Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 18th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of the parties, all Petitioners and Intervenors in these cases are acute care hospitals licensed in Florida pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes; are substantially affected by the proposed rules at issue in these cases; and have standing to participate in this proceeding. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensure of hospitals pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and responsible for promulgation of the proposed rules at issue in these cases. This dispute specifically involves proposed rules related to the licensure of adult cardiovascular services in Florida hospitals. Such services include percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI), also referred to as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PCTA). PCI involves the insertion of a device placed into an artery and directed to the site of a coronary artery blockage. The device is used to compress or remove the blockage material and restore arterial blood flow to heart tissue. A mechanism called a "stent" may be left in place at the site of the former blockage to reduce the potential for re-blockage ("restenosis") of the artery. The procedure is performed in a cardiac catheterization laboratory ("cath lab"). PCI that is performed on an emergency basis to open an arterial blockage causing myocardial infarction (heart attack) is referred to as "primary" or "emergent" PCI. PCI performed to resolve symptoms of coronary artery disease manifesting in presentations other than through myocardial infarction is referred to as "elective" PCI. Previous law restricted PCI services to those hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery (commonly referred to as "open heart" surgery). Hospitals are required to obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) from AHCA to operate a cardiac surgery program. Accordingly, in order to offer PCI services, a hospital was required to obtain a cardiac surgery program CON from AHCA. As cardiac catheterization procedures have become more widely available and physician training and experience have increased, the relative safety of the procedures has improved. The volume of open heart cardiac surgery has declined as the patient outcomes for non-surgical coronary artery disease treatments have improved, yet Florida hospitals seeking to provide PCI were still operating under the CON-based restrictions. There is an ongoing debate within the medical community related to the issue of whether non-emergent patients should receive PCI services at hospitals which lack cardiac surgery programs. The historic rationale for restricting the availability of elective PCI procedures to hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery was also available was related to the possibility that an unsuccessful PCI would require immediate resolution through surgery. The evidence establishes that PCI-related events requiring immediate access to onsite cardiac surgery have become less frequent, at least in part due to increased training and experience of practitioners, as well as an increased technical ability to resolve some events, such as arterial ruptures or perforations, within the cath lab. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that the outcomes of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery may be superior to those performed in hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery is not available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature adopted two bills that, insofar as are relevant to this proceeding, had an impact on the regulatory process related to adult interventional cardiovascular services. The effect of the legislation was to shift the regulation of PCI programs away from CON-based restrictions and towards a licensing process. Both bills established a two-level classification of hospitals providing adult interventional cardiology services. House Bill 329 limited the provision of PCI at hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery to emergent patients and provided, in relevant part, as follows: In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult primary percutaneous cardiac intervention for emergent patients without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis supplied) Senate Bill 182 did not limit PCI services on the basis of onsite cardiac surgery availability and provided, in relevant part, as follows: Section 2. Notwithstanding conflicting provisions in House Bill 329, Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis added) Both the House Bill and the Senate Bill were signed into law. The legislation was codified as Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2004), which provided, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiology services and burn unit licensure.-- * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. Extensive evidence was offered at the hearing to support both sides of the debate regarding the appropriateness of performing elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery, and it is clear that the debate continues. However, the evidence establishes that the Florida Legislature specifically chose not to restrict non-emergent PCI to Florida hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery units and has determined that properly-licensed Florida hospitals may provide PCI services without regard to the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. It is reasonable to assume that had the Legislature intended to restrict provision of adult PCI in hospitals without cardiac surgery programs to emergent patients, the "notwithstanding" language contained in Senate Bill 182 would not have been adopted. There is no credible evidence that the Legislature was unaware of the continuing debate within the cardiology community at the time the legislation was adopted in 2004. The Legislature has acknowledged the distinction between emergent and elective PCI as indicated by Subsection 408.036(3)(o), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides under certain circumstances that a hospital without an approved "open heart surgery program" can obtain an exemption from CON requirements and provide emergent PCI services to "patients presenting with emergency myocardial infarctions." It is reasonable to assume that had the codification of the 2004 legislation been incorrect, the Florida Legislature would have subsequently amended the statute to reinstate the restriction. In fact, the Legislature has revised the referenced statute without substantively altering the relevant language establishing the two-level licensure designation. Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), the current statute directing AHCA to adopt the rules at issue in this proceeding, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiovascular services and burn unit licensure.-- Each provider of diagnostic cardiac catheterization services shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards governing the operation of adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization programs. The rules shall ensure that such programs: Comply with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. Perform only adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization services and will not provide therapeutic cardiac catheterization or any other cardiology services. Maintain sufficient appropriate equipment and health care personnel to ensure quality and safety. Maintain appropriate times of operation and protocols to ensure availability and appropriate referrals in the event of emergencies. Demonstrate a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Each provider of adult cardiovascular services or operator of a burn unit shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards that govern the provision of adult cardiovascular services or the operation of a burn unit. Such rules shall consider, at a minimum, staffing, equipment, physical plant, operating protocols, the provision of services to Medicaid and charity care patients, accreditation, licensure period and fees, and enforcement of minimum standards. The certificate-of-need rules for adult cardiovascular services and burn units in effect on June 30, 2004, are authorized pursuant to this subsection and shall remain in effect and shall be enforceable by the agency until the licensure rules are adopted. Existing providers and any provider with a notice of intent to grant a certificate of need or a final order of the agency granting a certificate of need for adult cardiovascular services or burn units shall be considered grandfathered and receive a license for their programs effective on the effective date of this act. The grandfathered licensure shall be for at least 3 years or until July 1, 2008, whichever is longer, but shall be required to meet licensure standards applicable to existing programs for every subsequent licensure period. In establishing rules for adult cardiovascular services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. For a hospital seeking a Level I program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and that it has a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. For a hospital seeking a Level II program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has performed a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Establishment of appropriate hours of operation and protocols to ensure availability and timely referral in the event of emergencies. Demonstration of a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. In order to ensure continuity of available services, the holder of a certificate of need for a newly licensed hospital that meets the requirements of this subsection may apply for and shall be granted Level I program status regardless of whether rules relating to Level I programs have been adopted. To qualify for a Level I program under this subsection, a hospital seeking a Level I program must be a newly licensed hospital established pursuant to a certificate of need in a physical location previously licensed and operated as a hospital, the former hospital must have provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations for the most recent 12- month period as reported to the agency, and the newly licensed hospital must have a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. A hospital meeting the requirements of this subsection may apply for certification of Level I program status before taking possession of the physical location of the former hospital, and the effective date of Level I program status shall be concurrent with the effective date of the newly issued hospital license. (5)(a) The agency shall establish a technical advisory panel to develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes of adult cardiovascular services. Members of the panel shall include representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, the Florida Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the Florida Chapter of the American Heart Association and others with experience in statistics and outcome measurement. Based on recommendations from the panel, the agency shall develop and adopt rules for the adult cardiovascular services that include at least the following: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. Hospitals licensed for Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services shall participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons. As required by Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA created the TAP, which convened and met over the course of two years at a series of public hearings. The TAP also received written materials and comments from interested parties. Thereafter, AHCA convened rule development workshops to formulate the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rules were initially noticed in the September 28, 2007, Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 33, No. 39). Subsequent Notices of Changes to the proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weeklies of November 16, 2007 (Vol. 33, No. 46); March 28, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 13); and May 9, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 19). There is no evidence that AHCA failed to comply with statutory requirements related to the rule adoption process. As required by Subsection 408.0361(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), the proposed rules set forth the procedures by which a hospital may apply for licensure as a Level I or Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services without differentiation based on the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16). The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17). Subsection 408.0361(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level I program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(16)(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level I adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 1: Level I Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form, Section 18(a) of this rule ), signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures are defined as single sessions with a patient in the hospital’s cardiac catheterization procedure room(s), irrespective of the number of specific procedures performed during the session. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level I licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) Subsection 408.0361(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level II program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a) provides in relevant part as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 2: Level II Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form , Section 18(b) of this rule ) to the Agency, signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic cardiac catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). a. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level II licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) St. Anthony's asserts that the proposed rule is invalid on the grounds that it fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. St. Anthony's asserts that the exclusion of cardiac catheterization procedures performed within the hospital's cardiac cath lab but not billed by the hospital is arbitrary and capricious, modifies, enlarges, or contravenes the specific provisions of the statute implemented, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The evidence fails to support these assertions. Although the phrase "block lease" is undefined by statute or rule, the evidence establishes that insofar as relevant to this proceeding, the term refers to a practice by which a group of cardiologists lease blocks of time from a hospital for exclusive use of a hospital's cardiac cath lab. St. Anthony's has a leasing arrangement with a group of cardiologists identified as the "Heart and Vascular Institute South" ("HAVI South") whereby St. Anthony's leases blocks of time in a cardiac cath lab to HAVI South cardiologists. The facility is located in a privately-owned medical office building physically attached to St. Anthony's hospital building. St. Anthony's leases the medical office building from a developer. HAVI South cardiologists perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the St. Anthony's facility during both leased and non-leased time. St. Anthony's provides personnel to staff the cardiac cath lab regardless of whether the procedure is performed during leased or non-leased time. The HAVI South cardiology group develops the schedule of cardiac catheterization procedures to be performed during the leased time and notifies St. Anthony's of the schedule. The HAVI South cardiology group bills for both their professional fees and the facility charges (referred to as the "technical component") for the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during leased time. St. Anthony's does not bill for cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the leased time. For the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during non-leased time, the HAVI South cardiology group bills for professional fees, and St. Anthony's bills for the technical component. Patricia Sizemore, vice-president for patient services at St. Anthony's, acknowledged that other hospitals could have block-leasing arrangements different from those existing between St. Anthony's and the HAVI South group. The proposed rules would preclude St. Anthony's from including the outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures done by HAVI South during the block-leased time within those procedures available to meet the numeric threshold requirements identified in the statute. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed rule fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. The relevant language of Subsection 408.0361(3), Florida Statutes (2008), identifies the hospital as the applicant and requires that the applicant "provide" the procedures or discharges being reported to meet the specified volume thresholds. The applicable definition of hospital is set forth at Subsection 408.032(11), Florida Statutes (2008), which defines a hospital as a health care facility licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Subsection 395.002(12), Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following definition: (12) "Hospital" means any establishment that: Offers services more intensive than those required for room, board, personal services, and general nursing care, and offers facilities and beds for use beyond 24 hours by individuals requiring diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, infirmity, abnormality, disease, or pregnancy; and Regularly makes available at least clinical laboratory services, diagnostic X- ray services, and treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care, or other definitive medical treatment of similar extent, except that a critical access hospital, as defined in s. 408.07, shall not be required to make available treatment facilities for surgery, obstetrical care, or similar services as long as it maintains its critical access hospital designation and shall be required to make such facilities available only if it ceases to be designated as a critical access hospital. Physicians are not "hospitals" and are not licensed or regulated by Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Physicians are not authorized to apply for licensure under the provisions of the statute and proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. Nothing in the statute suggests that entities other than hospitals may apply for licensure of a Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rationale underlying the restriction of reportable procedures to those for which the applicant hospital issues bills for payment is based upon AHCA's reasonable intention to validate the procedure volume data submitted by applicant hospitals. Jeffrey Gregg, chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation and CON Unit, testified that "the only practical, realistic way" for AHCA to routinely verify the accuracy of the procedure volume identified by a hospital's licensure application is through AHCA's ambulatory patient database. The reporting requirements for the ambulatory patient database are set forth at Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59B-9 and include elements such as demographic information, diagnosis codes, and charges. The database provides AHCA with access to patient record documentation and directly allows AHCA to verify the procedure volume identified in the licensure application. Because St. Anthony's has no charges related to the procedures performed by HAVI South cardiologists during the leased time, St. Anthony's has not reported procedures performed during leased time to the ambulatory patient database. St. Anthony's reports far more cardiac catheterization procedures to the local Suncoast Health Council than it does to AHCA's ambulatory patient database and asserts that AHCA could rely on health council data. AHCA has no organizational relationship with the local health council, and the evidence fails to establish that such data is as reliable as that collected by the ambulatory patient database. AHCA asserts that an additional basis to exclude procedures performed by entities other than the applicant hospital is that AHCA has no direct regulatory authority over the non-hospital entity. St. Anthony's asserts that AHCA would have its customary authority over the hospital and, by extension, over the third-party leasing the cardiac cath lab from the hospital. At best, AHCA's authority to obtain records from the non-hospital operator of the hospital's cardiac cath lab is unclear. St. Anthony's position effectively would permit a third-party operator to lease all of the time in a hospital's cardiac cath lab, yet allow the hospital to apply for and receive an adult cardiovascular service license. Nothing in Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), suggests that the Legislature intended to provide such an option. The proposed rule designating the reportable cardiac catheterization procedures is logical and rational, is not arbitrary or capricious, and does not modify, enlarge or contravene the specific provisions of the statute implemented. The evidence fails to establish that the designation of appropriately reportable cardiac catheterization procedures constitutes a failure to establish adequate standards for agency decision making or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the proposed rules include provisions "that allow for" compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines for "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the TAP "develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes" and that, based thereon, AHCA adopt rules that include a risk adjustment procedure that accounts for variations in severity and case mix, outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance, and "specific steps to be taken by the agency and the licensed hospitals" that fail to meet outcome standards. The statute also requires that licensed hospitals participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The TAP determined that the appropriate method of measuring outcome was to utilize the data available through the clinical outcome reporting systems referenced in the statute. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level I adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level I hospital must comply; requires that the Level I hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level I hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: All providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsection 59A- 3.2085(13), F.A.C., the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines regarding the operation of adult diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories and the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Aspects of the guideline related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Aspects of the guideline related to the provision of elective percutaneous coronary intervention only in hospitals authorized to provide open heart surgery are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program and the percutaneous coronary intervention program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Level I adult cardiovascular service providers shall report to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry in accordance with the timetables and procedures established by the Registry. All data shall be reported using the specific data elements, definitions and transmission format as set forth by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level II adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level II hospital must comply; requires that the Level II hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level II hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides in relevant part as follows: All providers of Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsections 59A-3.2085(13) and 59A-3.2085(16), F.A.C. and the applicable guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association regarding the operation of diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories, the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention and the provision of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program, the percutaneous coronary intervention program and the cardiac surgical program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. In addition to the requirements set forth in subparagraph (16)(a)7. of this rule, each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. The Petitioners generally assert that the proposed rules insufficiently identify or establish the minimum standards identified as "guidelines" and "benchmarks" in the rule. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The guidelines are specifically identified and incorporated by reference within the rule. There is no evidence that the documents identified do not constitute the "most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association" as required by the statute. Hospitals are not obligated to meet all of the requirements set forth in the guidelines. A licensed hospital is deemed to be in compliance when, as specified in the statute, the hospital adheres to the standards related to staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The Petitioners generally assert that such distinctions between the various compliance elements are unclear. The evidence fails to support the assertion. There is no credible evidence that the guidelines, albeit technical and complex, are not commonly understood by appropriate medical practitioners and hospital administrators. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague on grounds that it requires Level I hospitals to operate in compliance with the referenced guidelines while Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. authorizes provision of elective PCI at Level I hospitals. Martin Memorial further asserts that because the proposed rules provide for elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs, the proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that AHCA include "provisions that allow for" the following: Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. (Emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. provides as follows: Notwithstanding guidelines to the contrary in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), all providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs may provide emergency and elective percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. (Emphasis supplied) Martin Memorial's disagreement with the proposed rule is premised on the following statement in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update: Elective PCI should not be performed at institutions that do not provide onsite cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) The statement is contained within subsection 4.3 ("Role of Onsite Cardiac Surgical Backup") within Section 4 ("Institutional and Operator Competency"). The statement is defined as a "Class III" standard, meaning within the "conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful." According to the "Level of Evidence: C" identification, the statement reflects "consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care." A footnote to the statement provides as follows: Several centers have reported satisfactory results based on careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program (citation omitted). A small but real fraction of patients undergoing elective PCI will experience a life-threatening complication that could be managed with the immediate onsite availability of cardiac surgical support but cannot be managed effectively by urgent transfer. Wennberg, et al., found higher mortality in the Medicare database for patients undergoing elective PCI in institutions without onsite cardiac surgery (citation omitted). This recommendation may be subject to revision as clinical data and experience increase. The guidelines are statements of "best practices" in health care delivery. They are intended to assist practitioners and facility administrators in making appropriate decisions. The cited statement neither prohibits nor requires performance of elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs. Whether a practitioner performs elective PCI in a licensed Level I hospital remains a medical decision under the provisions of the enacting statute and proposed rules. The footnote recognizes that elective PCI is available at some hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery through "careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program." The proposed rule specifically establishes staff and transfer requirements designed to facilitate rapid transfer of a patient from a Level I to a Level II facility. There is no evidence that such staff and transfer requirements are insufficient or otherwise inappropriate. Patient selection criteria are those which expressly identify clinical presentations of patients who are appropriate for revascularization through PCI. Section 5 of the referenced ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update, titled "Clinical Presentations" explicitly addresses such criteria and constitutes the patient selection criteria contained within the document. The patient selection criteria do not regulate the location where PCI procedures are performed. As stated previously, the Florida Legislature, presented with the option of limiting the availability of cardiac catheterization services available at Level I hospitals to emergent patients, rejected the limitation. The evidence fails to establish that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague or that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule contravenes Subsection 408.0361(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides that AHCA adopt rules that include "at least the following" elements: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. The TAP recommended to AHCA that existing outcome data reporting systems created by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons be utilized for data collection related to licensed hospital adult cardiovascular services programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that hospitals licensed under the proposed rules participate in clinical reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The requirement was adopted by the 2007 Legislature based on the TAP recommendation. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(16)(a)8. requires licensed Level I hospitals to participate in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) and sets forth additional directives related to such participation. The ACC-NCDR system is a risk adjusted outcome reporting system that accounts for variation in severity and case mix. It collects approximately 200 data elements and is in use in approximately 2,000 hospitals. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(17)(a)6. directs licensed Level II hospitals to participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (STS database) and sets forth additional requirements related to such participation. The STS database provides information generally similar to the ACC-NCDR database. Although Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)5. states that the Level II hospital must meet or exceed the performance standards identified within the ACC-NCDR, there appears to be no specific requirement in the proposed rules that a Level II hospital participate in the ACC-NCDR system. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. contains a citation to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085 (16)(a)7. The cited paragraph consists of text that is similar to the paragraph preceding the citation. The intent of the reference is unclear. If the reference were intended to incorporate the ACC- NCDR reporting requirements with those applicable to Level II hospitals, the citation in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. should have been to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)8., where the ACC-NCDR requirements are identified. In any event, the statute requires participation by licensed hospitals in the reporting systems, and, as stated previously, Level II hospitals must document plans to ensure that the cited standards are met; so, it is logical to presume that Level II hospitals will participate in the ACC-NCDR system, in addition to the STS database. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule does not include the "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance" required by Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), and that the proposed rules fail to identify the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced therein. The evidence fails to support the assertions. 93. Proposed Rules 59A-3.2085(16)(a)7. and 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)5. require that each licensed hospital must document a "quality improvement plan to ensure" that the specified cardiac services meet or exceed "national quality and outcome benchmarks" reported by the ACC-NCDR and the STS databases. The word "benchmark" is not defined by statute or rule. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "benchmark" as "a point of reference from which measurements may be made" or "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged." The evidence establishes that the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced in the proposed rules are the "expected levels of performance" identified through the ACC-NCDR system. Each hospital participating in the ACC-NCDR system receives a detailed quarterly outcome report indicating the particular hospital's performance relative to all other reporting hospitals on a variety of elements associated with cardiac catheterization and PCI provided at the hospital. Accompanying each periodic report is an "Executive Summary" that identifies the relative performance of the hospital receiving the report on ten specific "PCI and Diagnostic Catheterization Performance Measures," including six "PCI Quality Measures," two "PCI Utilization Measures," and two "Diagnostic Quality Measures." The Executive Summary information visually displays the data through a set of "box and whisker plots" that present the range of data reported by all participating hospitals on each specific measure. The summary received by each hospital identifies its specific performance through an "arrow" and numeric data printed on the plot. The plot visually displays "lagging" and "leading" performance levels. The plot identifies hospitals performing below the tenth percentile of all participating hospitals as "lagging" hospitals. The plot identifies hospitals performing above the 90th percentile as "leading" hospitals. The evidence, including review of the ACC-NCDR data reporting system, establishes that the "expected levels of performance" are rationally those levels within the broad range of hospitals which are neither "leading" nor "lagging" according to the data. It is reasonable to assume that a "leading" hospital is performing at a level higher than expected and that a "lagging" hospital is performing at a level lower than expected. By reviewing the plot for each measure, a hospital can determine its performance relative to other participating hospitals on the ten measures included in the Executive Summary. The additional numeric data contained within the quarterly report permit additional comparison between an individual hospital and all other participating hospitals. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), does not require that AHCA establish numeric minimal standards, but only requires that the rule identify "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance." The ACC-NCDR reporting system required by the statute and adopted by the proposed rules sufficiently identifies expected levels of performance. By their very nature, the outcome standards are not fixed. It is reasonable to presume that as hospital practices change, measurements of relative performance will also change. The rule requires only that each licensed hospital include within a quality improvement plan, documentation to ensure that such outcome standards will be met or exceeded, essentially encouraging a pattern of continual improvement by licensed programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the rule include the "specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans." The proposed rule complies with the requirements of the statute. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level I programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(f) which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level I adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level I adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level II programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(e), which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level II adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. AHCA does not routinely conduct surveys of accredited hospitals. Such surveys are conducted by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). AHCA generally conducts hospital surveys only during the investigation, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.253(8), of a complaint filed against a hospital. AHCA would likely review ACC-NCDR and Society of Thoracic Surgeons data reports associated with the investigation of a specific complaint related to adult cardiovascular services. Assuming that AHCA's review of the data identified a deficiency, the proposed rules provide the licensee a 15-day period to develop a plan of correction acceptable to AHCA, unless the issue poses "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients" in which case it is reasonable to expect that a more prompt resolution of a deficiency would be required. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 3.253, a hospital could be sanctioned for failing to submit a plan of correction related to an identified deficiency, or for failing to implement actions to correct deficiencies specified in an approved plan of correction. There is no evidence that AHCA's enforcement authority under the proposed rules differs in any significant manner from the general enforcement authority already available to the agency. There is no evidence that the proposed rules would result in any alteration of AHCA's investigative practices. Martin Memorial notes that, while the proposed rule provides a 15-day period for development of a plan of correction, AHCA's general enforcement rules already provide a ten-day period and asserts that the proposed rule is therefore inconsistent, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The specific time period set forth in the proposed rule is clearly applicable, and there is no credible evidence of legitimate confusion in this regard. AHCA has suggested that "lagging" hospitals could be specifically regarded as failing to meet the outcome benchmarks identified in the ACC-NCDR data, but the proposed rule makes no specific reference to any systematic classification of hospital performance, and the statute does not require that a minimal performance level be established. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)6. is capricious because it requires that "each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database," but only physicians can participate in the database. The enacting statute requires such participation. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), directs AHCA to adopt rules that require Level I or Level II licensed hospitals to "participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons." The proposed rule clearly implements the directive established by the statute. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is irrational or that a licensed Level II hospital would be unable to meet the obligations of the rule by requiring that its thoracic surgeons participate in the STS database. Martin Memorial asserts that the requirement that an applicant hospital's chief executive officer attest to compliance with certain guidelines is vague because "it is unclear what guidelines apply and what guidelines will not." The evidence fails to support the assertion. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with applicable guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-2; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)6. designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level I hospital services. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level II hospital services. The specific elements of the referenced guidelines are identified in both the statute and the proposed rules. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule is vague as to training requirements applicable for physicians performing elective PCI in Level I hospitals. In making the assertion, Martin Memorial references training requirements established at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)2. and applicable to Level I physicians performing emergent PCI with less than 12 months experience. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is vague. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b), in relevant part, provides as follows: Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level I adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Physicians with less than 12 months experience shall fulfill applicable training requirements in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) prior to being allowed to perform emergency percutaneous coronary interventions in a hospital that is not licensed for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rule provides that a physician with less than 12 months experience working in a Level I facility can perform emergent PCI only if applicable training requirements have been met. The proposed rule does not authorize performance of elective PCI in a Level I hospital by a physician not meeting the minimum annual procedure volume requirements. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(b) clearly identifies the requirements applicable to Level II physicians and in relevant part provides as follows: Each cardiac surgeon shall be Board certified. New surgeons shall be Board certified within 4 years after completion of their fellowship. Experienced surgeons with greater than 10 years experience shall document that their training and experience preceded the availability of Board certification. Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level II adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Martin Memorial asserts that the experience requirements set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)3. (related to Level I hospitals) and Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(b)3. (related to Level II hospitals) are arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The text of both proposed rules provides as follows: The nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall be experienced in handling acutely ill patients requiring intervention or balloon pump. Each member of the nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall have at least 500 hours of previous experience in dedicated cardiac interventional laboratories at a hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. They shall be skilled in all aspects of interventional cardiology equipment, and must participate in a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year call schedule. Martin Memorial argues that there is no evidence to suggest that 500 hours of experience indicates that appropriate competency levels has been achieved. The evidence establishes that the required experience level was developed by AHCA's hospital licensure unit staff and is the training level currently applicable for hospitals providing emergency PCI services under existing exemptions from CON requirements. The training requirements are not arbitrary or capricious. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(c)1. is arbitrary or capricious. The cited rule requires that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an emergent patient to a Level II hospital, as follows: A hospital provider of Level I adult cardiovascular services program must ensure it has systems in place for the emergent transfer of patients with intra-aortic balloon pump support to one or more hospitals licensed to operate a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Formalized written transfer agreements developed specifically for emergency PCI patients must be developed with a hospital that operates a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Written transport protocols must be in place to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. Transfer time is defined as the number of minutes between the recognition of an emergency as noted in the hospital’s internal log and the patient’s arrival at the receiving hospital. Transfer and transport agreements must be reviewed and tested at least every 3 months, with appropriate documentation maintained. Martin Memorial asserts that the rule is arbitrary or capricious because it does not include a requirement that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an elective patient to a Level II hospital. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. There is no evidence that a patient undergoing elective PCI at a Level I would not be regarded as an emergent patient were circumstances such that an emergent transfer to a Level II hospital warranted. There is no credible evidence to suggest a rationale for transferring a non-emergent patient from a Level I to a Level II hospital. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute on grounds that, although AHCA is directed to adopt rules to ensure compliance "with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories," the proposed rule provides that "in case of conflicts between the provisions of this rule and the designated guidelines" the rule provisions "shall prevail." Such provisions appear in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(13)(j), Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(g), and Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(f). The enacting statute requires that hospitals licensed under the provisions of the proposed rules comply with guidelines "for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." To the extent that guidelines that relate to elements other than "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety," the enacting statute does not require compliance by properly- licensed Florida hospitals. Other than as addressed elsewhere herein, the evidence fails to identify any specific conflicts between the guidelines and the proposed rules and, accordingly, fails to establish that the cited proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside) is licensed to operate a 102-bed general, acute care hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Formerly a public hospital known as West Pasco Hospital, Riverside was acquired by American Healthcare Management, Inc. (AHM) of Dallas, Texas, in December of 1983. By the prior issuance of Certificate of Need (CON) Number 2859, Riverside was authorized to construct and equip a new hospital building for patients and ancillary services at a cost of $14.8 million, including a special procedures room. The new building was approved for occupancy and use as a hospital in September of 1986. Riverside was able to complete construction and equipping of its new facility for an amount approximately $2.5 million less than the approved capital expenditure budget for CON No. 2859. Riverside now seeks to upgrade the existing equipment in its special procedures room so as to be capable of performing cardiac catheterization procedures. The room would not be a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory, but would serve the dual function of both cardiac catheterization and non-cardiac angiography. While the cost of creating a brand new cardiac catheterization laboratory would normally amount to approximately $1.4 million, petitioner proposes an expenditure of only $512,474. This lower figure results from the fact that Riverside's existing special procedures room was equipped during the renovation and reconstruction authorized pursuant to Certificate of Need Number 2859, and now needs only to be upgraded to achieve cardiac catheterization capacity. In 1982, prior to its acquisition by AHM, Riverside lost its accreditation through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH). The removal of accreditation was occasioned by code and physical plant deficiencies and documentation deficiencies related to quality assurance, infection control, medical record-keeping and staff credentialling. Riverside has attempted to eliminate all such deficiencies which led to the prior loss of accreditation. In September of 1986, Riverside submitted its application for a JCAH accreditation survey of its facility. As of the dates of the administrative hearing, the survey dates had not yet been scheduled. It generally takes JCAH approximately so days after a survey to render its accreditation decision. Riverside does not intend to offer cardiac catheterization services until JCAH accreditation is received by the hospital, and is willing to condition its proposed Certificate of Need upon receipt of such accreditation. Riverside has been certified by HRS for Medicaid/Medicare participation. While those conditions of participation are similar to JCAH accreditation standards, they are not identical. Riverside's active medical staff includes six board- certified or board-eligible cardiologists, none of whom currently perform cardiac catheterizations. There are no cardiovascular surgeons on staff, and Riverside does not immediately intend to offer open heart surgery at its facility. Approximately nine local cardiologists in Pasco County, including those on the medical staff of Riverside, have formed a corporation to promote and implement a quality assurance program for the catheterization laboratory at Riverside and to recruit and hire a board-certified cardiologist to perform the catheterizations. No specific physician has yet been recruited as catheteer. Riverside currently has on its staff certified critical care registered nurses and registered nurses with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training. It also has radiological support staff, staff trained-in photographic processing and staff available to handle blood samples and observe and monitor patients. It is expected that there will be cross-training at other AHM facilities having cardiac catheterization laboratories, such as St. Luke's Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. In addition to the cardiologists, Riverside intends to staff the proposed laboratory with one registered nurse, one radiology technician, a scrub technician and a technician responsible for the operation of the physiological monitoring during a procedure. The former two positions will be hired exclusively for the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and the latter two are already on the staff and will be assigned for catheterization procedures. Riverside currently offers the following noninvasive cardiac/circulatory diagnostic services: hematology studies, coagulation studies, electrocardiography (EKG), chest x-rays, blood gas studies, clinical pathology studies, blood chemistry analysis, nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing and microbiology studies. Riverside proposes to upgrade its existing General Electric angiographic system with a new General Electric multi- purpose diagnostic system, and will also purchase a physiological monitor. A maintenance agreement will be purchased under which General Electric, which maintains an office in Tampa, will be responsible for maintaining the equipment. It is anticipated that a GE service technician will be on call, if not on site, during all cardiac catheterization procedures. GE also provides in-service training in the use of its equipment, and it is anticipated that GE training personnel will remain on site during the first several times the equipment is operated. Funds for the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory are available through the prior financing arranged by AHM for the hospital reconstruction and renovation authorized by Certificate of Need No. 2859. Assuming that the proposed lab will perform 219 catheterization procedures at an average charge of $1,794 during the first year of operation, and 417 procedures at an average charge of $1,884 during the second year, Riverside projects a net income of $20,593 for year one and $117,288 for year two. The proposed charges are comparable to those of existing providers. The pro formas assume a payor mix of approximately 15 percent Medicare patients. Inasmuch as a large majority of patients requiring cardiac catheterization are elderly, the Medicare patient mix projections are probably low. Since Medicare does not generally fully reimburse a hospital for its actual charges, the net income projections are likely overstated. The pro formas do not include any expenses associated with a helicopter ambulance service. The expenses projected for employee benefits, seventeen percent of salary, appear to be a little low for the Pasco County area. Riverside anticipates that the net income generated from the proposed catheterization lab will also help offset and reduce the overall losses experienced by it in the past several years. HRS District V includes Pasco and Pinellas Counties. Although the HRS methodology for determining the numeric need for cardiac catheterization laboratories indicates, no additional need in District V, the parties have stipulated and the evidence demonstrates that there is a need for such a lab in Pasco County. The five existing catheterization laboratories in District V are all located in Pinellas County. There are currently no existing or approved labs in Pasco County, and approximately 1,200 Pasco County residents per year are being sent out of Pasco County for cardiac catheterization, mostly to Tampa General Hospital in District VI. The physicians who testified at the hearing would prefer to perform cardiac catheterization procedures and send their catheterization patients to a facility which also has open heart surgery capacity. When open heart surgery is necessary and a patient is referred or transferred to another hospital for such surgery, that facility often performs its own cardiac catheterization procedures. This results-in duplicate costs, services and potential risk to the patient who is cashed in one facility and referred to another facility for surgery. It has been the experience of local cardiologists in Pasco County that between 50% and 70% of patients upon whom a catheterization procedure is performed ultimately also have open heart surgery. Nevertheless, each of the cardiologists who testified indicated his desire and willingness to utilize Riverside's proposed laboratory for low-risk diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Until Riverside is able to offer open heart surgery services at its facility (which is within Riverside's long-range plan)' it proposes to screen patients for risk, and perform only elective, diagnostic catheterization procedures. Neither pediatric, emergency nor therapeutic catheterization, such as balloon angioplasty, will be performed in Riverside's proposed cardiac cath lab. Three hospitals offering open heart surgery have entered into formal transfer agreements with Riverside. These include Morton F. Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, and Tampa General Hospital in Tampa. None of the three are within thirty minutes driving time from Riverside by emergency vehicle. Morton F. Plant' the closest of the three, is 27 miles from Riverside. During a "red run" or "hot run" with sirens and lights flashing, and following normal emergency driving procedures, it would take between 45 and 50 minutes for an ambulance to travel between Riverside and Morton F. Plant Hospital. There are large traffic volumes which utilize the road systems between Riverside and Morton F. Plant Hospitals, and a great number of lighted intersections. While petitioner presented testimony that an emergency vehicle traveling 10 miles per hour over the speed limit could reach Morton F. Plant from Riverside in 30 minutes, 18 seconds, such testimony is not deemed credible. The witness had not actually traveled that distance in an emergency vehicle. An actual emergency run was made from Tarpon Springs General Hospital to Morton F. Plant Hospital a distance of about 15 miles. That run, travelling a portion of the same route proposed by Riverside's witness, took about 22 minutes. Given the fact that Riverside is some 10 to 12 miles further away from Morton F. Plant Hospital than is Tarpon Springs General Hospital, it is concluded that an ambulance could not travel the 27 miles from Riverside to Morton F. Plant Hospital in 30 minutes in average travel conditions. Riverside does have a helipad at its facility, but does not own a helicopter and does not have a contract for air ambulance services. Although one of Riverside's witnesses believed that a helicopter would be at Riverside on all days upon which cardiac catheterizations are performed, no expenses for a helicopter or a contract with a helicopter ambulance service are included within Riverside's pro forma. Riverside intends to offer cardiac catheterization services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While patients are generally directly charged for the actual costs associated with emergency transport, it is not reasonable to assume that the costs of either purchasing or maintaining an on-site helicopter could legitimately be directly charged to patients. The actual flight time from ground takeoff at Riverside to ground landing at Tampa General Hospital in average travel conditions is 15 minutes. There is a licensed air ambulance service, known as Suncoast, which operates out of Tampa International Airport and maintains two helicopters. Unless a hospital has a contract for air ambulance services, Suncoast does not dedicate a helicopter to be on standby and ready to respond to a call for an emergency flight. Even if a helicopter were available, it would take between 30 to 45 minutes to place a helicopter on the ground at Riverside after the need has been communicated to Suncoast. Given the fact that Riverside does not own or maintain a helicopter on site, it is reasonable to consider the time which could be expected to lapse between the summons for an emergency transport vehicle and its arrival, as well as the time of transport between two hospital facilities. Emergency runs, whether by ground ambulance or air transport, are tremendously stressful on a patient. This factor becomes particularly important when the patient is one who has recently undergone a cardiac catheterization procedure and is being transported for emergency open heart surgery. Even when patients are screened for risk, complications can arise during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure necessitating an immediate transfer of the patient to open heart surgery or, in some events, a therapeutic catheterization procedure. Such complications include a possible artery dissection during insertion of the catheter or the occurrence of an eschemic episode as a result of the displacement of oxygenated blood with the dye injected into the coronary arteries. While these events are rare, occurring in possibly only 1% of all diagnostic procedures, they do necessitate immediate, more advanced treatment. The 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan favors co-located cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs in the same facility. Quoting from the Inter-Society Commission on Heart Disease Resources, the State Health Plan notes: ". . . there can be little justification for the development of these highly specialized facilities (cash labs) unless expertise in cardiology, cardiovascular radiology, and cardiovascular surgery are immediately available. Optimally therefore, catheterization laboratories should be located only in institutions with well organized and closely related programs of cardiovascular surgery. ". . . such an arrangement not only facilitates close interdisciplinary cooperation and minimizes unnecessary, repetitive, inadequate, or unsafe diagnostic studies, but it also allows prompt intervention should life threatening complications develop during catheterization studies . . . It should be emphasized . . . that separation of the diagnostic laboratory from the surgical facility is less than optimal and may present serious problems." (Riverside Exhibit 5, Volume II, pages 95-96). The State Plan recognizes that some within the medical community feel that independent, "satellite" labs can perform studies as adequately as labs associated with open heart surgery programs. However, it also recognizes the literature demonstrating that such independent labs usually have lower utilization rates. The District v Health Plan does not stress co-location, but suggests that cath labs be developed in areas which have the potential of justifying open heart surgery capability within three years. Other than considerations of timely access, there was no evidence that an additional open heart surgery facility is needed in District V or specifically, in Pasco County. The District Health Plan does stress the provision of services to the indigent. Riverside is committed to serving all patients regardless of ability to pay. Bayonet Point Hospital is a 200-bed hospital located in Hudson, also in Pasco County. In an earlier batching cycle, Bayonet Point applied for a Certificate of Need to add both a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery at its Hudson facility. After an administrative hearing, it was recommended that the application be granted. (Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-3569) The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected that recommendation by Final Order filed on August 22, 1986, and the matter is currently on appeal to the District Court of Appeal, First District. If Bayonet Point were to offer cardiac catheterization services at its facility in Hudson, a cardiac cath lab at Riverside would have an adverse impact upon Bayonet Point's program.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Riverside's application for a Certificate of Need to equip and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its hospital in New Port Richey be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 19th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Carson, Esq. and Robert P. Daniti, Esq. Carson & Linn, P.A. 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Darrell White, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas M. Beason, Esq. and Donna H. Stinson, Esq. Moyle, Flanagan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner, respondent and intervenor have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner 16. First sentence rejected as contrary to the evidence. 27. Last sentence rejected insofar as it contemplates the reasonableness of the pro forma with regard to the Medicare patient mix and the failure to include expenses relating to an air ambulance. 38,39. Rejected. Failure to account for a proper payor mix and air ambulance service renders the financial feasibility projections unreliable. Rejected. Only the JCAH can render such a factual finding. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the record of this proceeding. See Order denying second motion to reopen record. Rejected as to travel time. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted only insofar as it pertains to actual patient flight time. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Second sentence rejected as speculative. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, although it is recognized that Riverside intends to offer only diagnostic procedures. Last sentence rejected as an absolute statement of fact. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 64. Second sentence partially rejected as contradicted by competent, substantial evidence. See Finding of Fact 10 in this Recommended Order. Respondent HRS 20. Rejected insofar as it applies to all ambulance drivers. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Intervenor Bayonet Point 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Fourth sentence is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third sentence partially rejected. See Finding of Fact Number 11. 16. While accepted as an accurate statement of fact, it is concluded that such considerations should not be included within the 30 minute travel time rule. 17,18. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. First sentence accepted as factually correct but not determinative of the reasonableness of the pro formas. First sentence accepted as factually correct but not determinative of the reasonableness of the pro formas. 22,23. Partially rejected as speculative and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as an improper finding of fact, as opposed to a conclusion of law after considering the factual circumstances. Accepted only if the words "if approved" are added.
Findings Of Fact A. whether the "Grandfather" Issue Should Be Determined. The Petitioner, Mease Hospital and Clinic (Mease), operates a 278 bed hospital in Dunedin, a 100 bed hospital in Countryside, and a medical clinic. All are located in north Pinellas County, in the North Pinellas subdistrict of HRS District 5. In 1982, Mease applied for a certificate of need to equip and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). At the time, Mease was of the view that a CCL would be a new service and would therefore require a certificate of need. When Mease determined that approval would not be likely under then current rules, Mease withdrew its application because it understood that a final denial legally would preclude Mease from re-applying for three years. On July 11, 1986, the Respondent, HRS, entered a Final Order adopting a Recommended Order and acknowledging that Humana Hospital Northside, also located in Pinellas County, HRS District 5, continuously had been providing cardiac catheterization services since before July 1, 1977, the effective date of certificate of need regulation of CCLs, and therefore was not required to obtain a certificate of need for a CCL as a new service. Final Order, Humana Hospital Northside v. Department of Health, etc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3910 (DHRS July 11, 1986). When Mease reviewed the Humana Northside Final Order and final hearing transcript, it concluded that it, too, should be "grandfathered." Mease was doing the same type catheterization procedures as Humana Northside. Mease decided to re-apply for a certificate of need both on the basis of need for a CCL at Mease and on the basis of the "grandfather" claim. In October, 1986, Mease filed the pending certificate of need application. In addition to the more typical components of a CON application, the Mease application states in pertinent part: EQUIPMENT/SERVICE TYPE: Mease Hospital and Clinic maintains that the Cardiac Catheterization Program is not a new service, as procedures similar to those performed at Humana Northside, which was recently approved on a grandfathering basis for cardiac catheterization have been performed at Mease Hospital and Clinic in Dunedin for more than 20 years. * * * ADDITIONAL PROJECT DETAILS/REMARKS: Mease Hospital and Clinic believes its historic performance of procedures identical to those for which Humana Northside was grand fathered a cardiac catheterization lab is sufficient to justify similar action, resulting in approval of Mease' proposal. HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was completed in April, 1987. It evaluated the Mease proposal as a typical certificate of need application and denied it on the basis of lack of need. There was no direct mention of the "grandfather" claim, but the SAAR concludes in pertinent part: "Deny a certificate of need for [the Mease] project [among others] in its entirety... Reasons for decision: Insufficient need for an additional cardiac cath lab." Mease's petition for formal administrative proceedings on the denial does not specifically address the "grandfather" claim, either. During the pendency of this proceeding, Mease continued to seek a "grandfather" exemption apart from this proceeding. But Mease's prehearing proceedings in this case were conducted in a way that indicated its assumption that the "grandfather" issue would be determined by final agency action in this case, if not before by informal means. The other parties recognized this assumption and were not prejudiced by Mease's failure to formally specify the issue in its pending petition for formal administrative proceedings or by amendment to it. By letter dated November 23, 1987, HRS finally responded to Mease's continued efforts to obtain "grandfather" status and denied the request. Mease still did not amend its petition for formal administrative proceedings (nor did it file a new, separate petition in response to the November 23 letter.) But it continued to conduct prehearing procedures in a manner so as to have the "grandfather" claim heard as part of this case. HRS and the Intervenor, Morton Plant Hospital, Inc. (Morton Plant) first objected on the record to consideration of the "grandfather" issue in this case in the Prehearing Stipulation filed on January 6, 1988. The "grandfather" issue should be determined in this proceeding. Whether Mease Has A "Grandfathered" CCL. Before July 1, 1977, and continuously since, Mease has operated a special procedures room at its Dunedin hospital. The special procedures room is the largest room in the x-ray department, with adjoining rooms that contain sinks for sterile technique and housing computers. Equipment in the room includes an x-ray generator with a high MA capability to do moderately rapid sequence films and fluoroscope. There is a table of special design to allow movement in all directions to facilitate fluoroscopy. Three different film changers are used. The room contains a large array of catheters, wires and needles for use in the catheterization process. There is a defibrillator monitor, pressure monitors, and various physiologic monitors also in the room. Finally, there is a digital vascular imaging ("DVI") machine to facilitate the computerized processing of digital subtraction studies. The DVI machine has been used to perform coronary arteriographies. During the time the special procedures room has been operational, it has been staffed with persons specifically trained in critical care of patients, with special knowledge of cardiovascular medication and catheterization type equipment. There has always been ample support staff available for patient observation, handling blood samples, performing blood gas evaluations and monitoring physiological data. The catheterization team usually consists of the physician, a special procedures nurse (an R.N. with critical care training) and at least two dedicated radiographer technologists with special knowledge of the equipment. A special procedures log is maintained by physicians using the special procedures room. Procedures typical of those contained on the log prior to and consistently since 1977 include renal arteriograms, pulmonary arteriograms, cerebral arteriograms and femoral arteriograms. Pulmonary arteriograms involve passing a catheter through a right side chamber of the heart into the lungs; the other procedures do not involve passing a catheter into the heart. Pulmonary angiograms, right ventriculography and right atrial injections are all currently performed at Mease in the radiology laboratory. Right heart catheterization procedures are being performed in the CCU units and the special procedures lab at Mease. The special procedures room is not used by radiologists or cardiologists to do any therapeutic or diagnostic studies of the left chambers of the heart. Unlike procedures such as pulmonary arteriograms, in which the catheter is inserted into or through a chamber on the right side of the heart, fluoroscopy is required for insertion of a catheter into a chamber of the left side of the heart. With fluoroscopy, left heart catheterization procedures involve no significantly increased danger to the patient. Left heart catheterization procedures require faster film sequencing equipment for fluoroscopy because the left heart is a higher pressure (faster flow) system than the right heart chambers. Mease's cardiologists perform these procedures in a CCL at either Morton Plant or Largo Medical Center in Clearwater. The Mease special procedures room does not have, and has not had, the more sophisticated equipment needed to perform catheterization procedures in the left chambers of the heart. The sophisticated equipment needed for left heart catheterizations customarily is part of a CCL. It is commonly understood that a CCL is a laboratory which includes this equipment and uses this equipment for left heart catheterizations. Mease shared this understanding until it learned of the Final Order in Humana Hospital Northside. It never contested the omission of cardiac cath services from its hospital license, never reported cardiac cath procedures to the local health council and applied for a CON for a CCL in 1982. On review of the Humana final order and the record of the case, Mease correctly concluded that its special procedures room was being operated in the same way as Humana Northside's. Mease also concluded that it, too, was entitled to "grandfather" status. But the Humana final order points out: The respondent HRS offered no evidence to dispute the fact that petitioner has indeed been providing cardiac catheterization services on a regular and continuous basis from pre-July 1, 1977 to the present time. Instead, HRS takes the position that since petitioner never reported to the Local Health Council that it was performing such services, it is now somehow estopped from claiming a "grandfather" exemption from Certificate of Need review. There is competent and substantial evidence demonstrating that petitioner began performing cardiac catheterization procedures prior to July 1, 1977, at a time when Certificate of Need review was not required, and has continued to perform such services on a regular basis. Accordingly, petitioner was exempt from Certificate of Need review when it initiated such services and continues to maintain that exempt status so long as it regularly and continuously performs such services. In this case, there was persuasive evidence disputing that Mease has been operating a CCL. Mease's special procedures room had some, but not all, of the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. Its special procedures room is not the kind of room customarily used to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. This is why Mease never before claimed entitlement to "grandfather" status but rather presumed that it did not have a CCL and would need a CON to open a CCL. Mease has not been operating a CCL continuously since July 1, 1977. Need For Mease's Proposed CCL. Mease filed the pending CON application in October, 1986. At the time, the local health council for District 5 was reporting an inventory of four CCLs: St. Anthony's; Morton Plant; Largo; and All Children's. Mease also knew that HRS had entered a final order in July, 1986, recognizing "grandfather status" for Humana Northside and allowing Humana Northside to upgrade its CCL by adding up-to-date equipment required for left heart catheterization procedures. At the time of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) denying Mease's application in April, 1987, HRS was aware of, and also counted in the inventory at the time of the SAAR, a second CCL at Morton Plant which was added without CON review. The second Morton Plant CCL became operational in July, 1986, but was not reported to the local health council until early 1987, and was not reported by the local health council until September, 1987. A second CCL also opened without CON review at Largo Medical Center. But the evidence was not clear when the second Largo lab opened. It was not reported to, or by, the local health council before the SAAR either, and HRS did not count it in the inventory for purposes of the SAAR. Since the SAAR, two additional CCLs have been approved without CON review at Bayfront Hospital/All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg. Finally, on November 24, 1987, the District Court of Appeal, First District, rendered an opinion reversing HRS' final order denying an application for a CON for a CCL at Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center in Pasco County in District 5. This CCL was approved for purposes of meeting the need existing as of 1986. The actual District 5 CCL use rate for the period July, 1985, through June, 1986, using local health council data, was 308.47 procedures per 100,000 population. The year in which the proposed CCL would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future, is July, 1988. The District 5 population in July, 1988, is projected to be 1,124,986. The number of procedures projected for District 5 in July, 1988, is 3470. Allocating 600 procedures per CCL, 3470 procedures would create a numerical need for 6 CCLs in District 5 in July, 1988. The local health council did not report any procedures done at the "grandfathered" CCL at Humana Northside, and none were included in the data for the time period July, 1985, to June, 1986. Counting the "grandfathered" Humana Northside CCL in the inventory at the time of the SAAR without attributing any procedures to it for purposes of calculating the use rate for July, 1985, to June, 1986, amounts to a recognition that Humana Northside, while given "grandfather" status based on the facts presented in DOAH Case No. 84-4070, was not in fact operating a CCL continuously since July, 1977. Refusal to attribute procedures to Humana Northside reflects a rational policy decision in this case not to perpetuate the error resulting from the apparently less-than-adequate HRS presentation of its case in the Humana Northside case. There was evidence officially recognized in this case without objection--namely, the Final Order, Bayonet Point Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 4342 (DHRS 1986)--that 1200 Pasco County (District 5) residents were being referred to Tampa for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery in the year preceding June, 1986. (300 were open heart surgery patients.) But there was no evidence to prove how many of the 900 cardiac catheterization patients who were referred to Tampa in the period July, 1985, to June, 1986, would have had the procedure performed in District 5 if Bayonet Point had a CCL. It necessarily follows that there was no evidence to prove that any additional cardiac cath procedures for Pasco County patients performed in District 5 as a result of the Bayonet Pont CCL will not be absorbed by and performed at the Bayonet Point CCL. District 5 has the highest percentage of 65 and over population in the state (29.7 percent for calendar year 1986), but next to the lowest number of catheterizations per thousand of all the districts in the sate. District 5 also has a large cohort of population age 45 to 64. Over 50 percent of the population in District 5 is in the age cohort for which cardiac catheterization is most frequently needed as a diagnostic or therapeutic tool. Seasonal fluctuations increase the elderly winter population. Resident death rate from heart disease is almost 50 percent higher in District 5 than it is for the state of Florida. These factors combine to create an actual use rate in District 5 that, for the past two years (1986 and 1987) has exceeded (or, for 1987, was projected to exceed) the projected horizon year (July 1988) use rate derived from using the 1985 use rate data. The actual use rate for January through September 1987, when extrapolated for the entire calendar year of 1987, shows that the number of procedures expected to be actually performed in District 5 in 1987 is 46 percent (approximately 1,000 procedures) greater than the number of procedures projected to be needed in July 1988 using the 1985 use rate. The projection of procedures for July 1988 is 700 procedures less than actually occurred in District 5 in 1986. Use of July, 1985 to June, 1986, use rate in a demographic configuration like that found in District 5 underestimates projected procedures for July, 1988. Some trends in health care and area population growth do not support the addition of a cath lab at Mease. While the population of north Pinellas County, where Mease is located, is equal in age distribution to south Pinellas County, the new growth in north Pinellas and Pasco is younger than south Pinellas. Increased use of non-invasive diagnostic procedures, such as MRI and CAT scan, will reduce the growth of cardiac cath procedures in the future. The growth in the use rate in cardiac caths is in the number of therapeutic caths, which by rule are required to be done in a facility with open heart surgery and therefore cannot be done at Mease at this time. Indeed, the number of right heart caths being done at Mease has remained constant over the past several years. Also, death from heart disease is decreasing due to improvements in life style. All the cath labs in District 5 are within a two hour drive time of 90 percent of the population in District 5. Morton Plant is six miles from Mease Dunedin. Mease Countryside is twelve miles from Morton Plant and eight miles from Mease Dunedin. One-third of the Mease cardiologist's patients are at Mease Countryside and for catheterization these patients would have to be admitted at or transported to Mease Dunedin where the proposed lab would be located. There is sufficient capacity in the existing cath labs to serve growth in the near future. Approximately 600 more procedures could be done at Morton Plant. There is no problem scheduling caths at Morton Plant. There has been some difficulty getting beds for Mease patients before and after the procedure, but Morton Plant just opened new ICU beds with specially trained nurses to accommodate Dr. Gibbs' patients. The existing labs in District 5 are financially accessible. A significant number of the labs are located in not- for-profit hospitals that serve all types of patients. E.g., Morton Plant, which has an overlapping service district with Mease, offers twice the number of Medicaid days as Mease. In addition, as previously mentioned, new approved labs at Bayfront/ALL Children's (2) and Bayonet Point (1) will be coming on line to provide additional capacity (and bring the total number of CCLs in District 5 to ten.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order: (1) denying Mease's request for recognition of a "grandfathered" CCL at its Dunedin hospital; and (2) denying its application for a CON for a CCL at its Dunedin hospital, CON Action No. 5108. 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 12th day of May, 1988.
The Issue Whether Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital's application for a Certificate of Need to operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in AHCA District 10 should be granted or denied by the Agency for Health Care Administration?
Findings Of Fact The parties Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital, ("CCFH,") is a not-for-profit corporation which owns and operates a 153 bed acute-care hospital located within the incorporated limits of Fort Lauderdale on Route A1A in the mid-section of Broward County, AHCA District 10. Among its 153 medical and surgical beds are approximately 11 beds in the intensive care unit and a similar number of intermediate care beds. CCFH is not a Level II trauma center; nor does it provide comprehensive medical rehabilitation services or the tertiary health care services of open heart surgery or organ transplantation. But, fully accredited by the Joint Commission of Health Care Organizations for Special Care Units, provision of tertiary care services in South Florida is a long-term goal of CCFH. Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc., d/b/a North Ridge Medical Center, owns and operates a general acute-care hospital located in Broward County. It provides adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services as well as open heart surgery services. North Broward Hospital District, (the "District,") owns and operates hospitals in Broward County. Among the hospitals are three that provide, individually, adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. The three hospitals, each a division of the District, are known as Broward General Medical Center, ("BGMC,") Imperial Point Medical Center, ("IPMC,") and North Broward Medical Center, ("NBMC.") In addition to cardiac cath services, BGMC provides open heart surgery services. Holy Cross Hospital is located in the northern part of Broward County within thirty minutes travel time of CCFH by emergency vehicle. It has 587 total licensed beds; 535 are acute care beds, 9 are level II NICU beds and 43 are rehabilitation beds. There is an open heart surgery program at Holy Cross and an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program with two cardiac cath laboratories. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the single state agency authorized by Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, to issue or deny certificates of need, "written statements ... evidencing community need for a new ... health service [such as an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program.]" Section 408.032(2), Florida Statutes. Other Cleveland Clinic Organizations Cleveland Clinic Florida ("CCF") is a not-for-profit corporation separate and apart from CCFH. Comprised originally of 24 or 25 physicians, most of whom came from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio, it began operation in Broward County on February 29, 1988. CCF initially established an outpatient diagnostic and treatment facility on Cypress Creek Road in the eastern middle part of Broward County with the long- term aim of providing tertiary health care services in the South Florida market. It contracted for hospital services with North Beach Hospital, and with the growth of its practice, purchased the hospital in 1990. Converted into a separate not- for-profit corporation, (the applicant in this proceeding,) the hospital was re- named Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital in 1993. In the six years since the inception of its practice, CCF has expanded into a multi-specialty group practice of approximately 85 physicians, representing more than 30 specialties. Both CCF and CCFH are subsidiaries of the same parent corporation. Although governed by separate entities, a Board of Trustees in the case of CCFH and a Board of Governors in the case of CCF, both entities' boards report to a common Board of Trustees. That board is the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the parent corporation, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The Foundation, located in Cleveland, Ohio, is a not-for-profit corporation that serves as the sole corporate member of CCFH. Presently a multi-disciplinary group of approximately 500 salaried physicians, the Foundation is an integrated physician hospital organization, composed of hospital and clinical divisions and a research institute. In contrast to a traditional hospital environment in which a hospital governance may or may not be in accord with its service components' goals, these divisions and the research institute act in concert. The Foundation's organizations and its physicians, therefore, through collaborative effort, carry out the same mission: to provide better care of the sick, to investigate the problems of their illnesses, and to advance those who serve in like capacities. Fundamental values associated with this mission include quality, integrity, compassion, collaboration and commitment. Established in 1921, the Foundation has an extraordinarily distinguished history in cardiac care including coronary cardiac catheterization. Staff members, for example, performed the first valve transplant with bypass surgery. More pertinently, coronary angiography, a diagnostic procedure involving placement of a catheter into the heart, and which accounts for more than 80 percent of diagnostic cardiac catheterization activity, was performed for the first time at the Foundation. Today, the Foundation enjoys wide-spread recognition as a leader in cardiovascular care, research, and education. It is a major tertiary referral center for cardiac patients, treating high risk patients, many of whom have recurring heart disease. The Foundation's hospital in Cleveland has approximately 1,000 beds and is a full service tertiary care center with the exception that it does not provide obstetrics. The Foundation has seven cardiac cath laboratories used primarily for adult cardiac cath or angiography. An eighth laboratory is used to evaluate the arteries in the legs. There are approximately 17 cathing cardiologists on staff at the Foundation's hospital, compared to two on staff at CCFH. On average, 280 adult diagnostic cardiac cath procedures are performed there annually. 12. Despite the close relationship among the Cleveland Clinic organizations, CCFH is a separate entity from the others. The Foundation hospital, as outlined above, is both much larger than CCFH, and a major tertiary referral center when CCFH, at the moment, can only hope to provide tertiary services in the future. Most importantly, while advantages enjoyed by the Foundation may flow directly to CCFH because of their close relationship, the Foundation is not a co-applicant with CCFH in this proceeding. Nor is CCF a co-applicant. The applicant in this case is CCFH only. Pre-hearing Proceedings Including a Projection of Numeric Need Leading to the Agency's Intent to Grant CCFH's Application. 13. On August 6, 1993, the AHCA published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its Summary Need Projections. The Agency's publication projected a need for one additional adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in District No party challenged the Agency's projection of numeric need. By letter dated August 19, 1993, CCFH notified the Agency of its intent to submit a Certificate of Need application for an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program in District 10. On the same day that the letter of intent was filed with the agency, August 23, 1993, CCFH filed a copy of the letter with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. Within fourteen days of the filing of the notice of intent with the Agency, CCFH twice published in the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel a Notice of Filing. The first publication was on August 23, 1993, the second, on September 3, 1993. On September 22, 1993, CCFH filed the application with the Agency and on the same day filed a copy with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. On October 7, 1993, the Agency acknowledged receipt of the application and informed CCFH that, "[c]ertain elements have been omitted from your proposal which are needed to implement formal review." Cleveland Clinic's Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 3. Attached to the letter were a list of the omissions under the heading, "Omissions - Certificate of Need No. 7449." The letter informed CCFH that it was required by law to file an omissions response with both the Agency and the appropriate local health council by 5 p.m. on November 8, 1993, or else the application would be incomplete and deemed withdrawn by operation of Agency rule. On November 8, 1993, CCFH timely filed an omissions response with the Agency and a copy with the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. One week later, the Agency acknowledged receipt of the response and deemed the application complete effective November 9, 1993. On January 10, 1994, the Agency by letter to CCFH informed it of its intent to issue: Certificate of Need Number 7449 to Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital for the establishment of an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program at Cleveland Clinic Hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, District 10. Cleveland Clinic Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 6. The letter also informed CCFH that the Agency intended to deny Certificate of Need No. 7551 for the establishment of a like program to be conducted by NME Hospitals, Inc. Outpatient Cath Lab Not Subject to CON Review At the time of hearing, CCFH had no outpatient cardiac catheterization program in operation. But, in October of 1993, CCFH requested a determination from the Agency as to whether it could establish an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory without certificate of need review. It received word that an outpatient lab would not require review by letter from the Agency dated October 25, 1993. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of a policy of allowing outpatient cardiac cath labs to escape CON review, (and the apparent conflict with requiring inpatient labs to undergo such review,) the Agency's determination is in keeping with the policy of this state. For its part, CCFH is committed to opening an outpatient cardiac cath lab, regardless of whether it receives the approval it seeks in this proceeding. Commencement of operation for the outpatient laboratory will occur prior to start-up of an inpatient program. At the time of hearing, the outpatient lab was expected to commence operation sometime between November, 1994 and January, 1995. CCFH's aspiration to have an inpatient, as well as an outpatient, cardiac catheterization program at its hospital supports its long-term objective of providing the tertiary services provided in open heart surgery. An inpatient program will be capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest, and pressure recording for monitoring and evaluation of valvular disease, or heart failure. The Application Conversion of the Outpatient Lab CON Application No. 7449, (the "Application,") seeks authority to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program at the Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital. If granted, the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory will be converted to inpatient use. But approval of the application will provide authority to perform diagnostic cardiac catheterization only, not therapeutic cardiac catheterization. To implement the inpatient cath program, CCFH will not incur any construction, design, or equipment costs beyond those incurred with the outpatient cardiac cath facilities. Location, Design and Equipment The proposed location for the cardiac cath laboratory has not changed since the application was submitted in September of 1993. Well situated in relation to the central supply, surgical, telemetry and intensive care areas of the hospital, the laboratory will be on the second floor of the hospital, the site of the pathology lab at the time of the application. It has the added benefit of being near where families can wait while procedures are conducted. And, near the elevator on the second floor and an adjacent post-procedure monitoring area, the location is well-suited to good patient flow. The proposed design has not changed either since the filing of the application. The design calls for special procedure x-rays, film storage, and a dark room for proper processing of films. There will be adequate and appropriate space allocated to each area of the laboratory including the patient holding area. The equipment, manufactured by Picker and Hewlett-Packard, is "state of the art." To be purchased, whether the laboratory remains outpatient or not, is x-ray equipment with the capability of cineangiography or cineangiocardiography, an image intensifier, an automatic injector, a diagnostic x-ray examination table for special procedures, a blood gas analyzer and a multi-channel polygraph. A Closed Lab Currently there are no closed cardiac cath labs in Broward County. But, CCFH intends to operate its cath program, if converted from outpatient to inpatient, as "closed," meaning use of the laboratory by medical staff will be restricted. In the case of CCFH, the restriction will allow only physicians employed by CCF to have access to the lab. Initially, medical staff will be restricted to two members of CCF. When warranted by volume of procedures, CCF will recruit additional physicians to perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the lab. Modeling the Foundation with its Assistance With the assistance of the Foundation, CCFH will model its cardiac cath program after the program in place at the Foundation, allowing for the unique needs of its patient base. The Foundation model entails guidelines and protocols that ensure procedures performed are appropriate, cost-effective, efficient, with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and in a setting that allows education, research and training of medical personnel. It involves salaried staff physicians, in a closed laboratory where the performance of the physicians, themselves, as well as of nurses and technicians are monitored and evaluated. The Foundation has developed standardized protocols for determining whether catheterization procedures are indicated, how they should be performed, and for the evaluation of patients before and after the procedure. It has also developed quality assurance, credentialing, recredentialing, and peer review protocols. Standardized protocols improve efficiency, lower costs, and contribute to better patient care. The Foundation will assist CCFH in developing standardized protocols, based on the protocols used at the Foundation. The Foundation will assist CCFH in training the staff which will perform procedures at the laboratory. The Foundation will make available staff to visit the hospital and will allow CCFH staff to participate in training at the Foundation. The Foundation's assistance should enable CCFH to implement the program expeditiously and efficiently. Other Protocols CCFH has in place a transfer protocol for the transfer of emergency patients to Holy Cross Hospital where open heart surgery and other coronary procedures not available at CCFH can be performed. Holy Cross has agreed to accept emergency transfers. Another Application In addition to the filing of the application in this case, CCFH filed another application for the batched cycle in the Spring of 1994. There are differences in the two applications because the data used by the two are different; the data for the second application being newer. The application in this case used the best data available at the time the application was prepared. Certificate of Need Criteria The criteria upon which the Agency "shall ... review applications for certificate-of-need determinations for health care facilities," Section 408.035(1), F.S., are listed in subsections (a) through (o) of the statute. In addition, Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, mandates the Agency to make certain findings of fact, listed in subsections (a) through (e) "[i]n cases of capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients." Benefits and Absence of Harm Approval of the project is advanced by CCFH as meeting principally three public needs. First, it will further the development of the only fully- integrated health care provider in South Florida. This innovation into the South Florida market will improve quality and control cost. Second, it will improve access to services, albeit limited to cardiac care, for the uninsured population. Access to health care services for the uninsured population is one of the main needs of the health care system in Florida. Third, it will further expanded medical research and education in District 10 by allowing the Cleveland Clinic organization through the presence of CCFH in South Florida to sponsor research and postgraduate medical education in cardiology. Approval of the application will not do any harm. It will not result in any significant expenditure or duplication of equipment since CCFH has already committed to the equipment for its outpatient facility. It will not result in harm to the quality of inpatient cardiac cath services at existing providers. Nor will it cause significant financial injury to existing providers. Need in Relation to the Applicable District Health Plan and State Health Plan The State Health Plan The 1989 State Health Plan, superseded for the most part by the 1992 Interim State Health Plan, contains the latest statement at the state level of policy preferences for approval of new inpatient cardiac cath programs. The 1989 Plan lists four preferences, three of which apply to the application. The second preference applies to counties without any cardiac cath programs and so is not applicable to this proceeding. Of the remaining three preferences, CCFH's application does not conform to the third preference: "Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict...". (Cleveland Clinic's Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 4, p. 18, Testimony of Dr. Luke, Tr. 989.) The application conforms to the first and fourth preferences. The first preference is: "Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated." Id. The application conforms to this preference because CCFH has applied for authority to implement an open heart surgery program and because the "Florida Need Projections Adult Inpatient Cardiac Catheterization and Open Heart Surgery Programs and Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization and Open Heart Surgery Programs, January 1996 Planning Horizon" indicates a net need for one adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program and a net need for one adult open heart surgery program in District 10. Id. The fourth preference is: "Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay." Id., p. 19. Consistent with its mission, CCFH has agreed to provide services to patients regardless of ability to pay as evidenced by its commitment to deliver 76 diagnostic caths per year to the uninsured population. The application is consistent with the goals of the 1992 Interim State Health Plan and "Healthy Homes, 1994," the 1994 Health Security Plan. Both of those plans demonstrate the intent of the State to promote improved access, quality, and cost control, based on the model of managed competition. The Cleveland Clinic is cited specifically in those plans as the type of organization that will facilitate managed competition. The District Health Plan The application conforms to both of the recommendations contained in the 1990 District 10 Comprehensive Health Plan. The application conforms to the sole applicable recommendation contained in the 1993 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report for Broward County. That recommendation, (also the second recommendation in the 1990 plan,) requires an applicant to document its willingness to make services available to all segments of the service area population, regardless of ability to pay. The recommendation is satisfied by CCFH's commitment in the application to perform seventy-six (76) diagnostic catheterization per year to the uninsured population. Availability, Accessibility, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Extent of Utilization, and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services in the Service District of the Applicant Geographic Availability and Accessibility There are twelve existing providers of adult inpatient cardiac cath services located in District 10. There are five of these providers within five miles of CCFH: Holy Cross, North Ridge, IPMC, BGMC and Pompano Beach Medical Center. Less than eight miles away are three other providers: Plantation General Medical Center, Florida Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center. A thirteenth program was approved at University Medical Center in 1994. The road system in Broward County is highly developed. There are many facilities within a few minutes drive of any resident in Broward County. In sum, even were CCFH's aspiration of obtaining approval for an inpatient cardiac cath lab never granted, there is no portion of Broward County that is without close, easy and reasonable geographic access to diagnostic inpatient cardiac care. Extent of Utilization Several providers have multiple laboratories, including North Ridge with three separate cardiac catheterization labs. Not counting the new program at University Medical Center, there are 19 cardiac cath laboratories in the District. At a minimum, a single cardiac catheterization laboratory can reasonably accommodate between 1500 and 2000 cardiac catheterizations in a single year. The nineteen labs of the providers existing and in operation at the time of hearing, therefore, had the capacity to perform between 28,500 and 38,000 cardiac catheterizations per year. During 1993, there were 14,701 cardiac caths performed at existing providers in District 10, a number, it may be safely assumed, no more than half of the capacity supported by existing providers. Individually, no existing provider operated at as much as 80 percent capacity and six of the twelve operated at less than 30 percent capacity. Excess capacity led the Agency to conclude in its State Agency Action Report, ("SAAR"): the need for an additional program cannot be supported in total, although based on current and proposed referral patterns, the impact of an additional cardiac cathe- terization program in the district on these underutilized facilities appears minimal. Cleveland Clinic Composite Ex. No. 2, Tab 6, SAAR, p. 13. The primary impact of an inpatient program at CCFH will be on BGMC and Holy Cross, where CCF physicians currently perform diagnostic caths. The adequacy of existing capacity was confirmed by testimony from the Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the Agency that she is not aware of any individuals within two years of June of 1994 who have been denied access to inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath services because of lack of capacity. Quality of Care Quality assurance, peer review, and credentialing processes are established in order to ensure the highest quality of care. The objective of these processes is to reduce the possibility of unwanted events during the course of treatment. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association ("ACC/AHA") have established guidelines regarding the number of diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures a physician should perform in order to maintain proficiency in the procedure. The guidelines provide, generally, that each physician perform a minimum of 150 procedures annually. And, in general, the guidelines provide that where a physician performs at multiple laboratories, a minimum of 50 procedures should be performed at each laboratory. Some hospitals in Broward County do not require physicians to meet the guidelines. For example, the clinical criteria for performing cardiac cath services at BGMC require that a physician perform as few as 25 diagnostic procedures annually. During 1992 and 1993, only two of the nineteen physicians credentialed to perform diagnostic cardiac catheterization services at NBMC performed more than 40 procedures at the facility. But the guidelines are nothing more than for the purpose of offering guidance to a director of a laboratory in making decisions for what is appropriate in terms of operator experience with regard to credentialing. They are "not written in stone." (Tr. 367.) Exceptions are justifiably made on a case-by-case basis and do not necessarily reflect on quality of care. And there are exceptions in the guidelines, themselves, made for physicians who have extensive experience, that is, more than a thousand independently prepared cases. Nonetheless, one would expect that adherence to the guidelines would enhance quality of care. With the exception of the indirect negative reflection on quality of care that failure to adhere to the guidelines might have, and which could arguably lead to an inference that quality of care was suffering in some existing providers, there was no evidence that quality of care for inpatient cardiac catheterization patients suffers in Broward County. To the contrary, existing providers in District 10 are providing good quality of care. Access for Uninsured Persons Whether on an outpatient or an inpatient basis, CCFH has committed to perform 76 cardiac catheterization on uninsured patients annually, if their application for an inpatient service is granted. On an age-adjusted basis, the use rates for the District 10 uninsured population for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services are significantly below those for the insured population. But whether the use rates signify that the uninsured population of Broward County does not have adequate access to needed cardiac catheterization services is difficult to determine. Dr. Luke, CCFH's expert in health care planning, concluded that uninsured residents of District 10 do not have adequate access. His opinion was met with forceful resistance by other experts in health care planning presented by Cleveland Clinic's opponents. Even the Agency, CCFH's supporter in this proceeding, does not share Dr. Luke's opinion. But Dr. Luke's opinion gains support form the nature of cardiac catheterization. It is a service dependent on referrals. Uninsured persons plainly have more difficulty navigating the referral chain. While there are a number of vulnerabilities in the data Dr. Luke used to reach his opinion, without doubt, there are at least 76 members of the uninsured population per year in Broward County who need cardiac catheterization services annually. Whether they would receive such services, were Cleveland Clinic's application granted, is dependant upon whether they can successfully make their way along the referral chain. CCF, as a multi-specialty practice group, has few primary care physicians, the physicians who would make the initial referral that would lead to a cath procedure at CCFH. But, CCFH and CCF will engage in a program of outreach to identify appropriate uninsured candidates for cardiac catheterization services. CCFH and CCF will inform primary care physicians and clinics of their commitment to provide care to the uninsured population, and will encourage physicians to refer candidates for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services to CCF and CCFH. This outreach program enhances the chances that District 10's uninsured in need of cardiac catheterization services will receive them but there is no guarantee that the outreach program will be successful. Nor has CCFH, in its application or otherwise, offered such a guarantee. Ability and Record of the Applicant to Provide Quality of Care The CCFH cardiac catheterization program will enhance the quality of care offered in Broward County. The CCFH program will model its quality assurance, peer review, patient care, and credentialing/recredentialing protocols upon those used by the Foundation. These protocols meet or exceed the elements necessary to a successful quality assurance program contained in "Guidelines for Continuous Quality Improvement in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory" by Members of the Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, a committee chaired by an employee of the Foundation, Frederick A. Heupler, Jr., M.D. The Foundation's quality assurance and peer review programs provide expressly for sharing quality assurance data with all physicians who perform procedures in the laboratory. The Foundation conducts weekly conferences at which data and specific cases are discussed among all the physicians performing procedures in the laboratory. The CCF physicians who will perform procedures in the CCFH laboratory will participate in the Foundation's conferences via the Foundation's telemedicine capability. The conferences perform an important educational function because in order to bring about quality improvement, the purpose of quality assurance, it is essential to provide feedback to all the physicians, nurses and technicians involved. The closed nature of the inpatient laboratory will enhance quality of care in several ways. Low-volume operators will be excluded thereby enhancing quality control. It will be easier to assure that the physicians with access to the lab meet recommended minimum volume standards necessary to assure quality. Cooperation is enhanced in the standardization of indications for procedures, practice of procedures and protocols. And, the ability to evaluate physicians' performances for purposes of recredentialing is enhanced. CCFH's status as an academically oriented organization enhances quality of care. For example, the presence of post- graduate fellows training in cardiology not only provides support to the laboratory but through their enthusiasm and inquisitiveness provide an animated atmosphere that brings out the best in the practitioners. As well as taking time to educate the fellows, the physicians spend more time educating the nursing staff. The nursing staff, therefore, benefits, in turn, from the stimulating environment afforded by the academic orientation to be provided in the Cleveland Clinic setting. The establishment of a cardiac catheterization program at CCFH will allow the CCF cardiologists to interact clinically with the rest of the CCF staff physicians, who practice predominantly at the hospital. The collegial clinical relationship among the CCF staff physicians enhances quality of care. The CCFH program will perform a minimum of 300 procedures annually by the second year of operation, consistent with the minimum number of procedures called for by the ACC/AHA Guidelines to ensure quality of care. The CCFH program will have a sufficient number and complement of staff to provide high quality services to the patients projected to be served by the program. The number and complement of staff are sufficient to allow for rapid mobilization of an on-call team 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The staff projected for the CCFH program will include a program director, board certified or board eligible in cardiology, radiology, or with subspecialty training in cardiology or cardiovascular radiology; a physician, board- certified or board-eligible in cardiology, radiology, or with specialized training in cardiac catheterization and angiographic techniques who will perform the examination; support staff, specially trained in critical care of cardiac patients, with a knowledge of cardiovascular medication and an understanding of catheterization and angiographic equipment; support staff, highly skilled in conventional radiographic techniques and angiographic principles, knowledgeable in every aspect of catheterization and angiographic instrumentation, with a thorough knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the circulatory system; support staff for patient observation, handling blood samples and performing blood gas evaluation calculations; support staff for monitoring physiological data and alerting the physician of any changes; support staff to perform systematic tests and routine maintenance on cardiac catheterization equipment and be available immediately in the event of equipment failure during a procedure; and support staff trained in photographic processing and in the operation of automatic processors used for both sheet and cine film. The CCFH plan for care both before and after the procedure will be of high quality. 74. CCFH's cardiac catheterization program will be capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in case of cardiac arrest and pressure recording for monitoring and to evaluate valvular disease, or heart failure. The following noninvasive cardiac or circulatory diagnostic services will be available at CCFH: Hematology studies or coagulation studies; Electrocardiography; Chest x-ray; Blood gas studies; and Clinical pathology studies and blood chemistry analysis. Availability of Alternatives to the Project While there was expert opinion that an appropriate alternative would be to use the expertise of CCF physicians by operating "a high quality Cleveland Clinic program in one of the existing combined diagnostic and open heart approved facilities," (Tr. 1415,) there are disadvantages to this alternative. First, the transfer of patients from CCFH to a hospital providing inpatient cardiac catheterization services poses risks to patients and anxiety for both the patient and family. Transfer of patients also disrupts continuity of care. Second, the equipment for the laboratory has been purchased. If the project is not implemented, inpatients at CCFH will bypass that equipment and be transferred elsewhere. Third, there are no cost savings associated with the alternative since CCFH will implement an outpatient program if the inpatient program is not approved. Fourth, the South Florida community will not benefit from the research and education capabilities of CCFH and Foundation. Finally, the community will not benefit from whatever free care it might receive if CCFH is able, in fact, to make good on its pledge for the provision of free care. In contrast, the proposed program will benefit the community by enhancing the chances of improving access to the uninsured population, expanding and enhancing medical research and education, and furthering development of the only fully-integrated health care provider in South Florida, which, in turn, will improve quality and control costs. The Need For Research and Educational Facilities North Broward Hospital District has a division of academic affairs related to the training of medical students. It has established medical student affiliations with Nova Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine in Broward County and the University of Florida School of Medicine. Broward General Medical Center is seeking approval to establish a residency program and currently instructs third and fourth year medical students on a regular basis. These students often observe cath lab procedures at both BGMC and NBMC. By 1995, BGMC will be listed as an available point of residency in the catalog for the University of Florida School of Medicine. In addition to assisting in the education of medical students, the District is seeking national approval as a continuing medical education (CME) site. CME programs are presently approved by the Florida Medical Association. The week the hearing in this proceeding commenced, for example, the District's division of academic affairs hosted a program on emergency cardiology services sponsored by the University of Florida. Research programs serve an important function as a point of dissemination of new medical techniques. The District is engaged in secondary research. It was recently selected to participate in a multi-center lifestyle heart trial. Six sites were selected nationwide with BGMC being one of the approved sites. The program will do research regarding the reversal of coronary heart disease. The District's hospitals, moreover, have an Institutional Research Board. Any physician can propose a research program to the Board. But, despite BGMC's research activity, there are no recognized research institutions in District 10. Unlike the research in which the District is engaged which is secondary in nature, academic centers such as the Foundation, perform primary or original research. The Foundation, together with CCF and CCFH, is actively engaged in research related to cardiology. Included among CCF and CCFH's research activities are multi- center research studies, most of which are coordinated with the Foundation. The Foundation serves as the principal investigator for those studies but District 10 will benefit from the close relationship with the Foundation enjoyed by CCF and CCFH. There are substantial benefits associated with graduate medical education, including enhancing the quality of medical services provided. When patient care takes place in the milieu of education and research, as it does at the Foundation's facility in Cleveland, it enhances a hospital's opportunity to recruit physicians interested in that type of activity more than in the economics of medicine. Because of the close relationship between the Foundation and CCFH, the benefits provided by the Foundation's research and educational environment spill over to the applicant. For example, the Foundation has one of the largest cardiology residency programs in the United States. Residents from that program, as well as other Foundation residency programs, rotate to CCF/CCFH for part of their training. The number of Foundation residents rotating to CCF/CCFH has grown from 6 to 29 over five years. Most of the residents are in primary care and internal medicine programs. CCFH will provide educational benefits independent of the benefits that flow from the Foundation. There exists a need for additional graduate medical education training sites both in Florida and in District 10. Florida ranks 41st among the 50 states in the number of residents per population. To help meet this need, CCFH provides an independent residency in surgery under the guidance of CCF. It is the only accredited graduate medical education program in District 10. The proposed inpatient cardiac cath lab will further the training of graduate medical students both in Florida and Broward County by increasing their educational opportunities. The program will provide CCFH with the full diagnostic capabilities needed in order to train internists and other primary medicine specialists in evaluating and caring for cardiovascular patients. The ability of primary care physicians to evaluate and care for cardiovascular patients is critical, given the high rate of cardiovascular disease in South Florida. The provision of graduate medicine education requires institutional commitment. The applicant is so committed and its application is backed by the commitment of CCF. The approval of the application will enhance medical research and education in District 10 and the State of Florida. Availability of Resources CCFH's estimate of project costs is found on the second page of Schedule 2 on page 63 of its omissions response. A breakdown of the estimated costs appears at pages 114 and 115 of the omissions response on Table 25, AHCA Form 1455, 1993. The total of the estimate, $117,000, accurately reflects the total costs for the application. CCFH has available the $117,000 necessary to meet the costs and to finance implementation. CCFH will be able to recruit the nursing and technical staff necessary to the implementation of the project. Long-term Financial Feasibility The immediate financial feasibility of the project is not in doubt. CCFH has available funds in cash from operations with which it intends to fund the start-up of the project. The long-term financial feasibility of this project is another matter. Measured by whether the project produces a positive net income following its start up period, long-term financial feasibility should not be an impossible matter to judge within accepted norms. But, determining long-term financial feasibility in this case is difficult because of the troublesome task of sorting out the truth when experts, all duly-qualified, have opinions, either as to the underlying data and assumptions or the ultimate conclusion, that are diametrically opposed. Petitioners and intervenor attacked fervently the assumptions underlying the opinion of CCFH's expert in health care finance that the project is financially feasible in the long-term. These assumptions were, in the main, provided to the finance expert by CCFH's expert in health care planning, Dr. Luke. The attack was launched from various angles. One expert witness noted that the Agency reported in its SAAR that it was unable to determine long- term financial feasibility and that such an observation by the Agency ordinarily would lead to preliminary action by the Agency in the form of a denial. Moreover, inconsistencies between the Application and the subsequent application were viewed by experts other than Dr. Luke as "profound." (See e.g., Tr. 1300.) Conclusions reached in the application were seen as inconsistent by opposing experts when compared with data that was used to support the opinion of CCFH's finance expert, data provided by the Foundation with regard to its hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. Furthermore, internal inconsistencies in the Application were observed by experts called by CCFH's opponents. These included that CCFH overstated volume projections, overstated its service area, used a flawed charge methodology, understated its average length of stays for four DRGs related to cardiac catheterization and failed to account for expenses associated with the outpatient cath lab that would support the inpatient lab, if approved. These inconsistencies led the opponents' expert witnesses either to offer the opinion that the project was not financially feasible in the long-term or to view the data and assumptions used by CCFH's financial expert as so flawed as to prevent the expert from reaching the opinion held by CCFH's financial expert and to constitute a failure in proof by CCFH that its project is financially feasible in the long term. The flaws observed by CCFH's opponents' experts, however, were explained by Dr. Luke so that the opinion of CCFH's expert in health care finance, as best can be determined, remains valid. For example, Petitioners and intervenor pressed hard on the average length of stay assumptions provided for various DRGs. Dr. Luke conceded that the average lengths of stay provided, based on the cardiac cath inpatient treatment by CCF physicians at BGMC and other area hospitals, are "certainly shorter than the [overall] experience of other area providers." (Tr. 1100, 1101.) But, in response to the assertion that the shorter length of stay could be due to treatment at CCFH prior to the transfer to another area hospital where the cardiac cath procedure was to be performed, Dr. Luke offered two explanations. First, there was no evidence to suggest that a much larger percentage of CCF cardiac cath patients were transferred than were patients of other physicians. Second, the total length of stay in the hospital would be less if a patient were treated solely at CCFH and not transferred to another hospital because of efficiencies in scheduling and time lost in the transfer, itself. Dr. Luke's opinion, in this regard, was bolstered by analysis as to length of stay of patients under the care of CCF physicians in DRGs comparable to inpatient cardiac cath DRGS. With regard to DRG 143, (Chest pain), CCFH's average length of stay is tied for the lowest in the district. Others are the lowest. CCFH's 2.7 average length of stay for DRG 140, for example, the lowest in the District, may be contrasted with NBMC's average length of stay for DRG 140, which is 4.3, nearly 160 percent higher than CCFH's. The notion, therefore, that CCFH would have significantly lower average lengths of stay for cardiac cath patients is not inconsistent with available data. Average length of stay is the critical building block in the financial feasibility model used by CCFH in its application. But, on rebuttal, CCFH's expert in health care offered the opinion that the project is financially feasible in the long term based on a methodology under which average length of stay is eliminated as a variable. This methodology uses "Cost per Case" data. CCFH's expert compared CCF physicians' cost per case to the costs per case of both petitioners and their experts in this proceeding as well as data from three clients of the expert who provide inpatient cardiac cath services and employ casemix cost accounting systems: Holmes Regional Medical Center, Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Memorial Medical Center of Jacksonville. The outcome of the analysis was that the cost per case projected by CCFH, $2225, fell in the middle of the range of the other providers, which ran from a low of approximately $1600 to a high of approximately $3000. Based on a cost per case analysis, CCFH's health care finance expert concluded that even were the CCFH cost per case understated and turned out to be as high as the average cost per case of any of the petitioners in this case, the project would still be financially feasible in the long term. To take another of the attacks raised by petitioners, that CCFH failed in its application to take into account for expenses associated with the outpatient cardiac cath lab that would support an inpatient lab, it was not necessary that there be such consideration in the application. CCFH has committed the costs associated with constructing and equipping it outpatient cardiac cath program. This commitment makes these costs "sunk." They will be undertaken regardless of whether CCFH's application is granted or not and so are not part of the costs of the inpatient project. It is difficult to determine whether Dr. Luke or his critics are right. On balance, it seems that the matter swings in Dr. Luke's favor. In any event, the testimony on rebuttal which established financial feasibility based on a cost-per-case methodology was not overcome by the parties opposed to CCFH's application. In sum, the project will be financially feasible in the long term. The project will generate a positive net income and positive cash flow after its start-up period. The projections of utilization relied upon in evaluating the long- term financial feasibility of the program are reasonable and achievable. Those projections are based on the historical experience of CCF physicians who perform cardiac catheterization services at other Broward County hospitals. Those physicians performed in excess of 400 procedures in 1992 and 1993. There was growth of approximately 2000 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures performed in District 10 between 1992 and 1993. The CCF physicians will need to obtain modest increases in their market shares in order to meet the projections of utilizations. The payor mix assumptions contained in the application are reasonable and achievable. The application accounts for all operational expenses necessary to the provision of inpatient cardiac catheterization services at CCFH. The Needs of a Multidisciplinary Clinic A multidisciplinary clinic is an organization which employs salaried physicians in a variety of medical specialties to provide diagnostic and therapeutic services to its patients. The physicians practice in a collegial collaborative environment. The multidisciplinary group clinic model promotes ease and economy in the diagnosis and care of patients. The clinic model uses a unified medical record, affording each physician who comes into contact with a patient all data and information pertaining to the patient. CCF is the only multidisciplinary group clinic in South Florida. Approximately eight percent of the discharges by CCF and CCFH in Major Diagnosis Category Five ("MDC-5"), which is the cardiac diagnostic group of the International Classification of Diseases, are attributable to patients who reside outside District 10 and the service districts adjacent to District 10. For purposes of health planning, a service district is a geographic area from which at least two-third's of a health care provider's patients are expected to come. The one-third to 20 percent remainder of the health care provider's patients come from outside the service district. A service district is used in analyzing growth in population or growth in demand for services because such growth will occur most intensively within the service district. The service district for CCFH includes all of Broward County and the southern portion of Palm Beach County. On average, approximately four percent of the MDC-5 discharges for other District 10 facilities reside outside District 10 and the adjacent service districts. The difference between the percentage of CCF and CCFH MDC-5 discharges from outside District 10 and service districts adjacent to District 10 and the average percentage of other District 10 hospitals' MDC-5 discharges from outside District 10 and adjacent service districts is statistically significant. Impact on Costs and Effects of Competition The CCFH program will sharpen competition for cardiac cath services in Broward County. CCFH, in conjunction with CCF and the Cleveland Clinic Florida Health Plan ("CCFHP"), constitute a fully-integrated health care delivery system. A fully integrated system enables a person in need of any type of medical care to receive services through the system. The relationship that exists between CCFH, CCF and CCFHP are unique in the Broward County market. Fully integrated health care delivery systems have been shown generally to produce efficiencies of operations and to improve the quality of care. The Cleveland Clinic system has had a positive impact on both the quality and cost efficiency of care offered in Broward County. CCH's average length of stay for patients and average charges for treatment of common cardiac problems are, on average, the lowest in Broward County. Both in Broward County and generally, health care is moving toward an environment of managed care and managed competition. Managed care and managed competition will result in a more competitive system, which will involve providers of health services bearing risk, in terms of prospective payment or prepaid medical plans. Managed care is intended to achieve high quality and cost efficiency in the delivery of medical services. The integrated health care delivery system model in place at CCFH is well suited for an environment of managed care and managed competition. Similar models in California, for example, have proven effective in offering high quality services at a lower cost in the California managed competition environment. In order for an integrated health care delivery system to achieve the goals of lower consumer costs and high quality, it must be able to control all elements of service delivery, including the costs of delivering services. The better the system can control its costs, the more competitive it can be. If the application is approved, CCFH will be able to control all its elements of the delivery of cardiac catheterization services. The approval of the application will enable CCFH to compete more effectively in the managed care environment because of the desire on the part of purchasers in the marketplace to receive the maximum number of services available. The more comprehensive CCFHP is the more its competitive stature is enhanced in the local market for health care services. To the extent that managed care entities compete on the basis of price, lower prices for health care services will occur. CCFHP has formed an accountable health partnership, ("AHP"). AHPs are organizations comprised of a service delivery system and a financing vehicle. The CCFHP AHP recently submitted a bid to a community health purchasing alliance ("CHPA"), which entities are organized under Florida law to serve as a clearinghouse of information to purchasers of health care, including the assembling and dissemination of information on constituent AHPs to interested parties. The CCFHP bid was the second lowest of the proposals offered to both the Broward County and Palm Beach County CHPAs. While the approval of the application is likely to lower the number of procedures done at all other programs in District 10, it will not have a material adverse impact on the quality of services offered at any existing inpatient cardiac cath program in the District. For those most likely to be affected by the program, approval does not at all threaten that they will drop below 300 procedures since the number of procedures conducted in their programs is in the thousands. For other programs operating at or about 300 procedures annually, approval should not impede their ability to perform in excess of 300 procedures annually. The approval of the application will not have a material impact on University Hospital, which recently received a certificate of need authorizing the development of an inpatient cardiac cath program. The approval of the application will result in the redirection to CCFH of cases primarily from BGMC and Holy Cross. Even with the redirection of cases, both BGMC and Holy Cross will retain in excess of 1000 procedures annually, which is more than adequate to ensure a program's quality. Nor will approval have a material adverse financial impact on any of the petitioners or intervenor. Both Holy Cross and North Ridge have enjoyed substantial operating margins and are otherwise extremely solvent. In the cases of IPMC, BGMC and NBMC, it is appropriate to evaluate the impact on the District system as a whole. The District has substantial financial resources. In the contexts of these organizations' financial strength, the impact of the CCFH inpatient cardiac cath program will be inconsequential. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients It is the policy of CCFH to accept all patients, regardless of ability to pay. In addition to its commitment to provide free services to 76 uninsured patients as a condition of approval of the application, CCFH will also seek out Medicaid patients. This conditional commitment has the potential to be a substantial contribution to alleviating problems of the uninsured in obtaining needed inpatient cardiac catheterization services. But, as stated above, there simply is no guarantee that the commitment will be fulfilled. The Decision in the Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation Case On April 1, 1994, slightly more than two months before final hearing in this case commenced, Hearing Officer Michael M. Parrish rendered a Final Order in Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, et al., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case Nos. 91-6390R (consolidated). The issue in the case was whether Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. By the Final Order, the hearing office declared only a relatively small part of the rule invalid, leaving almost the entire text of the rule intact. Rule 10-5.032 "implements the provision of section 381.706(1)(c), F.S., which provides that certificate of need shall not be required for an expenditure to provide an outpatient service." Pertinently to this case, the rule goes on to define[] the requirements for the establish- ment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services, including minimum requirements for staffing, equipment, and a need methodology for cardiac catheterization programs. A certificate of need for the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services shall not normally be approved unless the applicant meets all relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need criteria set forth in this rule. Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, at 8. Sub-section (8) of the rule is entitled, "Need Determination." Paragraph (c) of subsection (8), also entitled, "Need Determination," sets out the "need formula" as follows: A new adult cardiac catheterization program may be approved if the difference between the projected program volume and the number of adult cardiac catheterizations performed in the service planning area during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of approved adult programs times 300, is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 for the applicable service planning area. This need formula is expressed as follows: NN = PCCPV - ACCPV - APP Where: NN is the 12-month net adult program volume need in the service planning area projected 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. Net need projections are published by the department as a fixed need pool twice a year. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30 shall be July of the year 2 years subsequent to the year the application is submitted. The planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31 shall be January of the year 2 years subsequent to the year which follows the year the application is submitted. PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catheterization program volume which equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume (ACCPV) rate per thousand adult population 15 years and over for the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, multiplied by the projected adult population 15 years of age and over 2 years into the future for the respective planning horizon. The population projections shall be based on the most recent population projections available from the Executive Office of the Governor which are available to the department 3 weeks prior to the fixed need pool publication. ACCPV equals the actual adult cardiac catheterization program volume for the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. APP is the projected program volume for approved adult programs. The projected program volume for each approved program shall be 300 admissions. Id., at 14 and 15. The rule goes on in (8)(d): Irrespective of the net need calculated under paragraph (c), no additional cardiac catheterization program shall normally be granted unless ACCPV divided by the number of operational programs for the service planning area is at or exceeds a program volume of 300 patient admissions. Id., at 15. The Hearing Officer summarized the rule as follows: it, projects a number of anticipated admissions to cardiac catheterization programs in the horizon year by multiplying the current use rate (number of admissions per thousand adult population) times the projected population. If the difference between the current volume and the projected volume is greater than 300, a new program may be awarded, so long as all of the existing programs, plus the proposed program, are projected to perform an average of 300 admissions each. An approved program is assigned a value of 300 for purposes of determining the average. Id., at 15 and 16. After summarizing the rule in the Final Order, the hearing officer took it to task on the basis of a number of deficiencies, not the least of which is that the rule fails to take into account the number of cath laboratories as opposed to the number of cath programs within a district. This point is found in Finding of Fact No. 29 in the Final Order. Even the most cavalier reading of Finding of Fact No. 29 shows the point could not have been made more plainly: The rule does not take into consideration the number of individual catheterization laboratories, rather it considers the number of cardiac catheterization programs. The difference is that an individual hospital will have only one program, but it may have more than one laboratory in each program. Id., at 19. In addition to deficiencies, the rule, in the view of the hearing officer, contains a fatal flaw. It does not address the capacity of existing cardiac catheterization programs or the capacity of existing laboratories. Furthermore, its use of 300 as the threshold number of procedures was an unexplained deviation from an earlier standard of 600 procedures as the threshold. This deviation was also an "unexplained departure from the National Guidelines for Health Planning, and an unexplained departure from other published guidelines recognized as authoritative." Id., at 25. The hearing officer went on in the Final Order to find that "[a]n essential ingredient of any functional need determination methodology is a method for identifying unmet need." Id., at 26. To do so, the methodology must identify "not only ... a reasonable estimate of future need," but also "a reasonable estimate of the future capacity of existing providers to meet that need." Id. The rule's shortcomings are summarized in Finding of Fact 43 of the order: The failure of the subject rule to consider the future capacity of existing providers in calculating future need has an adverse effect upon the ability to accurately predict future unmet need and also has a potential for adverse effect upon the quality of care offered by the existing providers. The rule authorizes the approval of a new inpatient cardiac catheteri- zation program even though many of the existing programs may be operating substantially below their capacity. The addition of new programs under such circumstances has the adverse effect of tending to reduce utilization of existing facilities that are already functioning well below capacity. Id., 26, 27. Ultimately, parts of the rule were determined by the Hearing Officer to be beyond the bounds of "reasonableness" and therefore arbitrary and capricious, and hence, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, see Section 120.52(8), F.S., as follows: The term "operational programs," was determined arbitrary and capricious because the term failed to take into account the number of laboratories within each program. The hearing officer wrote, "[I]llogical results [produced by the use of the term] can be avoided only by use of a methodology that takes into account the number of existing and approved laboratories." Id., at 32; The use of the phrase "a program volume of 300 patient admissions" was determined un- reasonable because it is inconsistent with the National Guidelines For Health Planning and other authoritative guidelines and because it bears no rational relationship to the actual capacity of cardiac catheterization laboratories, Id., at 33; and, Paragraph (9) of the rule was determined to be arbitrary and capricious because "it has the effect of ignoring the existence of any new laboratories added to existing facilities." Id., at 34. The effect of the hearing officer's ruling and the explanation underpinning the ruling was to turn much of the rule, and certainly the numeric need formula, into mincemeat. It clearly called for the initiation of rulemaking if AHCA wanted a rule establishing "need methodology" for calculating numeric inpatient cardiac catheterization program need. But AHCA chose to look at the Final Order in a different way, a way that one would think would occur only in a hearing officer's wildest nightmare. Instead of reading the Final Order in its entirety, and taking it as a whole in able for the order to make sense, AHCA, followed only the strict, literal, reading of paragraphs 4., and 5., on pages 35 and 36 of the order, where it is declared: That the following portions of Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislatively authority for the reasons stated above: the use of the term "operational programs" at paragraph (8)(d), the use of the phrase "a program volume of 300 patient admissions" at paragraph (8)(d), and the last sentence of paragraph (9). That, with the exception of the portions of the rule described in the immediately preceding paragraph, Rule 10-5.032, Florida Administrative Code, has not been shown to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the chal- lenges to other portions of the rule are hereby dismissed. Id., at 35, 36. By reading the declaration of partial invalidity "literally," in the strictest sense of the word, AHCA chose to leave in effect the numeric need formula: "NN = PCCPV - ACCPV - APP." This decision was made despite the fact that nearly the entire Final Order is devoted to an explanation of why the formula is dysfunctional in ways which strike at the very heart of the Certificate of Need program. Moreover, the strictly literal reading of the Final Order by AHCA leaves a rule on the books with portions which make no sense. AHCA conceded as much, through its Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the Agency, elicited during the hearing in direct examination by AHCA's own counsel: Q: ... Now, specifically, as to paragraph 59C-1.0328, I think it is (d), with the language that has been stricken by the hearing officer in the John T. MacDonald case, does that paragraph make any sense to you? A: Not without that language in there, no. It doesn't read as something that could actually function. (e.s., Testimony of Elizabeth Dudek, Tr. 1468-1469.) The remainder of the Final Order was characterized in this manner by the Agency, Well, in looking through the final order, and then discussing it with other members of my staff and the legal staff, and in determining how we actually utilize the rule and what the difference in what is stated within the final order and the rule ... there did not appear to be any language that indicated ... that we needed to review capacity, nor the number of laboratories that were there. There were some comments related to both, but the findings were only such in the final order that the provisions of (8)(d) and then of (9) were deleted. (Tr. 1470-1). Suffice it to say, as will be articulated in the Conclusions of Law, below, this hearing officer does not read the Final Order in the Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation case in the same way as does the Agency.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed as an osteopathic physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 050004170. Respondent practices in the field of general surgery, and at all times material to this action, Respondent was on staff as Chief of Surgery at the University Hospital, Holly Hill, Florida. The incident which gave rise to the charges herein arose on August 5, 1987 when Respondent inserted a chest tube into patient W.T.'s right chest wall so as to relieve a pneumothorax which had actually occurred in W.T.'s left lung. A pneumothorax is a pocket of air in the cavity surrounding the lung which causes the lung to contract upon itself. At all times material, Patient W.T. had a subcutaneous pacemaker on the left side of her chest. However, the evidence from all credible witnesses is consistent that pacemakers are routinely placed on either the right or left side and that there is no reasonable medical presumption that pacemakers are always placed in someone's left chest area. The subcutaneous pacemaker did not enter significantly into W.T.'s case management at University Hospital. It operated on "automatic" and since it did its job, none of the University Hospital physicians involved in W.T.'s care paid much attention to it. W.T. was admitted to University Hospital for treatment of a drug overdose on July 9, 1987. As a part of her treatment, an Ewald tube was inserted into her stomach by a physician other than the Respondent. Patient W.T. was discharged from the hospital on July 18, 1987 with a portion of the tube inadvertently left in her stomach and her esophagus. On July 21, 1987, W.T. was readmitted to University Hospital. She was suffering from septicemia and bilateral pneumonia. X-rays revealed that a portion of the tubing had not been removed. This tubing was removed by the Respondent via successful gastroesophagoscopy on July 23, 1987. At Respondent's order, W.T. was placed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) following the removal of the tube. Dr. Desai was called in as a pulmonologist. When W.T. had been admitted to University Hospital on July 21, 1987, she already had been in a "guarded" condition. Despite successful removal of the Ewald tube, W.T.'s overall condition continued to deteriorate. Prior to the night of August 4, 1987, W.T. had developed adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) which involves a breakdown in the capillary barriers within the lung itself, resulting in a diffuse leakage of fluid throughout all of the air space of the patient's lung. Because of the patient's serious lung condition, Dr. Desai placed her on a volume respirator, and the respirator pressure (PEEP) was progressively increased during her admission until it was set at 20 PEEP at the time of the incident. Twenty PEEP is an unusually high level of respirator pressure which was necessary in this case because of the patient's severe lung problem. The volume respirator essentially breathed for the patient and involved a tube being secured in her mouth. Often, between her admission to the ICU and the date of the incident, W.T. had torn the respirator tube out of her mouth, so she had been continuously restrained and sedated to keep this from happening again. Each time W.T. had extubated herself she had been "blue coded," meaning she had suffered either cardiac arrest or shock. Whether or not W.T. weighed between 225 and 250 pounds or weighed 350- plus pounds cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy since there is equally credible evidence over the entire foregoing range of poundage. It is material, however, that by all accounts of all witnesses, W.T. was markedly and grossly obese to the extent that her size, shape, and weight contributed to her several health problems and rendered her a patient more difficult to diagnose, more difficult to x-ray, more difficult to move, and more difficult to nurse and medically attend than she would have been otherwise. The evidence as to whether W.T.'s obesity impeded medical personnel from correctly interpreting her breath sounds on August 5, 1987, the date of the incident, is divided, as is the evidence as to whether or not on that date W.T.'s pacemaker was visible to the naked eye, but upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that on August 5, 1987, W.T.'s obesity, generally deteriorated condition, and left pneumothorax rendered the presence, volume, and location of breath in each lung subject to interpretation and "judgment call," and that unless one were specifically looking and feeling for a pacemaker, one would not necessarily have been able to detect the pacemaker in W.T.'s left chest due to the extraordinarily heavy pad of fat and the absence of scarring in that location. The foregoing finding of fact has been reached because with the exception of the complaining witness, Nurse Counihan, all factual witnesses either testified that they did not notice a pacemaker scar or they specifically noticed there was no scarring on W.T.'s chest. Also, with regard to breath sounds, both Mr. Starr and Respondent listened for W.T.'s breath sounds on the morning of the incident and within a very few minutes of each other. Mr. Starr described W.T.'s breath sounds when he entered her room as decreased on the right and absent on the left. His findings were consistent with a left pneumothorax but he never informed Respondent what he had found. Respondent arrived only a few minutes later and could not get any breath sounds from either side. Dr. O'Leary, accepted as an expert in pulmonology and the insertion of chest tubes, opined persuasively that one could not rely on breath sounds to locate which side the pneumothorax was on in the face of a recent x-ray. Also, the use of the respirator could have been misleading to either or both Mr. Starr or Respondent. X-rays taken of W.T.'s chest at least ten times between July 23, 1987 and July 31, 1987 clearly depict that the pacemaker was on the left side of W.T.'s chest. These x-rays were reviewed by Respondent with a radiologist the day before the events which are the focus of these charges took place. The radiology reports of W.T.'s chest x-rays dated July 25, 1987, July 28, 1987, and July 31, 1987 specifically mention the pacemaker but only the report dated July 28, 1987 states that the pacemaker overlies the left thorax. Respondent did not review any narrative reports when he and the radiologist were reviewing the actual x-rays together. There is no evidence that this procedure was outside the appropriate standard of care. Dr. Dworkin, expert in radiology and quality assurance and review, Dr. O'Leary, and Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's internal medicine expert, all testified that it is not below the professional standard of care for a treating physician to forget within a day after such an x-ray review which side a pacemaker is on unless the pacemaker enters significantly into his treatment of the patient, which in this case it did not. By the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, W.T. had become even more critically ill with multiple system failures, including a failure in the cardiopulmonary systems, a neurological deficit, and failure of her renal functions. The mortality rate of a patient suffering from ARDS, without considering the other conditions from which W.T. was suffering, exceeds 50%, and responsible medical retrospective estimates made at formal hearing of W.T.'s specific survival chances in the early morning hours of August 5, 1987 fall in the 10-50% range. During the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, the nurses on duty in ICU were having trouble maintaining W.T.'s blood pressure. They began telephoning Dr. Desai and Respondent at approximately 4:00 a.m. One of those doctors, most probably Dr. Desai, ordered a portable chest x-ray of W.T., which was accomplished at 6:30 a.m. by Josephine Christnagel, R.T., who is a registered x-ray technologist. At the time this x-ray was performed, W.T. was already in critical condition and could not speak or respond. W.T.'s condition was such that she probably was not salvageable when Respondent arrived on the scene at 7:00 a.m. on August 5, 1987. Unbeknownst to anyone at this point in time, the 6:30 a.m. x-ray had been inadvertently mislabeled by Ms. Christnagel so that the left side of the patient's chest appeared on the x-ray with a lead marker, "R" (for "right") , on it. This chest x-ray revealed that W.T. had a pneumothorax, and because it was mislabeled, the pneumothorax appeared to be on the right side. If a chest tube is properly inserted from the outside chest wall on the side of the pneumothorax, into the chest cavity, the air can be released and the lung can re-expand, delivering oxygen to the patient and raising blood pressure to normal. At all times material on August 4-5, 1987, the ranking ICU nurse on W.T.'s case was Carey Beninger ne' Counihan, R.N. The ICU nurses notified Dr. Desai by phone of the pneumothorax and he, in turn, notified Respondent. Because Respondent was more nearly ready to go to the hospital, Respondent rushed to the hospital to insert a chest tube into W.T., treatment which he and Dr. Desai, the attending pulmonologist, had agreed was the appropriate treatment for W.T.'s pneumothorax. For the reasons given infra with regard to the time the nurses' notes were compiled and Nurse Counihan's confusion over the x-ray itself, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever told by Dr. Desai or by the nurses by phone that the pneumothorax was on W.T.'s left side (the correct side). Even if Respondent had been so informed by Dr. Desai, since Dr. Desai had never seen the x-ray, it still would have been appropriate for Respondent to rely on the x-ray itself once he got to the hospital, unless at the hospital, something or someone clearly alerted him to the fact that the pneumothorax was actually on the left side. At approximately 7:00 a.m., just prior to the arrival of Respondent, Dr. Michael Danzig, D.O., who was the day-shift emergency room doctor, and Wesley Starr, R.P.T., a respiratory therapist, arrived at ICU and entered W.T.'s room. At approximately the time they arrived, the night-shift emergency room doctor, Dr. Haas, left the room. By all accounts, there was a continuing "commotion," a "ruckus," or "an emergency situation" in progress with at least two nurses, including Nurse Counihan, and other personnel providing various therapies to W.T. who had no palpable blood pressure and was in shock. This atmosphere continued after Respondent arrived shortly thereafter, with the nurses' and Mr. Starr's attention directed to care of the patient. When Respondent arrived, Dr. Danzig became, essentially, an observer. Upon arrival at W.T.'s room, Respondent examined the 6:30 a.m. x-ray against a window with daylight showing through. The x-ray, as it was mismarked, showed a massive tension pneumothorax on W.T.'s right side and a pacemaker on the same side, the right. After review of the x-ray, Respondent examined W.T., including listening for breath sounds. He heard nothing significant from either lung. Dr. O'Leary's opinion that such a finding was not unusual and that Respondent could not rely on either his own examination of breath sounds or that of Mr. Starr (had he even known of Mr. Starr's hearing breath sounds on the right but not the left) at that point is persuasive. Under these circumstances, breath sounds would not have alerted Respondent to a mislabeled x-ray. Respondent relied on the mislabeled x-ray and began to prep the right side of the patient for the chest tube. As Respondent began to prep W.T.'s right side, a dispute arose between himself and Nurse Counihan. Having weighed and evaluated all the testimony and the documentary evidence and exhibits, having reconciled that evidence which can be reconciled, and having eliminated that evidence which is not credible, it is found that the most credible version of this dispute is that Nurse Counihan asked Respondent why he was prepping the right side if W.T. had a left pneumothorax, and Respondent replied, "No, it isn't. Look at the x-ray." To this, Nurse Counihan said, "Yes, it is. I'm sure of it," and pointed to the lung on the x-ray which did not show a pneumothorax (the side next to the nameplate and the side without either a pacemaker or a pneumothorax). Respondent said, "No, it isn't. Look at the damn x-ray!" Respondent then proceeded to intubate on the right side while referring frequently to the mislabeled x-ray. In making the foregoing finding, it is noted that there were significant differences between the testimony of Nurse Counihan and all other witnesses, both factual and expert. Nurse Counihan deposed/testified that both she and another nurse had pointed out to Respondent that the patient's pacemaker was on the patient's left side and so was the pneumothorax. The other three factual witnesses, Starr, Danzig, and Respondent, all testified that they have no recollection whatsoever of anyone mentioning a pacemaker. Even Wesley Starr, called by the Petitioner, and who was present in W.T.'s room at the head of the patient's bed throughout the time of these discussions, testified that, to the best of his recollection, no one mentioned a pacemaker and that he did not recall anyone except Nurse Counihan challenging the Respondent's prepping W.T.'s right side. Also, Dr. Danzig, who was present in the room during the argument, and who testified that he had placed over 200 chest tubes during the course of his medical residency training, testified that if Nurse Counihan had, indeed, mentioned a pacemaker, he would have intervened in order to assist Respondent in determining the correct side of the pneumothorax. Although Petitioner asserted that Dr. Danzig is not credible due to his friendship with Respondent, that argument is not persuasive both due to the remoteness and degree of the friendship and Dr. Danzig's insistence that if Respondent should say that Nurse Counihan pointed to the side of the x-ray showing the pacemaker, then Respondent would be wrong. Respondent apparently did not review W.T.'s records either before or after the dispute with Nurse Counihan. These records were either in her room or elsewhere in the ICU unit, but since, at that point, the nurses' notes had not been compiled from their scratch pads to the patient's chart since before 4:00 a.m., there was nothing in W.T.'s chart/records to alert Respondent that the x- ray was mislabeled or that the patient had a pneumothorax on the left side even if he had reviewed the record. Also, he would have had to go back to the July 31 x-ray or the July 28 radiology narrative before he could have discovered that the pacemaker was on the left. This would have been very time consuming. Also, Dr. Danzig, who actually had made a cursory review of the patient's records when he first arrived in the room, was not alerted by Nurse Counihan's words or her pointing to the x-ray to any reason to search the records for information about the pacemaker. In further assessing Nurse Counihan's testimony, the undersigned has weighed in her favor the consistency of her recent deposition testimony with her notes and the incident report which she completed within five hours after the intubation incident on August 5, 1987. However, weighing against her credibility with regard to her statements then and now that she told Respondent that the pacemaker was on W.T.'s left side is the fact that even her August 5, 1987 report and notes were prepared in the glow of a hindsight favorable to her position and that her deposition shows that she is confused about how a pneumothorax appears on an x-ray. Reconciling all the testimony one can, it is remotely possible that Nurse Counihan said, "It is a left pneumothorax," while pointing to the lung shown on the x-ray as not having a pneumothorax and which, due to the "R" marker on the other lung could be inferred to be the left lung. It is even remotely possible (although not probable or persuasive given the three other factual witnesses' testimony that she had never mentioned a pacemaker) that Nurse Counihan could have told the Respondent, "The pneumothorax is on the same side as the pacemaker," which also was consistent with the x-ray as mislabeled. However, upon the credible evidence as a whole, the only reasonable conclusion is that if Nurse Counihan did mention a pacemaker at the time of her dispute with Respondent, she was ineffective in clearly conveying to Respondent or to anyone else in the room that the pacemaker and the pneumothorax were on the patient's left side or that there was any reason to further search the records or the patient's body to resolve the dispute. It is uncontroverted that, prior to the insertion of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, absolutely no one, including Nurse Counihan, was aware that the x-ray was reversed, and that Ms. Counihan never informed the Respondent that the x-ray was reversed. Respondent's testimony is accepted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side (the side without the pneumothorax) he heard an immediate audible gush of air. That others in the room did not hear this rush of air is understandable due to the noise and confusion in the room, particularly the respirator sounds. Also, it is uncontroverted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, the patient's blood pressure, which had been zero, immediately rose into normal range. A dramatic and rapid reestablishment of the patient's blood pressure is the expected result of a proper placement of a chest tube with a tension pneumothorax. All health care personnel present seem to have regarded the blood pressure stabilization as proof that the Respondent had placed the chest tube on the correct side of the patient, because no one, including Nurse Counihan, thereafter protested that a misplacement had occurred. Release of pressure and a return in blood pressure is not normally associated with placement of a chest tube in the wrong side of a patient and there is no definitive medical explanation of why it occurred in this instance, despite Dr. O'Leary's speculation that the gush of air could have been a leak of air across the Mediastrum. After placement of the chest tube in the patient's right side, Respondent ordered an immediate repeat chest x-ray to be certain the tube was placed in the correct lung and was placed correctly. After the patient's blood pressure had been reestablished, Dr. Danzig left the intensive care unit because he believed that the pneumothorax had been relieved completely and because the patient was now stable. If W.T. had not been stable, Dr. Danzig would have remained in the room since he was the day- shift emergency room doctor and he did not know if any physicians other than Respondent and himself were even in the hospital yet. After securing the chest tube and dressing the chest, Respondent left the floor and went to the operating room (OR) to notify the OR staff that there would be a delay before he could begin previously scheduled surgery. Thereafter, on his way to check the new x-ray he had just ordered, Respondent met Ms. Christnagel, who was bringing it to him. Ms. Christnagel then informed Respondent that she had mislabeled the 6:30 a.m. preintubation x-ray. Respondent simultaneously reviewed the new, postintubation x-ray and discovered that he had placed the chest tube in the wrong side of W.T.'s chest. At approximately the same time, W.T.'s blood pressure again dropped and a "code blue" was called. Dr. Gloria Mikula, M.D., who happened to be in the ICU at the time W.T. coded, "ran the code" to attempt to reestablish the patient's blood pressure. Throughout the time in which Dr. Mikula was running the code on this patient, no one, including Nurse Counihan, said anything to the effect that W.T. may have had a chest tube placed in the wrong side. In fact, the nursing staff did not even inform Dr. Mikula that this patient had had a pneumothorax and chest tube insertion prior to the code being called. Such information would have been important from a medical standpoint because it would have allowed Dr. Mikula to act immediately to relieve the tension in the patient's chest. Immediately upon reviewing the repeat chest x-ray and upon hearing the announcement of the code blue at the same time, Respondent rushed back to W.T.'s room, placed a chest tube in the patient's left side, and the patient's blood pressure was again reestablished. However, some time later in her hospitalization, W.T. expired. Nurse Counihan's failure to say anything to Dr. Mikula about the pneumothorax is further indicative of her immediate satisfaction that Respondent's intubation on the right side had been acceptable and that it was only after he discovered his error through the new x-ray and correctly intubated W.T. on the left side that Nurse Counihan completed her notes and incident report describing his error for the chart. The notes were transposed from her scratch pad and memory at approximately noon, August 5, 1987. Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's expert in internal medicine, criticized Respondent's performance as below the professional standard of care because he felt that once Respondent was made aware in the patient's room by Nurse Counihan that the pneumothorax could be on the patient's left side, Respondent had an obligation to make further inquiry or investigation before inserting the chest tube in the patient's right side. In Dr. Rosin's opinion, Respondent's investigation could have taken several routes: review of earlier x-rays and the patient's record, further conversation with the nurse, further hands-on examination of the patient for signs of the pacemaker, and/or ordering a new x- ray. Although Dr. Rosin testified that Respondent should have ordered a repeat x-ray so as to resolve the dispute with Nurse Counihan before inserting the chest tube on W.T.'s right side, he also conceded that the only possible adverse effect of the decision Respondent made was the delay in relieving W.T.'s condition. The chest intubation involved is not a benign or casual procedure, but no actual harm occasioned by misplacement of the chest tube was demonstrated in this case, and the maximum amount of time which would have been saved, under Dr. Rosin's approach, would have been that short period of time it took for the Respondent to place the chest tube and dress the wound. Under the circumstances, if Respondent had delayed intubation, W.T. would probably have "coded blue" before the correctly labelled chest x-ray could have been performed anyway. In light of the confused state of the patient's breath sounds, obesity, and lack of scarring, the fact that no nurses' notes had been codified since before 4:00 a.m., Nurse Counihan's own confusion about the mismarked x-ray, and how far back in the patient's chart Respondent would have had to look before he would have been able to locate anything useful about the pacemaker, it is found that Respondent behaved reasonably in an emergency situation, and Dr. O'Leary's and Dr. Dworkin's expert opinions that he did not violate the professional standard of care in the first insertion of the chest tube are accepted. It is also found that the Respondent's procedure in ordering the new chest x-ray and leaving the room after the first intubation without further search of the records or further conversation in the room was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Physicians enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The main issue in these proceedings is whether the Respondent Doctors is entitled to a certificate of need to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory in Sarasota County. The parties stipulate that the only statutory and rule criteria which remain to be reviewed by the Hearing Officer areas follows: 1. Sections 381.705(1)(a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , , and (h), Florida Statutes. Section 38l.705(1)(h)) will be reviewed insofar as it refers to the availability of health manpower, management personnel, funds for capital and operating expenditures, the alternative uses of the applicant's resources, and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the district. Section 38l.705(1)(1) and (n), Florida Statutes. Section 381.705(2)(a) , (b) and () Florida Statutes. Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. 5. Rule 10-5.011 (8)b and (8)0, (9)b, (9)d, (9) e (1) and (9)e(ll) The other statutory criteria and the remaining subsections of the rule have either been stipulated to by the parties or are inapplicable.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Doctors is a 168 bed, acute care general hospital. The hospital has a 40 bed cardiac care unit in which all beds are monitored. Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) owns Doctors. HCA owns or operates four hundred hospitals, including nineteen in Florida. Three of the in-state hospitals have cardiac catheterization laboratories (CCLs) . Two of the existing labs, located in Bradenton and Tallahassee, are available to assist in training and preparation which may be needed in the creation of a cardiac catheterization lab at Doctors. In September 1987, Doctors applied for Certificate of Need No. 5283 to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory. The certificate of need has been preliminarily approved by the Respondent HRS. The initial agency action has been challenged by the Petitioner, Memorial. Memorial is the primary existing health care facility which would compete with Doctors by providing cardiac catheterization services in the same city where the new lab is to be located. Consistency with State and Local Health Plans The local health plan does not directly address the need for CCLs in the area. As nothing in the plan is relevant, no inconsistencies are created with the plan in the balancing of criteria with regard to the certificate of need determination. The State Health Plan provides that an average of 600 cardiac catheterization procedures per laboratory are to be maintained in each district through 1990. To determine the use rate under Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code, HRS must look to the number of procedures provided in the district between June 1984 and July 1986. The data reveals that seven programs completed 5,841 procedures. The required averages were exceeded by over two hundred procedures per lab. The need criteria has been met by Doctors for purposes of the State Health Plan, and the local plan, as it existed at the time of the initial review of the application. Existing Facilities Memorial is an 849 bed, acute care hospital which is a regional referral hospital in the area. The hospital provides Level 3 cardiac services. These services include angioplasty and open heart surgery in addition to cardiac catheterization. Memorial's first catheterization lab opened in 1978. Memorial currently contains two CCLs that assist in fulfilling the health care needs of the district. Before the recent addition of three CCLs within the district, Memorial served as the center for cardiac services. Manatee County and Charlotte County now have their own CCLs, which reduces Memorial's pool of potential patients in need of those services. In spite of reductions in the patient pool in the past, Memorial's use of its two CCLs has continued to grow. The Sarasota County area has a unique characteristic in that many tourists who arrive in the winter months (October-April) make use of the two local hospitals, Doctors and Memorial. The use of Memorial's CCLs increases as the local cardiologists need to complete a number of diagnostic tests in order to evaluate these new patients quickly, in times of critical need. Because of the season, Memorial's CCLs are heavily utilized for emergency procedures in the winter months. Accordingly, patients who have elective procedures scheduled are often reprioritized because of the emergency needs for use of the CCLs for more seriously ill patients. This last-minute rescheduling results in prolonged hospitalizations for the nonemergency patients and increases the cost of their medical care. Although the quality of testing does not appear to suffer from the season, a significant pool of patients is denied the opportunity for convenient medical care. The treating physicians are denied lab use and test results at the anticipated times within these patients' courses of treatment. Because of Memorial's inability to make the labs readily accessible to the pool of patients scheduled for elective procedures in the winter, a need exists for a CCL for this pool of patients. Doctors primarily seeks to provide cardiac catheterization services for diagnostic purposes. However, the lab will be capable of providing immediate endocardiac catheterization pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest. A rapid mobilization team will be available for emergency procedures when the need arises. Angioplasty and open heart surgery procedures are not planned in conjunction with the CCL services. The lab will be in operation from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Quality of Care Doctors currently provides quality care. There are no complaints outstanding, and the hospital has sufficient capabilities and support services to provide for a CCL. Doctors is JCAH accredited and provides the necessary services required under the catheterization rule. The same cardiologists are on staff of both Memorial and Doctors. Most of these physicians admit patients to both hospitals. Approximately one-third of Doctors' admissions are patients with cardiac problems. Many of these patients require catheterization and are transferred to Memorial. If it is determined that a catheterization is needed before admission, physicians admit those patients to Memorial. Alternative Care The other CCL which currently exists in Sarasota is an outpatient lab. This facility is owned and operated by a group of invasive cardiologists who also perform catheterizations at Memorial. Because the outpatient lab restricts a patient's selection of a physician able to perform a cardiac catheterization to the lab owners, this lab is not a realistic alternative for most patients or the referring physicians. A hospital-based lab gives those involved greater personal choice, and it is better equipped to handle unanticipated emergencies. Reasonable and Economic Accessibility Memorial's CCL services are not always accessible at the times scheduled for elective procedures. Some patients have remained hospitalized for days until they can be rescheduled. The delays increase the costs attached to the procedures due to the length of the hospital stay and the additional services required. Patients admitted to Doctors who require the services of a CCL are moved to Memorial by ambulance and have to be admitted there. These transfers cost patients an additional $180-$340. The ambulance charges are not reimbursed by medicare so the majority of the patients pay these charges themselves. The proposed lab will be capable of providing a range of diagnostic tests without the need to admit patients to another hospital prior to, or during treatment at, Doctors. This will reduce costs two ways: The additional ambulance and hospital costs will be omitted, and the proposed charge for the service is less than the current charge set by Memorial. Availability of Resources Doctors currently has a staff of trained cardiac nurses. There are two nurses on staff who have taught cardiac catheterization techniques at an accredited nursing school prior to moving to Sarasota. Although the husband and wife team was originally recruited to the area by Memorial, the two nurses chose to leave that facility because of the stress from the high level of activity in those labs. Doctors plans to cross train staff and to allow for a trained special procedures staff with alternating roles and duties. The proposed CCL will be staffed with 2.5 FTEs. These consist of the 1 FTE cardiac nurse and 1.5 FTE special procedures technicians. The budgeted FTEs do not include an allocation of time for an administrative director or secretarial/clerical services. The assistant hospital administrator anticipates that provisions will be made for management personnel at a later stage of the lab's development. Although the number of FTEs scheduled is less than those anticipated for a CCL which provides more complex procedures, the number scheduled by Doctors is reasonable for the number of services and kind of services it seeks to provide for the type of cardiac patients in its care. The proposal for the lab, as described in the application and revised in the omissions response, is financially feasible. The proposed expenditure of funds will serve the needs of the hospital's current patient pool as well as the special needs of the community for cardiac catheterization services. While Doctors' proposal does not increase geographic access, it will increase access in the population center, where services are currently inaccessible for one pool of patients at certain times. A need for a project is evidenced by the utilization of like and existing services. The rule which contains the need methodology takes into account the utilization of existing facilities in determination of numeric need. Numeric needs exists in this district, pursuant to Rule 10-5.011. Written Referral Agreement Doctors submitted a written referral agreement with a facility with open heart surgery services within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions. The agreement meets the general requirements of HRS. The agency does not require a detailed agreement during the preliminary granting of a certificate of need because other local providers do not wish to assist applicants during the CON process. However, such applicants are able to obtain more detailed agreements after the certificate is approved. The agency has determined that the agreement is sufficient. Because a rational basis has been given for the determination, the agency's acceptance of the agreement is given great weight by the Hearing Officer. Competition and Service Doctors' project will affect competition between Doctors and Memorial. Doctors will provide services for patients who would have gone to Memorial for such services in the past because Doctors was unable to provide the service. This is because of the geographic location and the fact that the same cardiologists are on staff at both hospitals. It appears that Doctors will be providing services for patients who are not in critical need of the services. This will allow Memorial to concentrate on the more complex cases has traditionally dealt with in the past. The stress from "unhappy" elective patients will be reduced at Memorial's labs, but so will the economic incentive for the staff which is related to the number of procedures performed. The elective cardiac catheterizations are quicker and easier to perform and increase the earnings of the lab staff. Both hospitals compete directly for staff. There is a "revolving- door" situation in staffing as local heath care personnel negotiates and works in either hospital, most of the time. Because of cash bonuses offered by Doctors for joining its staff Memorial is concerned about the adverse impact upon its CCL staff. Testimony presented at hearing showed by substantial and competent evidence that Memorial is committed to equipping its two labs with the most responsive equipment available for its more complex needs. The preservation of its current lab staff has been planned for by an able administrator. Recruitment is done nationwide and plans are being made with the local community college to provide nurses training involving cardiac catheterizations. The evidence also demonstrated that Memorial plans to meet the competition by improving the health services delivery, quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. It appears that there is room for all three labs in Sarasota, and that healthy competition will occur in the area. Past and Proposed Indigent care Doctors has given little care to the medically indigent in the past. In fact, the hospital has maintained a written policy suggesting that those who cannot pay for services should be transferred by physicians to another hospital. Rather than admit such patients, the Doctors has chosen to pay into an indigent care fund. The new assistant director maintains that the current hospital policy is to provide health care to Medicaid and indigent patients in the CCL. Doctors projects that 2.5 per cent of its catheterization volume will be Medicaid and .75 per cent will be indigent care. Alternatives to the Project The alternative which has been developed and studied by Doctors is its past use of Memorial's CCLs. This use has been found to be more costly for elective cardiac catheterizations than the current proposal. The status quo has not met the needs of the elective catheterization patients in the geographical area. Similar Inpatient Services Memorial is using its similar facilities in an efficient manner. It is not using the facilities in an appropriate manner as most elective catheterization patients do not want to be in a hospital any longer than necessary. These people are predominantly type A personalities who do not like being rescheduled and charged additional hospital costs. Problems in Outpatient Inpatient Care Elective catheterization patients have a problem obtaining local inpatient care when they want it and when their cardiologists have prepared for it in their treatment plans. This does not appear to be a serious health problem, but the evidence has demonstrated it is a serious problem. Proposed Volume of Catheterizations Based upon numeric need, utilization of Memorial, physician support, and the growth history of other providers within the district, the projected utilization of 246 procedures in 1990, 294 in 1991, and 351 in 1992 is reasonable. There is no evidence which has been extrapolated from reliable data which shows that the proposed lab, coupled with alternative treatments and currently available noninvasive technological advancements, will reduce the average number of procedures per lab within the district below 600 each year. Due to the population growth projections for Sarasota County, approval of Doctors' application will have minimal impact on lab utilization at Memorial or other facilities within the district. Doctors' projected number of procedures will not decrease procedures at Memorial below its 1987 level of 2,495 cardiac catheterization procedures performed on an annual basis.
