findings as to need, geographic and financial accessibility, availability and adequacy of alternatives, quality of care, economies and shared services, need for educational facilities, availability of resources, short-term financial feasibility, impact on health care costs, alternatives to new construction, and consistency with the State and Local Health Plans, apply to this alternative proposal. HRS Rule 10-5.11(24)(c)3.a., expressly requires new and separate rehabilitation facilities, such as proposed by PBMC, to have at least 40 beds. PBMCs 30-bed proposal does not satisfy this requirement.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That PBMC's application for a CON be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2917 RULINGS ON PBMC'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Approved. Approved, with clarification that nursing home Board has not voted on the application at issue. 3-15. Approved in substance. Approved, but these cases are distinguished from the instant case. Rejected as irrelevant since the quality of evidence presented at the de novo hearing is at issue, not the propriety of preliminary agency action. 18-22. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Chidsey-Schultz analysis was not shown to be reasonable or reliable, and overstated actual need. 23. Approved, but an adequate supply of rehab beds will be made reasonably available to residents of District IX within the next couple of months. 24.-25. Rejected for the reasons stated in 18-22, infra. Approved except for conclusion, not proven, that the numerical formula understates need for rehab beds. Approved, except the elderly nature of the population is a factor in the acute care discharge portion of the methodology and quality outpatient programs can reduce demand for rehab inpatient beds. Substantially approved, except statements about ALOS other than 28 days are conjectual. Approved. Approved, but modified to reflect that inpatient rehab coverage is still limited. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. The comparison of District IX to District X is inappropriate. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. The methodology takes age into account. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. See, para. 16-32, infra. Approved. Approved, but these cases are distinguishable. Approved, but modified to reflect that Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will adequately satisfy this need through 1990. 37.-40. Approved. 41.-43. Covered in finding nos. 29-31. Approved, but PBMC's projected charges are uncertain due to understatement of number of registered nurses needed and failure to demonstrate need for the facility. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 46.-47. Approved, except the number of registered nurses needed is understated. Approved. Approved, except the availability of outpatient rehab service tends to decrease need for inpatient services. Rejected as speculative. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved, except for the second sentence, which was not proven. 53.-61. Approved in substance. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved. Approved, except the number of needed registered nurses is overstated. 65.-71. Approved in substance. 72. Approved, but short run financial feasibility (without a continuing subsidy by PBMC) is in doubt because need has not been shown. 73.-75. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Neither need nor short and long term financial feasibility has been shown. 76. Approved, except for the last sentence which is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 77.-80. Substantially approved, but the charges are uncertain due to understatement of nursing need and failure to demonstrate need for the proposed facility. Financial feasibility is in doubt. Approved, but the extent to which it would still underprice the charges of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals is uncertain. Substantially approved, with caveat that inadequate nursing staff would place Medicare funding in jeopardy. Rejected as nursing staff costs are understated. 84.-85. Rejected, since without a showing of need, the financial feasibility is in doubt. Approved. Covered in finding no. 56. Approved. Covered in finding no. 57. Covered in finding no. 58. Covered in finding no. 57. Rejected as the extent to which costs may be lowered, and the likelihood, were not shown. Approved. Covered in finding nos. 59-60. Approved. Approved. First sentence, approved; second sentence rejected as speculative. Approved. Covered in finding no. 62. 100-102. Approved. First sentence, approved; second sentence, rejected as not proven by the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, approval; second sentence, rejected as not proven. Rejected, as approval would not be consistent with the State Health Plan. Approved. Rejected as not proven since nursing needs were understated and need for the rehab beds was not demonstrated. Approved, except that the 30-bed facility would not satisfy the requirement of Rule 10-5.11(24)(c)3.a. RULINGS ON NME'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-2. Approved. Approved, with clarification that the numerical formula shows excess beds in 1990. Approved, except for statement in the second sentence alluding to NME's ostensible "recognition" that Treasure Coast Hospital would be marginally successful at 60 beds, which is not proven. Approved. Approved, except for the fist sentence, which is argumentative. 7.-8. Approved. 9. Approved, except for the reference in the second sentence to what HRS consistently "recognized" in the past. Non-rule policy, no matter how often applied in the past, must be proved, anew, at each Section 120.57(1) proceeding. The generic impropriety of institution specific health care planning was not demonstrated in the instant case. 10.-11. Approved. 12. Approved, except for last sentence, which is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 13-16. Approved. Approved, except for the first sentence, which is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved, except for the first sentence, which is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved. 20.-21. Rejected, as unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved and clarified to reflect that PBMC has not demonstrated that the proposed hospital will be financially feasible. Approved. Approved. Rejected as unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved. Approved, except it has not been shown that the services of Treasure Coast and Seacrest Hospitals will be more comprehensicve than those proposed by PBMC, or that the approval of the PBMC Hospital will adversely affect the ability of Treasure Coast and Seacrest to attract and maintain staff. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Marbury Rainer, Esquire Jack C. Basham, Jr., Esquire 133 Carnegie Way 1200 Carnegie Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Harden King, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 323029
The Issue Whether a certificate of need to construct a 60-bed short-term inpatient psychiatric hospital should be granted to CPC and whether a certificate of need to construct a 24-bed short-term inpatient psychiatric hospital should be granted to Apalachee?
Findings Of Fact Introduction. CPC. Community Psychiatric Centers, Inc., a proprietary corporation, was formed in 1968 by the merger of 2 existing psychiatric hospitals. It now consists of 24 psychiatric hospitals, two of which are located in Florida, and two subsidiary corporations. On December 16, 1983, CPC submitted to the Department an application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 60-bed inpatient psychiatric hospital. The 60-beds are to consist of 15 beds for adolescents, 20 beds for adults in an open unit, 10 beds for adults in an intensive care unit and 15 beds for geriatric patients. Apalachee. Apalachee is a not-for-profit corporation. It began approximately 30 years ago as a small clinic. It was incorporated as the Leon County Mental Health Clinic in the 1960's and later changed its name to Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc. Apalachee presently serves over 7,000 clients a year, has a $6,500,000.00 budget and 300 employees. It provides services to 8 north Florida counties: Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Leon, Wakulla, Madison, Jefferson and Taylor. Apalachee provides specialized continuums of care for substance abuse, children and geriatrics and basic generic services, including a 24-hour, 365 days-a-year emergency telephone and/or face-to-face evaluations. It also provides a full range of case management, day treatment and residential care primarily aimed at the acute and chronically mentally ill and specific programs for children, such as an adolescent day treatment program and an adolescent residential facility. Apalachee's residential programs include a program called Positive Alternatives to Hospitalization (hereinafter referred to as "PATH"). Apalachee also operates an 8-bed non-hospital medical detoxification program in conjunction with PATH. This program is operated in the same building as PATH. It also operates 3 group homes (an adult, an alcohol abuse and an adolescent half-way house) with 10 clients each (these houses will be expanded to 16 clients each), a geriatric residential facility with 60 to 70 beds and cater Oaks, a long-term residential treatment facility for adolescents. On November 15, 1983, Apalachee applied to the Department for a certificate of need for 24 short-term inpatient psychiatric beds. In its application filed during the final hearing of these cases, Apalachee proposed to construct a facility to house the 24-beds adjacent to its current "Eastside" facility. Its Eastside facility currently houses Emergency Services, PATH and its non-hospital medical detoxification programs. All adult mental health programs of Apalachee will also be located on the site in order to consolidate the full continuum of adult psychiatric care provided by Apalachee. Statutory Criteria. The following findings of fact are made as they pertain to the criteria included in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1983), and Section 10-5.11(25), F.A.C. The Need for Psychiatric Services Florida State Health Plan and the District 2 Health Plan. General. The Florida State Health Plan is outdated and the District 2 Health Plan does not contain specific goals as to the need for short-term psychiatric care for District 2, the District the facilities would be constructed in. CPC and Apalachee did, however, address both plans, to the extent applicable, in their applications. The relationship of "need" to these plans, as agreed to by the Department, is not relevant to this proceeding, however. CPC also indicated that it evaluated local bed need by studying socioeconomic, population and employment data and by interviewing local practicing psychiatrists. CPC concluded that additional services were needed and filed its application. Although the Florida State Health Plan and the District 2 Health Plan do not address the question of need, need as determined under the Department's rules is crucial. Section 10-5.11(25), F.A.C., provides that a favorable need determination will "not normally" be given on applications for short-term psychiatric care facilities unless bed need exists under paragraph (25)(d). Under Section 10-5.11(25)(d)(3), F.A.C., bed need is to be determined 5 years into the future by subtracting the number of existing and approved beds in the District from the number of beds for the planning year based upon a ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected for the planning year. The population projection is to be based on the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. The Department has projected a need for 185 total short-term psychiatric beds for District 2 for 1989. There are 82 currently licensed and 35 approved short-term psychiatric beds in District 2. Therefore, for 1989 there is a net short-term psychiatric bed need projected of 68 beds. Based upon the projected population of District 2 for 1990 (537, 567), which is 5 years from 1985, the total bed need is 188 beds. The net bed need for 1990 is 71 beds (188 total beds less 117 licensed and approved beds). The Department did not use this figure because the calculation for bed need for 1990 will not be made by the Department until July of 1985. Pursuant to Section 10-17.003, F.A.C., the total projected short-term psychiatric bed need for District 2 is allocated among 2 subdistricts. Subdistrict 2 consist of Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties. CPC's and Apalachee's proposed facility will be located in Subdistrict 2. Subdistrict 2 is the same area designated by CPC as its "primary" service area. This rule, which is to be "used in conjunction with Rule 10-5.11(25)(c)(d)(e)" allocates the 1988 short-term inpatient psychiatric and substance abuse projected bed need as follows: Subdistrict 1: 75 Subdistrict 2: 104 Total 179 Because the projected bed need for Subdistrict 2 under this rule is based upon 1988 projections, it is clearly in conflict with the requirement of Section 10-5.11(25)(d)(3), F.A.C., that bed need is to be projected 5 years into the future. The total bed need projected for the District for 1988 is 179 beds; for 1990, the total is 188 beds. Based upon the allocation of total bed need in Section 10- 17.003, F.A.C., the net bed need for Subdistrict 2 for 1988 is 44 beds: 104 total beds less 60 licensed and approved beds in Subdistrict 2. If it is assumed that the 9 additional total beds projected for 1990 should be allocated to Subdistrict 2, the net bed need for 1990 in Subdistrict 2 would be 53 beds (100 beds less 50 licensed and approved beds). No evidence was presented, however, to support the assumption that all 9 additional total beds will be allocated to Subdistrict 2. It is more likely that only 1 or 2 additional beds will be allocated to Subdistrict 2. Based upon the foregoing, the total net bed need for District 2 projected to 1990 is 71 beds and for Subdistrict 2 it is between 44 and 53 beds. CPC. CPC attempted at the hearing to show that its proposal is consistent with the bed need for District 2 as determined under Section 10-5.11(25)(d)(3), F.A.C. In the alternative, CPC has attempted to prove that there is a sufficient need in District 2 for additional short-term psychiatric beds based upon other methodologies and the state of psychiatric care currently being provided in Subdistrict 2. Sources of referral to the proposed CPC facility, according to Mr. John Mercer, will include physicians, the judiciary and legal system, the school system, employers and law enforcement. Referrals are inspected by Mr. Mercer based upon his conversations with physicians (Mr. Mercer did not interview persons from the other referral sources) , his personal experience and the fact that there will be a community relations or marketing position at the proposed facility. Local psychiatrists did testify that they would refer patients to CPC if its facility is approved. They did not, however, testify that they would refer all of their patients to CPC. They also testified that the CPC facility is needed. The local psychiatrists did not, however, indicate that they were aware of all of the facts as established during the proceeding. CPC, in its application, projected, based upon conversations with local physicians, that the facility will serve most of the area designated by the Department as District 2. District 2 is subdivided by CPC into a primary service area, consisting of Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor and Wakulla Counties, and a secondary service area, consisting of Clay, Calhoun, Gulf and Jackson Counties in Florida and several counties located in extreme southwest Georgia. In Mr. Mercer's opinion, the proposed facility will serve persons from southwest Georgia; specifically, Brook, Decatur, Grady, Seminole and Thomas Counties. Mr. Mercer's opinion was based upon the availability of services in Georgia and conversations he had with Tallahassee physicians. Mr. Mercer's opinion, however, has been given little weight in determining the need for additional short-term psychiatric beds in District 2 based upon the testimony of Jay D. Cushman, an expert in health planning and development. Mr. Mercer's opinion that southwest Georgia residents will use the proposed CPC facility implies that there may be a need for additional short-term psychiatric beds. Mr. Mercer, however, failed to consider travel time and barriers to travel, patient origins or the effect, if any, of outmigration--the number of persons in District 2 who may leave the District for treatment outside the District. Although Mr. Mercer's conversations with local physicians are relevant and of some supportive weight, the local physicians' opinions should have been supported with other evidence. They were not. CPC, in its exhibit 3, projected a bed need of 14.67 beds attributable to southwest Georgia. This figure was arrived at by first assuming a bed need in the area of .35 beds per 1,000 population (119,051). This results in a gross bed need in southwest Georgia of 41.67 beds. From the gross number of beds, 27 existing beds were subtracted to arrive at a net bed need in District 2 attributable to southwest Georgia residents of 14.67 beds. No evidence supporting a conclusion that such a bed need exists in District 2 was presented at the hearing other than Mr. Mercer's opinion that the proposed facility will serve residents from southwest Georgia. It is therefore concluded that there is not a need for 14.67 beds in District 2 attributable to southwest Georgia residents. In its application, CPC projected a need for an additional 195 short- term psychiatric inpatient beds for District 2. This figure was based upon an average of bed need projected by using three different bed need methodologies. The three different methods resulted in a projected bed need of 64 beds, 266 beds and 255 beds. Application of the method which resulted in a bed need of 266 was modified during the hearing. The modification resulted in a bed need of 75.8 beds. Therefore, the bed need based upon the average of all 3 methodologies, as amended would be 131.6 beds. The three methods used by CPC in its application are different than the method used by the Department. None of the methods, based upon Mr. Cushman's testimony, are sound; they are structurally unsound, applied in an unsound manner or both. Under Method I, CPC starts with a projected short-term psychiatric bed need of 1988 of 44 beds, the net bed need as determined in Section 10-17.003, F.A.C. This figure is then increased by 9.44 beds for in-migration and 11 beds attributable to an adjustment for "desired occupancy level." As clearly established by Mr. Cushman's testimony, neither of the adjustments are sound. The projected bed need of 64 beds for 1988 pursuant to method I is therefore not a reliable figure. Pursuant to Method II, as modified during the hearing, CPC projected a bed need of 75.8 beds. Method III resulted in a projected net bed need of 255 beds. These projections are based upon a projected average length of stay of 30 days. No evidence was presented to support this projection; in fact, it is unrealistic when compared with the average length of stay of 16 days at similar facilities in Florida. CPC's Florida facilities have also not been able to achieve an average length of stay of 30 days. These formulas are also unrealistic because population figures used were for all of District 2. But existing beds taken into account only included the beds in Subdistrict 2. Finally, occupancy was not taken into account in either of the methods. CPC's Methods II and III are not sound, based upon the foregoing. Apalachee. Apalachee's application is for only 24 inpatient psychiatric beds, which is well below the bed need projected under the Department's methodologies for the District and the Subdistrict. Apalachee has projected that its proposed facilities will serve persons in the 8 counties it currently serves. These counties are the same counties which make up Subdistrict 2. Apalachee has not assumed that any patients will come from outside of the Subdistrict. Apalachee has shown that the patients who will use its facility are clients within its own present system, based upon historical data. This historical data establishes that an average of 10 to 12 Baker Act patients have been admitted to Tallahassee Memorial's psychiatric facility during past years. These persons would be admitted to Apalachee's new facility. Additional patients would consist of Apalachee clients which Tallahassee Memorial's facility will not admit and clients currently going into other Apalachee programs. Accessibility to Underserved Groups. CPC is willing to provide care for Baker Act patients. It has been projected that 5 percent of the proposed facility's patient days will be attributable to Baker Act patients. CPC is also willing to treat Medicaid patients and has again projected that 5 percent of the facility's days will be attributable to Medicaid patients. In addition, CPC has projected that 5 percent of its gross revenue will be set aside for the care of indigent patients which consist of those persons who are unable, at the time of admission, to pay all or a part of the charges attributable to their care. Indigent care may not be provided, however, if the facility is losing money. The provision of indigent care is based upon a CPC policy which was recently agreed upon and applies to new CPC facilities. The policy does not apply at the two existing CPC Florida psychiatric hospitals since they were established before the policy was adopted. Pursuant to the Florida Mental Health Act, Chapter 394, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Department's district administrator designates a facility in the district as the public receiving facility for Baker Act patients. In Subdistrict 2 of District 2, Apalachee has been designated as the public receiving facility. Apalachee is therefore responsible for ensuring that emergency care, temporary detention for diagnosis and evaluation and community inpatient care is available to Baker Act clients. As the public receiving facility in Subdistrict 2, Apalachee will clearly serve Baker Act patients. It has projected that in the first year of operation 40 percent (39.7 percent in the second year) of its patients at the new facility will be indigent and that the indigent patients will be primarily Baker Act patients. Seventy percent of Apalachee's clients are persons who need some type of financial assistance; Medicare, Medicaid and Baker Act. Apalachee has proposed to continue to serve these persons in the new facility. Apalachee's purpose in requesting a certificate of need is to allow Apalachee to provide a continuum of care for more Apalachee clients. In the past, Apalachee has experienced difficulty in obtaining inpatient care for certain Baker Act clients. Additionally, even though those problems have been minimal in the past year, there are some Baker Act clients who need inpatient care who are not appropriate patients for Tallahassee Memorial's psychiatric hospital. These patients are sometimes violent and "acting out." Although Tallahassee Memorial is providing adequate care for most Baker Act patients, some Baker Act patients are not admitted. Additionally, removal of Baker Act patients who are admitted by Tallahassee Memorial from Tallahassee Memorial's facility, as discussed infra, will improve the quality of care at Tallahassee Memorial. The cost of providing inpatient care to Baker Act patients will be less if Apalachee is granted a certificate of need for the requested 24 beds. At present, because of limited Baker Act funds, some Baker Act clients who need inpatient care are placed in other programs. With reduced cost for inpatient care, these clients will be able to receive the inpatient care they need. Additionally, Apalachee will serve forensic clients -- those mental health clients with criminal charges. A full-time forensic psychologist has been provided by Apalachee at the Leon County jail to facilitate this type service. The psychologist also evaluates for Baker Act qualification. According to the Director of the Leon County jail, persons in the jail with psychiatric problems are placed in a single "bull pen." Apalachee's work with forensics has been helpful. Like and Existing Psychiatric Services. The only "like and existing" psychiatric health care services in Subdistrict 2 are provided by Tallahassee Memorial. Tallahassee Memorial is a not-for-profit corporation. It currently owns an existing 60-bed short-term inpatient psychiatric facility located in Subdistrict 2. The facility is operated as a separate department of Tallahassee Memorial. Tallahassee Memorial's psychiatric facility has been continuously operated by or for Tallahassee Memorial since 1979. It was initially known as Goodwood Manor. In 1983, however, the management of the facility was taken over by, and its name was changed to, Behavioral Medical Care (Tallahassee Memorial's facility will be hereinafter referred to as "BMC"). From 1977 to 1979, the facility was owned and operated by Tallahassee Psychiatric Center, Inc., which failed for financial reasons. Prior to 1977 Tallahassee Memorial operated a small psychiatric unit as pert of its hospital. The occupancy rate at BMC for the 12-month period ending September, 1984, was 37 percent. The occupancy rate since 1979 has been consistently low and is low at the present time. There are a number of reasons for the low occupancy rate: a) The physical location and physical plant of BMC. BMC is located in a 2-story building near Tallahassee Memorial. BMC occupies the top floor of the building and a nursing home is located on the first floor. In order to get to BMC, it is necessary to travel through the nursing home. Also, the building is surrounded by a parking lot so there is inadequate outdoor and recreational space around the facility. The facility, which was originally designed as a nursing home, presently consists of one closed unit and one open unit. Patients of all ages and with various problems have to be housed in these 2 units together. Because of the physical plant, patients cannot be separated into adult, adolescent and geriatric units. There also is not enough space for therapy rooms and common areas. b) The reputation of the facility. The reputation in the community of Goodwood Manor has carried over to BMC. The facility is perceived by some as a "crazies place," a place "where violent people go." This reputation is partly attributable to the lack of credibility that psychiatry as a discipline enjoys. It is also partly attributable to the operation of BMC as Goodwood Manor prior to 1982 when Behavioral Medical Care took over management of BMC. c) The type of programs offered. To date, no program has been separately offered and provided or adolescents, children, substance, alcohol and drug abuse patients, or geriatrics. Basically only one structured program has been provided which has been more suited to adult psychotic patients. Closely related to this problem is the fact that BMC has had a poor patient mix. This has been caused in part by the physical plant and in part by the type of patients BMC has had to take in. Some of those patients have been suffering from problems other than psychiatric problems, i.e., persons suffering from DT's, which is a medical disorder, and persons suffering from organic problems which cause behavioral difficulties. d) Marketing. There has been a lack of an effort to market the availability of the facility. e) Training. The programs offered are not as advanced because of the lack of necessary training. f) Practice patterns. Practice patterns of psychiatrists in the community have contributed to the low occupancy. Because there are only a few psychiatrists in the area and the fact that the Tallahassee Memorial facility has primarily been involved in crisis intervention, the average length of stay (6 to 7 days) is much lower than the average length of stay in other parts of the country. This average length of stay has also, however, been caused by the shortage of Baker Act funds. Closely related to this problem is the fact that there are a large number of nonphysicians providing mental health services in Tallahassee who do not admit patients to the hospital and a large number of health maintenance organizations. g) Communication. The low occupancy rate has also been caused, at least in the minds of Drs. Speer, Sebastian and Moore, by the lack of solicitation of their input into the operation of the facility. At least partly because of the problems at BMC, a few patients have been referred to facilities outside of District 2 for care. Tallahassee Memorial has committed itself to eliminating the low occupancy rate at BMC. In 1982, the administration of Tallahassee Memorial felt it had to decide whether it was going to make a commitment to the facility or get out of psychiatric care. It opted for the former. After making the commitment, 2 primary actions were taken. One was to contract for the services of Behavioral Medical Care; the other was to apply for a certificate of need to replace its 60-bed facility with a new one. Behavioral Medical Care is a joint venture formed by 2 corporations, Comprehensive Health Corporation and Voluntary Health Enterprises. Comprehensive Health Corporation is the largest private provider of chemical dependency rehabilitation services in the country. Voluntary Health Enterprises is an affiliate of Voluntary Hospitals of America which services 70 of the nation's largest not-for-profit hospitals, including Tallahassee Memorial. Behavioral Medical Care was formed to provide the highest quality, lowest cost psychiatric and chemical dependency rehabilitation programs possible. Behavioral Medical Care provides consultation services and/or actually carries out programs and is now providing 20 different programs at 16 different facilities. Of these 20 programs, 5 to 8 are psychiatric programs. The first consultation concerning the psychiatric program at Tallahassee Memorial began in the late winter or early spring of 1983. This consultation was provided by Dr. Russell J. Ricci, now chairman of the board and medical director of Behavioral Medical Care. Dr. Ricci reviewed the status of Tallahassee Memorial's program at that time and recommended significant changes be made in 2 phases: one phase to begin immediately and the second to begin after construction of a new psychiatric hospital. Tallahassee Memorial agreed with Dr. Ricci's proposal and contracted with Behavioral Medical Care to carry out the proposal. Behavioral Medical Care began BMC with an orientation period during which time the existing staff was analyzed, new staff members were hired and the entire staff was trained to implement the new program. During this period, admitting physicians were invited to participate in the implementation program. A new inpatient psychiatric program at BMC was then begun. The program was established to achieve the following goals: to restore patients to their optimum mental health; to make patients as comfortable as possible; to maintain the patients' sense of dignity and self worth; to maintain modern and efficient treatment modalities through research and education; to provide maximum freedom of patients to interact with family and community; and to educate the community. The program was established along interdisciplinary lines and is basically an adult program. It includes individual and group therapy, lectures and seminars, social and nursing assessments, physical examination and psychological testing. The ultimate program provided for a patient, however, depends upon the treatment plan prescribed by the attending physician. The program is, however, limited because of the type of patients at BMC and especially because of the physical plant, which consists of only an open unit and a locked unit. Separation of patients for specialized treatment based upon other factors, such as age, is not achievable in the existing facility. The program at BMC is an adequate program but can be improved. The program is, however, intended only as an interim type program. Treatment of geriatrics and adolescents is available but specialized programs for these groups are not available. Dr. Sebastian agreed that since Behavioral Medical Care had begun managing BMC, the programs had improved. Dr. Moore testified that BMC had attempted to change. As part of the interim program, BMC has established more restrictive admission guidelines; not based upon ability to pay but upon clinical needs. Attempts have been made to eliminate psychotics, geriatrics and persons with significant medical problems. These restrictions on admission are designed to limit admission to persons who will benefit from the new program and are consistent with the existing physical plant. The existing staff, established by Behavioral Medical Care, is adequate. Training of the staff began during the orientation period at BMC and continues today. Educational activities have also been directed toward the medical profession in the community in order to gain more credibility for the discipline of psychiatry. Other steps to improve BMC which have been or will soon be taken include the reclassification of BMC as a department of Tallahassee Memorial and the initiation of a crisis intervention and liaison service in the emergency room of Tallahassee Memorial's main hospital. This new service in the emergency room is designed to identify persons being admitted to the hospital with a need for psychiatric services. As a department, BMC conducts formal monthly meetings of physicians at which input into the operation of BMC may be made. Input by psychiatrists is therefore possible at BMC. The second phase of the changes recommended by Dr. Ricci will begin after completion of the second action to be taken by Tallahassee Memorial as part of its commitment to a psychiatric program: the construction of a new 60- bed facility. Tallahassee Memorial filed an application to replace its present facility with a new 64-bed facility. That application was ultimately granted but for only 60 beds. An application to build another facility considered at the same time was denied. As a result of the issuance of the certificate of need to Tallahassee Memorial, construction of a new psychiatric facility has begun and should be completed in the summer of 1985. The total cost of this new facility is $7,225,000.00. This amount, plus the cost of new programs and staff, has been committed by Tallahassee Memorial to BMC. The facility, a two-level structure, is being constructed on a wooded, sloping site next to the present building BMC is located in. Each level will have 30 beds. It will be a state-of-the-art facility and was designed by architects who specialize in the design of psychiatric facilities. The building was designed with input from the medical staff and Behavioral Medical Care. It is being constructed to accommodate separate psychiatric programs and allows flexibility to accommodate changes in the type of programs offered. Once the new facility is completed, BMC will initiate the second phase of Dr. Ricci's proposal. This phase will consist of the implementation of separate specialized psychiatric programs not available at BMC today. Dr. Ricci has recommended the offering of adult, adolescent, geriatric and chemical dependency programs. Tallahassee Memorial has decided to add an adult program, an adolescent program and will probably add a geriatric program. Other programs, such as a chemical dependency program will be considered. The geriatric program will be added if there are a sufficient number of patients in need of such a program admitted to BMC. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Sebastian, there are a sufficient number of patients who need a geriatric program. Assuming that Dr. Sebastian is correct, a geriatric program should be added to BMC. Even if a separate program is not added, geriatric psychiatric services will be available at the new facility. The construction of the new facility will not eliminate all of the problems which have contributed to the low occupancy at BMC. Phase 2 of Dr. Ricci's proposal to Tallahassee Memorial and the other actions which Tallahassee Memorial has indicated they plan to take should, however, eliminate or at least reduce most of the problems. Dr. Sebastian testified that there will not be enough open space around the new facility The new facility will, however, have 2 open court yards, woods on 3 sides of the building and a greenhouse. The reputation of BMC as being a "crazies place" should be improved with the opening of the new facility and the providing of new, more advanced programs. Efforts to educate the medical community will also help. Also, if Apalachee is granted its certificate of need, the elimination of some of the Baker Act patients cared for by BMC who will be cared for by Apalachee should help improve the reputation of BMC. Finally, BMC has already taken some steps to improve its reputation by initiating an interim program, hiring new staff and limiting its admissions. Instituting specialized programs will also help alleviate the low occupancy problem at BMC. The new facility will allow BMC to establish programs which are needed by allowing the separation of patients which could not be accomplished in the existing facility. Again, eliminating some Baker Act patients will help reduce the problems created by the poor patient mix at BMC. Efforts are being made to market BMC's services. Establishing a liaison in Tallahassee Memorial's emergency room, which is planned, should contribute to increasing occupancy. Tallahassee Memorial projected that sizeable numbers of patients in the general hospital need psychiatric services. This program could reach those patients. BMC, however, needs to institute marketing efforts to reach the general public. Formal training of the staff at BMC was started with Behavioral Medical Care's orientation phase and has continued since that time. Not much can be done directly by BMC to improve the practice patterns of psychiatrists in the community. The new facility and improved programs may help. Transfering Baker Act patients to a new facility operated by Apalachee should allow for more economical treatment of those patients and thus allow for longer lengths of stay. Providing specialized programs also should promote longer lengths of stay. Converting BMC to department status and the holding of monthly meetings of admitting physicians has improved the ability of psychiatrists in the community to have a voice in the operation of BMC. Not enough of an effort is being made in this area, however. Three psychiatrists testified about the lack of solicitation of their input. They are obviously dissatisfied. Despite this fact, Dr. Brodsky, the Medical Director of BMC, testified that BMC was working cooperatively with psychiatrists in the community. In the undersigned's opinion, BMC, Tallahassee Memorial and the psychiatrists in the community need to continue to work toward resolving their differences and to work together to improve the occupancy and the psychiatric care provided at BMC. The perceived effect of CPC's proposal and Apalachee's proposal of the various witnesses was mixed. Drs. Speer, Sebastian and Moore all testified that they supported the CPC proposal. Dr. Speer indicated that she supported CPC's proposal over that of Apalachee and that she thought there was a need for CPC. Dr. Speer's opinion was based almost exclusively on a brochure provided to her by CPC. She did not have any familiarity with existing CPC hospitals. She also had only "some familiarity" with Apalachee's programs. The only reason Dr. Speer specifically gave for supporting CPC was the amount of effort CPC had exerted to solicit physician input and the need for cohesiveness among psychiatrists which she felt was promoted by support of the CPC proposal. Dr. Sebastian testified that he supported the CPC proposal because a new hospital would promote competition which would in turn improve the quality of care. Dr. Moore testified that he was familiar with CPC's and Apalachee's proposals and that he supported CPC's. He also stated that the addition of another psychiatric hospital would improve the availability of medical care because of competition. Dr. Moore also testified that a new facility was needed to provide care for the "private segment" which he described as "those people who choose not to go to the local mental health center for treatment, those people who choose to go to psychiatrists for treatment. " Dr. Brodsky testified that the addition of a new facility to the community might improve BMC because of the added competition. Mr. Honaman and Dr. Ricci both agreed that, if CPC's proposal was approved, a new facility could have an adverse impact on BMC which has been operating at a loss of $300,000.00 a year. Dr. Ricci explained that in order to have specialized programs a hospital must have a sufficient number of patients who need the specialized program. Because of the low occupancy rate at BMC, there is concern as to whether a sufficient number of patients will be available to warrant the specialized programs BMC plans to start if the CPC proposal is approved. Apalachee's proposal will not adversely effect BMC. In fact, Mr. Honaman and Ms. Pamela McDowell, both of whom testified on behalf of Tallahassee Memorial, indicated that if Apalachee's facility was approved BMC's ability to provide quality care would be enhanced. Tom Porter, testifying on behalf on the Department, indicated that CPC's and Apalachee's proposals should both be denied because of the low occupancy at BMC and the adverse effect approval of either proposal would have on BMC. Mr. Porter's opinion, however, was based only upon his review of the Petitioners' applications. Mr. Porter made no independent studies as to the impact of the proposals on BMC and was not aware of most of the evidence presented at the hearing. The Ability of the Applicant to Provide Quality of Care. CPC. The services to be available at or provided by the proposed CPC facility include psycho-physiological diagnosis and evaluation, emergency service, milieu therapy (immersion into the clinical environment for structured daily treatment), individual and group therapy, family therapy, occupational therapy, an adolescent school program, a partial hospitalization program, aftercare, community education and related medical services (which will be provided by contracting with other area health care providers). Actual programs to be provided at the facility are to be developed by the physicians who join the medical staff of the facility with the assistance of CPC which has developed model programs which may be used. The staffing projections for the facility are adequate. The manpower projected can provide quality of care and will comply with the standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. CPC's experience in operating its 24 existing psychiatric facilities and its philosophy that it will provide quality of care support a finding that CPC does have the ability to provide quality of care. 1/ CPC's proposed physical facility is designed to provide quality of care. The facility will be located in northeast Tallahassee. It will be constructed on a little less than one acre of a 10-acre parcel of land which CPC has a contract to purchase for $400,000.00. Part of the remaining 9-plus acres will be used for parking and recreational space and a substantial portion will be left in its natural state as a buffer. The hospital building itself will consist of a one-story structure with a separate section for each category of proposed beds, a lobby, business and general offices and storage rooms. One section will be used as a 20-bed open adult unit. Another section will be used as a 10-bed adult intensive care unit. This section will be locked. A nursing station will separate the adult intensive care unit and the open adult unit and is designed for visibility down the halls of both units. Two seclusion rooms will be located at the nursing station also to allow for observation from the nursing station. The location of the nursing station will reduce staff responsibility thus reducing the cost of operating the facility. The other two units will consist of a 15-bed adolescent open unit and a 15-bed geriatric unit. These units will be separated by a nursing station designed in the same manner as the nursing station separating the adult units. These units will also be separated by a locked door. There will also be a support structure built next to the hospital which will contain a kitchen, dining hall for all patients, 4 classrooms, 4 multi-purpose rooms, an occupational therapy room and a half-court gymnasium. There is no covered access from the main building to the support structure. The floor plan for the facility is similar to the floor plans used for other CPC hospitals. Therefore, the design costs of the facility will be less than for a new one-of-a-kind facility. Apalachee. In order to ensure quality of care, Apalachee has established a Quality Assurance Committee. Additionally, Apalachee is inspected by the Department and is accredited by the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals. No evidence was submitted which raises any question as to Apalachee's ability to provide quality of care. The existing building to which Apalachee's proposed facility will be added is located at Apalachee's Eastside facility. Eastside is located on 10 acres of land in northeast Tallahassee. Eastside presently consists of a building in which PATH, the detoxification program and emergency services is located. The building has 12 semi-private rooms and 24 beds. The new facility will be added to the existing building. A total of 13,000 square feet will be added. It will consist of an 18-bed open unit and a 6-bed closed unit. Also to be located at the Eastside facility is a 16-bed long-term adolescent psychiatric hospital which the Department has indicated it will approve. If this facility and the proposed 24-bed facility are built, Apalachee will have a total of 96 beds providing a variety of services. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Psychiatric Services. Apalachee currently provides a wide range of psychiatric health services in Subdistrict 2, including a crisis stabilization unit and short-term residential treatment programs. These services have been used as an alternative to inpatient care in some cases. CPC gave no consideration to these programs in its application. Apalachee did consider these programs and showed that its proposal would compliment its existing programs. As suggested by CPC in its proposed recommended order, Apalachee's existing programs are not a substitute for acute inpatient psychiatric services. Joint, Cooperative and Shared Psychiatric Services. CPC. CPC's operation of 24 psychiatric hospitals provides the potential for joint, cooperative or shared health resources in the operation of its proposed facility. Very little evidence was presented, however, that such potential would be realized if CPC's proposed facility is approved. Evidence was presented that model programs will be "available" for use in developing programs for the proposed facility. CPC also showed that standardized equipment selection and purchasing, and standardized floor plans would be used in establishing the facility. This will effect the short-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Apalachee. By placing the facility at the same location of other Apalachee programs, Apalachee will be able to share some services among programs and thereby reduce costs. For example, kitchen and dining services, staffing, security, purchasing, and maintenance and administrative services will be shared. The integration of Apalachee's existing programs with the proposed facility will promote a continuum of care and thus improve the quality of care. The Need for Research and Education Facilities. 106. Apalachee currently provides training to practitioners pursuant to an agreement with the School of Social Welfare at Florida State University. It also provides internship programs for psychology majors at Florida State University and nursing students at Florida State University and Florida A&M University. It is probable, therefore, that the new facility will be available for training purposes. No proof was offered, however, that indicates there is a need for training programs not being currently met which will be met if either of the proposed facilities is approved. Availability of Resources. 107. Health manpower and management personnel are available to staff the CPC or the Apalachee proposal. CPC and Apalachee also have adequate funds to build the proposed facilities. The adequacy of funds to build and operate the facilities is discussed further, infra. The Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility of the Proposal. CPC. The projected cost of CPC's facility was $5,086,000.00. This amount will be increased for inflation if the facility is delayed another year. CPC will contribute 20 percent of the projected cost of the facility in the form of cash and liquid assets CPC has on hand. Eighty percent of the projected cost will constitute debt of the facility to CPC payable at a 12 percent interest rate over a 20-year period. The immediate financial feasibility of CPC's proposal has clearly been shown. In its application, CPC projected that its facility would generate a net income after taxes in each of the first 2 years of its operation. In its proforma, patient revenues were based upon the following charges per patient day: Adolescent $225.00 Adult, I.C.U. 215.00 Adult Open Unit 210.00 Geriatric 200.00 These projected rates were based upon a 1985 opening date. The rates will therefore be higher if the facility opens in 1987, but, according to Mr. Mercer, the bottom line profitability of the facility will not change. The projected rates, according to Mr. Mercer, are based upon rates charged at other CPC hospitals in Atlanta, New Orleans, Jacksonville and Ft. Lauderdale and interviews with Tallahassee physicians. According to Alton Scott, an expert in health care finance and financial feasibility, the proposed rates are considerably lower than the average rate at CPC's Jacksonville and Ft. Lauderdale hospitals, which was $240.00 for their fiscal year ending in 1984. Mr. Scott did not indicate that he considered the rate at CPC's Atlanta or New Orleans facility, however, which Mr. Mercer also considered in projecting rates for the proposed facility. Mr. Scott's testimony, however, raises a question as to the reasonableness of the proposed facility's rates. CPC's projected gross patient revenue is based upon an occupancy rate of 53 percent in the first year of operation and 75 percent in the second year. CPC projects $2,476,160.00 of gross patient revenue in the first year (an average $212.00 per day rate x 11,680 patient days) and $3,597,075.00 of gross patient revenue in the second year (an average $219.00 per day rate x 16,425 patient days). CPC's average occupancy rates are directly related to the number of admissions and the average length of stay of a patient. In support of the number of admissions projected by CPC, CPC offered the 3 need methodologies discussed, supra. Those methodologies have, however, been rejected as unsound. CPC's admission rates are based only on an assumed census. The assumed census is based upon conversations with physicians and the corporate experience of CPC. Although conversations with physicians and the corporate experience of CPC should be considered, these factors should be considered as support for other evidence as to possible admissions which has not been presented by CPC. What physicians have told Mr. Mercer is not alone sufficient to support assumed admissions. There is no guarantee that local physicians will refer clients only to CPC's facility or that their case load will remain the same. CPC's corporate experience as to length of stay does not add much support since the overall corporate experience of CPC's facilities for the year ending November 20, 1983, shows that the overall occupancy (excluding its Valley Vista facility) was 56.3 percent. This rate of occupancy is well below CPC's projected second year occupancy rate for the Tallahassee facility. The occupancy rate of CPC's Ft. Lauderdale and Jacksonville hospitals was 50.6 percent and 60 percent respectively, which is low for the State. Of all of CPC's psychiatric hospitals only 1 has an occupancy rate over 80 percent. Another problem with CPC's projected occupancy rate is that CPC has projected that 5 percent of its patient days will be attributable to Baker Act patients and 5 percent will be attributable to Medicaid Patients. In order for the proposed facility to receive Baker Act patients it will be necessary that it enter into a contract with Apalachee. No evidence was presented that such a contract could be obtained from Apalachee. As to the percentage of Medicaid patients, it is clear that CPC would not be entitled to receive reimbursement from Medicaid for these patients since its facility will be a free-standing facility and Medicaid does not reimburse for inpatient psychiatric services at free-standing hospitals. Based upon these facts, it appears that the assumption of CPC that a total of 10 percent of its patient days will be attributable to Baker Act and Medicaid patients is of questionable validity. Mr. Mercer's testimony that, even without the Baker Act and Medicaid patients, the projected occupancy could be met is illogical. If the projected revenue attributable to Baker Act and Medicaid patients is eliminated along with the projected expenses attributable thereto, CPC still projected a net after tax profit for its first two years of operation. CPC offered no evidence, however, sufficient to conclude that its projections as to occupancy of other types of patients can be achieved. CPC's projected average length of stay of 30 days is also suspect. It is not consistent with the average length of stay locally, in Florida, nationwide or in CPC's experience. Based upon the foregoing, CPC's projected occupancy levels are not realistic. This directly effects the projected revenues for the proposed facility. Salary and other expenses projected for the facility are also questionable. Nonsalary expenses are significantly lower than CPC's existing Florida facilities which are the lowest in Florida. Salary expenses, projected 2 years in the future, are also lower than present salary levels at CPC's Florida facilities. Again, the salary levels at CPC's 2 Florida hospitals are among the lowest for the 10 Florida facilities providing similar services. These low salaries are also based upon projections for a project which will not open for 2 more years. Despite this fact, they are lower than current salaries at CPC's existing Florida facilities and salaries being paid locally. Apalachee. The projected cost of the addition of the 24-bed facility to Apalachee's existing PATH and detoxification facility is $1,114,339.00. Apalachee will provide $114,339.00 of the necessary funds from its operating fund and the remaining $1,000,000.00 will be obtained from the sale of industrial revenue bonds. The bonds will be 15-year bonds, with a 7 year balloon and were projected at a 10.75 percent annual interest rate (75 percent of the Chase Manhattan Bank prime interest rate). First National Bank has committed to purchase $3,000,000.00 of industrial revenue bonds, which includes the $1,000,000.00 for this project. The immediate financial feasibility of Apalachee's proposal has clearly been shown. In projecting its gross charges for the first 2 years of operation, Apalachee has predicted an occupancy rate of 62.5 percent in the first month of operation increasing to 87.4 percent in the last month of operation of the second year. Gross charges are projected at $1,557,940.00 the first year (6,385 patient days x $244.00 per day rate) and $1,883,648.00 the second year (7,358 patient days x $256.00 per day rate). Apalachee' s projections are reasonable. Although it will be a free-standing psychiatric facility, Apalachee will be able to receive some Medicaid funding under the Department's "centers and clinics" option. Apalachee's projections as to gross charges, deductions from gross charges, and operating expenses are reasonable. Based upon its projections, Apalachee will realize a profit from the new facility in each of its first 2 years of operation. Competition. CPC. The addition of CPC's facility will promote competition in Subdistrict 2, as testified to by Dr. Brodsky, the Medical Director of BMC, among others. Because of the low occupancy at BMC, however, such competition at this time would be harmful. Apalachee. Apalachee's proposed facility will not compete with BMC. Although Apalachee's facility will initially reduce BMC's occupancy, removing the patients Apalachee will serve from BMC will improve the quality of care provided at BMC. Construction. CPC Construction and related costs of the CPC facility will consist of the following: Parking $27,500.00 Project development costs 22,000.00 Architectural/engineering fees 135,000.00 Site survey and soil investigation report 25,000.00 Construction supervision 10,000.00 Construction manager 4,000.00 Site preparation 100,000.00 Construction 3,000,000.00 Contingency 100,000.00 Inflation 270,000.00 These costs are all adequate to cover the cost of these items. These amounts will also be adequate even if construction does not begin until the end of 1985. The projected cost of equipment and furnishings was $500,000.00. This amount is adequate to equip the facility properly. In fact, the projected cost is probably substantially overstated. 2/ Although CPC failed to list in its application all of the equipment and furnishings (only major movable equipment was listed) necessary to equip the facility, adequate equipment and furnishings will be provided. Apalachee. The projected cost of constructing Apalachee's facility consists of the following: Architectural/engineering fees Site survey and soil investigation $75,740.00 report 2,000.00 Construction 876,620.00 Contingency 43,831.00 Inflation 26,298.00 These amounts are sufficient to construct the facility. The cost per square foot of the construction will be $60.00. The cost of equipment needed to equip the new facility is projected at $53,850.00. This amount is adequate for the purchase of the equipment listed in Apalachee's application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need application filed by CPC, case number 84-1614, be denied. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need application, as amended, filed by Apalachee, case number 84-1820, be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of April, 1985.
