Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs a. through i., unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the application for certificate of need filed by Forum be Denied. DONE AND ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0704 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Sentence 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as misleading and/or subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Which of the applications for certificates of need for community nursing home beds for the Palm Beach County July, 1991, planning horizon filed by Whitehall Boca, an Illinois limited partnership; Manor Care of Boca Raton, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care of Boca Raton; Vari-Care, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard Manor Nursing Center; and Maple Leaf of Palm Beach County Health Care, Inc., should be granted, if any?
Findings Of Fact In November, 1988, the applicants in this proceeding filed applications for certificates of need for nursing home beds in District IX, subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County) for the July, 1991, planning horizon. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS") published a fixed need pool applicable to this batching cycle of 62 additional nursing home beds for Palm Beach County. Maple Leaf of Palm Beach County Health Care, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (hereinafter "HCR") proposes to add 30 nursing home beds to its approved 90-bed nursing home to be located in the Jupiter area of northern Palm Beach County. HCR's 30-bed addition would be accomplished by construction of a new 20-bed wing and the conversion of 10 private rooms to semi-private rooms. HCR will license and operate its nursing home through Maple Leaf of Palm Beach County Health Care, Inc., a corporation wholly-owned by HCR and established expressly for the development of this project. There is no operational difference between Maple Leaf of Palm Beach County Health Care, Inc., and HCR. HCR has been in the business of developing and operating nursing homes for over 25 years and operates 130 facilities with 16,000 nursing home beds in 19 states. In Florida, HCR operates 10 nursing homes and has several additional facilities under development. The 90-bed approved nursing home to which HCR seeks to add 30 beds will offer extensive rehabilitation, subacute care, high tech services and a 20-bed special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and dementia victims. HCR's application for the 30-bed addition does not propose any additional special programs, but the rehabilitative and restorative care capability of the nursing home will be available to the patients admitted to the 30 additional beds. The new construction proposed by HCR consists of a sixth 20-bed wing (pod) added to the nursing home. Upon completion, the 120-bed nursing home will consist of 46,000 square feet with six individual resident pods and a central core area for administrative and support services. Each pod consists of 20 beds, and three pods comprise one nursing unit. One nursing unit is located on each end of the nursing home. Each three-pod unit has its own dining and activities areas. It will not be necessary to construct any additional support services for the proposed 30-bed addition. The pod design proposed by HCR provides unique and innovative benefits to the residents of the nursing home. The pod design breaks down the traditional institutional corridor design into smaller, residential-like increments. Instead of long corridors with rooms on each side, living areas are constructed in 20-bed increments (pods) clustered around a home-like living area or atrium located in the center of the pod. Each atrium is intended to have an identity of its own, such as a sitting area, activity area, library, living room, or game room. The pod design is much more residential in character than the traditional nursing home. HCR nursing homes, including this 30-bed addition, incorporate design elements necessary for both skilled nursing care and subacute care. The 30-bed addition proposed by HCR will meet subacute care standards. Vari-Care, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard Manor Nursing Center (hereinafter "Vari-Care or Boulevard") suggests than its design is superior because it proposes to provide piped-in oxygen to rooms designated for subacute care. However, there is no requirement for oxygen supplies to be built into a room in order to provide subacute care. In today's technology, equipment for oxygen is brought into the room. HCR's allocation of equipment costs for this addition include equipment for the provision of subacute care. The project cost for the 30-bed addition proposed by HCR is $706,000 or $23,533 per bed. The total project cost for the approved 90 beds would be $3,865,000, or $42,944 per bed. Combining the 90- and 30-bed projects results in a total project cost of $4,571,000, or $38,092 per bed. Economies of scale make HCR's 120-bed nursing home more cost effective than construction of only the 90-bed nursing home. Purchase of additional land is not required for the HCR addition. HCR's total project costs for its 30-bed addition and for its resulting 120-bed facility are lower than those of any competing applicant. HCR enjoys economies of scale in its purchase of equipment for nursing homes because of the number of projects that it has under development at any given time and because of the national contracts which it has with material and equipment suppliers. HCR's volume purchasing allows HCR to obtain substantial discounts which, in turn, allows HCR to provide higher quality furnishings and equipment at competitive prices. HCR projects a second year utilization of 93.1% for the 30 additional beds, comprised of 42% Medicaid patients, 10% Medicare patients and 48% private pay and insurance patients. The 90-bed approval has a Certificate of Need (hereinafter "CON") condition which requires a minimum 33% Medicaid payor mix. The overall Medicaid payor mix at the 120-bed nursing home is projected to be 35%. All of the beds including the added beds at the HCR nursing home will be certified to serve Medicaid patients. HCR's most recent history of service to Medicaid patients is 59.4% companywide, which includes a range of 26.7% to 90.4% in Florida facilities. HCR will be able to fulfill its commitment to Medicaid patients in the addition. HCR intends to meet any conditions which include a requirement of 42% Medicaid utilization in the 30 added beds. HCR's utilization projections are reasonable. The HCR nursing home will be accessible to all residents of the service district. HCR proposes the following patient charges for 1992: private room, $101.66; semi-private room, $87.17; Medicaid, $83; and Medicare, $86. HCR's patient charges for 1992, the only year for which each applicant submitted charges, are lower than any competing applicant's charges. In determining the financial feasibility of this 30-bed project, HCR took into consideration financial feasibility of the approved 90-bed nursing home as well as the financial feasibility of the total 120-bed project. The 30- bed addition proposed by HCR as well as the resulting 120-bed nursing home are financially feasible. HCR has never had a nursing home license denied, revoked, or suspended and has never had a nursing home placed into receivership. HCR has never experienced a condition in one of its nursing homes which threatened or resulted in direct significant harm to any of its residents. At the time of hearing, HCR operated four nursing homes in Florida which had superior ratings, including one nursing home which, though continuing to be operated by HCR, underwent a technical change of ownership and thus became ineligible for a superior rating. HCR also operates nursing homes in West Virginia, which has a licensure rating system similar to that of Florida's. In West Virginia, all of HCR's nursing homes have licensure ratings comparable to Florida's superior rating. HCR adheres to extensive quality assurance (hereinafter "QA") standards which are based upon, and in some instances more stringent than, state and federal regulations. The purpose of the QA standards is to ensure the highest possible quality care for the residents of the nursing home. HCR utilizes a multi-tiered system to monitor compliance with the QA standards. Each nursing home performs quarterly a quality assurance audit to determine its compliance with the quality assurance standards. From the regional level, HCR provides professional services consultants, typically registered nurses or registered dieticians, who serve as problem solvers and trouble shooters for facilities within their region and typically visit each facility at least once a month. These professional consultants, who are employees of HCR, act as support for the nursing homes within their region, working with directors of nursing, administrators, registered dieticians, and the department heads in the individual nursing homes to ensure compliance with QA standards and monitor the quality of care provided in the nursing homes. Each HCR nursing home is subjected to an annual QA audit performed pursuant to a contract by an independent, outside organization. After the annual survey, the nursing home is provided with a written report and is required to submit a written plan of correction for any identified deficiencies. Implementation of the plans of correction and ongoing compliance with the QA program are monitored by the professional services consultants and management. HCR utilizes a formalized acuity program which provides for a total assessment and evaluation of each resident to determine the level of care needed for each resident. After admission, the required level of care may change. It is common for the condition of a nursing home resident to change during the nursing home stay. HCR's formalized acuity program takes into account these changes in condition and allows the nursing home to provide the level of staffing appropriate to the level of care required by each resident. The staffing proposed by HCR exceeds state requirements. There will be 13.6 total FTE RN, LPN, and nurse aide staff for the 30-bed addition, organized with 6.126 FTE staff on the first shift, 4.374 on the second shift, and 3.1 on the third shift. This is equivalent to a total staff per resident ratio for the 30 additional beds of .493, and a shift staff per bed ratio for the three shifts of .20, .15, and .10, respectively. HCR's 120-bed nursing home will have 78.4 total FTE RN, LPN, and nurse aide staff, or .653 total nursing staff per resident. The shift staffing in the 120-bed HCR nursing home will consist of 35 FTE for the first shift, 25.2 for the second, and 18.2 for the third, which is equivalent to a shift staff per bed ratio of .29, .21, and .15, respectively. The level of staffing proposed by HCR will enable HCR to provide high quality patient care. The staffing proposed by HCR in its 30-bed addition is higher than any competing applicant except Manor Care of Boca Raton, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care of Boca Raton (hereinafter "Manor Care") and the staffing for HCR's 120-bed facility is the highest of any of the applicants. Vari-Care sought to demonstrate that its design of providing showers in each resident's room was superior. There are safety concerns relating to providing showers in each patient room. Residents receiving skilled and subacute care usually have to be assisted in and out of tubs or showers. Most residents in the HCR nursing home will not be able to enter or bathe unassisted in a shower or tub. Although it is possible for some patients to be rolled into showers in wheel chairs, baths are superior to showers for increasing circulation and preventing decubitus (skin breakdown). Each HCR nursing unit provides a central bathing unit each for males and for females. Central tubs and showers are easier for disabled residents because of the availability of hydraulic lifting devices to assist the residents in and out of the tubs and showers. There are no hydraulic lifting devices in individual rooms. HCR's QA standards establish procedures for protecting patient privacy and patient dignity during times of bathing, and HCR always uses privacy curtains and individual showers for men and women. HCR and each other applicant provided a description of their plans for various operational details of their proposed nursing homes, including plans for recruitment, career ladders, preadmission screening, appropriateness review, discharge planning, utilization review, QA programs and procedures, specialized programs, resident surveys, residents' councils, security and protection of residents' property, dietary services, linkage with local providers, activity coordination, spiritual development, mental health services, restorative and normalizing activities, quality of life enhancements, training-related plans for staff development and improvement of staff skills, and the availability of the facility for training programs. Compliance with these plans and procedures is important in providing high quality of care to nursing home residents. The plans and procedures described in the HCR application are appropriate. Nursing home beds in Palm Beach County are clustered into three distinct areas: the northern area near Jupiter, the middle area near West Palm Beach and Boynton Beach, and the southern area near Boca Raton and Delray Beach. The social and economic environments of these areas and the highway support system suggest the reasonableness of these divisions, although the Local Health Council has not subdivided Palm Beach County into these three areas for formal health planning purposes. At the time of hearing, there were eight approved nursing home projects with 584 new nursing home beds under development in Palm Beach County: 210 of these approved beds were to be located in southern Palm Beach County; 284 beds were to be located in the mid-Palm Beach County area; and 90 beds were to be located in the northern Palm Beach County area. The only new nursing home in the northern Palm Beach County area is the HCR nursing home. HCR will be located in one of the least affluent sections of Palm Beach County. The HCR nursing home will enhance competition in the service area, because it is the only new nursing home to be located in the northern Palm Beach County area and the quality of services to be offered by HCR will challenge existing facilities to enhance their quality of care. Whitehall Boca, an Illinois limited partnership (hereinafter "Whitehall") is an existing, combined ACLF and nursing home located in Boca Raton in southern Palm Beach County. Whitehall is licensed for 73 skilled nursing beds and 115 ACLF beds. However, because Whitehall has converted some semi-private ACLF rooms to private rooms, its effective ACLF capacity is 62. Whitehall proposes to convert 27 ACLF beds to nursing home beds. Whitehall's expressed purpose for the conversion is to meet the demand for nursing home beds from some of their existing ACLF residents. Structurally, the facility is two-stories and consists of two "V"- shaped wings on each floor. Three of the four wings have identical floor plans. The other wing consists of laundry, kitchen, and mechanical facilities, and nine semi-private ACLF resident rooms. The three identical wings each contain 28 resident rooms, two community tubs, and two showers. One of these wings is currently used for ACLF residents only, another is exclusively designated for skilled nursing, and the third wing is divided between 14 ACLF rooms and 14 skilled nursing rooms. Whitehall proposes to convert the 25 ACLF beds located in these 14 rooms of this third wing to 24 skilled nursing beds. Additionally, three existing skilled nursing rooms located on the first floor will be converted from private to semi-private rooms. In total, the conversion will result in Whitehall's nursing home beds increasing from 73 to 100, configured in 12 private and 44 semi-private bed, rooms. This conversion can be accomplished without construction or additional equipment and would involve only $70,000 in new expenditures (representing attorneys' and consultants fees). During the three years prior to filing its CON application, and as long as it has been eligible, Whitehall has received superior licensure ratings. Whitehall directs its marketing so as to attract residents from outside Palm Beach County and from outside the State of Florida. The visibility that this marketing provides Whitehall makes it better able than its competitors to fill the new beds to be awarded in this proceeding, but makes it less likely that any approved additional nursing home beds would be available to residents of Palm Beach County. Therefore, granting Whitehall's CON application could result in the need for new beds in Palm Beach County remaining unsatisfied. To foster career advancement, Whitehall pays 100% tuition for courses of study that relate directly to its employees' jobs. Whitehall also pays 50% tuition for any course of study an employee pursues that does not pertain to their position at Whitehall. Whitehall Boca contracts with Professional Medical Review, a quality assurance review organization. Whitehall Boca's procedure for quality assurance is that Whitehall's Director of Nursing provides to Professional Medical Review data which quantifies the quality of care that is provided at Whitehall. Professional Medical Review then assembles the data and, with guidelines established by that organization, provides Whitehall with its analysis of that data. With that data, Whitehall plans a method of correction. In addition, Whitehall performs its own in-house, day-to-day quality assurance. This level of quality assurance involves documentation of the quality of patient care, infection control, and safety. Because incoming residents may have difficulty adapting to the nursing home setting, Whitehall has created the "newcomers" Sunshine Group to assist in this transition. If further assistance in the transition process is necessary, Whitehall refers the resident to specialized counseling. Whitehall staffs more dietary personnel than other facilities its size because it offers individual catering throughout the entire facility through its contract for food services provided by the Marriott Corporation. It also makes room service available to all residents. Whitehall has in place a restorative dining program. This program is designed for residents who are not eating independently, but are capable of being restored to this level. The restorative dining program at Whitehall stresses the use of special utensils, modifications of diet, and independent eating training. Whitehall provides hospice services on two levels. The first is Whitehall's in-house social worker who is available to the facility's terminally ill residents on a day-to-day basis. The second consists of Whitehall's association with Hospice by the Sea, a private organization that provides counseling to terminally ill patients. Whitehall arranges with amateur entertainers, school children groups, The Humane Society, the YMCA, and the Girl Scouts to provide its residents with entertainment and linkages to the outside world. Whitehall's architectural design provides extraordinary amenities that improve the residents' quality of life. Whitehall's facility features original artwork and elaborate moldings in the corridors, hallways and patient rooms, making it residential in nature. Whitehall's patient rooms are home-like in design and are all equipped with brand name residential furniture. Each room has a quilted bed spread and a designer headboard. The ceilings in the rooms are nine feet high rather than the standard eight feet required by code. Additionally, each room is centrally heated and cooled and has an individual thermostat and fan speed control. The Whitehall facility features a "market square" which provides an outdoor street setting for a dental office, podiatry office, saloon where beer and wine are served, gift shop and a designated chapel for religious services. Whitehall's dining room is large and elegant. The tables are covered with linens, and fresh flowers are placed on each table. Whitehall has an outdoor patio with an awning to provide shade. Entrance to the patio is facilitated by automatic sliding glass doors which allow residents in wheelchairs to move about conveniently. The corridors in the Whitehall facility are ten feet wide rather than eight feet as required by code. Wall coverings and fixtures are used in the corridors. At Whitehall, breakfast is served by special order at any time during the morning. For lunch, Whitehall serves hot and cold foods, i.e., sliced meats and salads (egg and tuna). For dinner, Whitehall serves a variety of meals which are posted on a daily menu. Whitehall offers an Alzheimer support group for families of Alzheimer patients - these groups are open to residents' families as well as to the public generally. Whitehall coordinates a diabetes support group that meets regularly at the facility. Whitehall also conducts an annual health fair, seminars on a variety of subjects and brings in speakers on health related issues all of which are open to the general public. In terms of geographic accessibility to necessary medical services, Whitehall is strategically located. It is conveniently situated between I-95 and the Florida Turnpike in southern Palm Beach County. It is further west than any of the competing applicants which is the area where the majority of growth in the county is taking place. In terms of offering new techniques and quality of care for patients through relationships with research entities, Whitehall is currently the site of a clinical research project of the F.A.U. School of Nursing into the "life cycle of humans." The purpose of the project is to acquaint nursing students with an understanding of the role of the elderly in American society, to develop in them a more thorough understanding of the many functions of a long-term care facility. The Florida Board of Nursing requires nurses to undergo continuing education and obtain a certain number of continuing education units (CEU) in order to maintain their licensure. The nurse training seminars conducted by Whitehall are recognized by the Board of Nursing for CEU credit. These seminars are also open to the public. The costs and methods of conversion proposed by Whitehall are not in question. The beds Whitehall seeks to convert were originally constructed to nursing home code. As a result, the only modification necessary to implement its conversion is the installation of curtain tracks in rooms being converted from private to semi-private. Whitehall maintains referral agreements and other contacts to link it to the surrounding community. Whitehall maintains links with the following hospitals in the area: Boca Community Hospital; Delray Community Hospital and West Boca Hospital. Whitehall estimates that the total project cost for the 27-bed conversion will be $1,368,188 or $50,674 per bed. Whitehall's estimates include $209,090 for land costs or $7,744 per bed. The original costs for the Whitehall building was over $8,000,000. Financially, the Whitehall operation is a highly-leveraged investment, which results in Whitehall paying a high rate of interest. Interest costs on the Whitehall construction mortgage are approximately $1,100,000 per year. Whitehall has never admitted Medicaid-eligible residents to its facility and does not offer to serve any Medicaid-eligible residents in its proposed 27-bed conversion. Although Whitehall's refusal to accept Medicaid- eligible residents is based upon Whitehall's belief that the level of reimbursement for those patients is insufficient for Whitehall to continue to maintain its existing levels of amenities and service, Whitehall has performed no calculations to determine what its Medicaid reimbursement would be or whether it would have to decrease its level of care or amenities in order to accept Medicaid-eligible residents. Whitehall has accepted a small percentage of Medicare-eligible patients in the past, but Whitehall does not propose to certify any portion of the 27-bed conversion to provide care to Medicare- eligible patients. Whitehall has distributed $909,000 to its partners since Spring, 1988. Whitehall's projection of revenues and expenses after the 27-bed conversion assumes a yearly disbursement to partners of $500,000. Thus, high charges are necessary to cover the substantial mortgage interest and partnership dividends. Whitehall projects patient room charges in 1992 of $181 for a standard private room, $115 for a semi-private room, and $96 for Medicare reimbursement. This room rate applies to both nursing home and ACLF residents at Whitehall. The private pay charges projected by Whitehall are higher than those of any other applicant. Whitehall's semi-private room charge is the highest in Palm Beach County. Whitehall projects that it will have 79 total FTE direct care staff in the combined nursing home/ACLF in the second year of operation after conversion of the 27 beds. However, Whitehall's staffing projections are based upon a patient census of 130, which includes ACLF residents. Upon conversion of the 27 ACLF beds, Whitehall will have only 100 nursing home beds, not 130. Whitehall did not fully describe its staffing per shift. It is not possible to determine how Whitehall's nursing home beds will be staffed. Whitehall does not propose to change its staffing levels as a result of the conversion of 27 ACLF beds to nursing beds. An ACLF resident does not require as high a level of staffing as a nursing home resident. Because 27 ACLF beds are being converted to 27 nursing home beds, Whitehall's level of staffing for nursing home patients will be reduced if Whitehall does not add staff. Approximately 10% of Whitehall's nursing home residents come from outside Florida. Approximately 15% to 20% of Whitehall's nursing home residents come from outside Palm Beach County. Whitehall has been operating 62 ACLF beds rather than its full licensed complement of ACLF beds for approximately six years. Whitehall's 62 ACLF beds are occupied at approximately 80% to 85% occupancy. Most of the beds which Whitehall proposed to convert to nursing home beds are occupied by ACLF residents, who tend to be long-term residents. Whitehall's occupancy projections require its 27 converted beds to be filled to 95% occupancy within the first quarter of their operation. However, Whitehall does not assume that it is going to fill the 27 additional nursing home beds with its ACLF patients (in spite of Whitehall's stated purpose to convert the beds for use by ACLF residents) and Whitehall does not intend to atop admitting ACLF residents to its facility. Whitehall was unable to explain how it could continue to accommodate its ACLF patients while at the same time meeting its nursing home occupancy projections. The financial projections and schedules prepared in support of the Whitehall application are based upon facility-wide revenues and expenses for nursing home and ACLF residents. Whitehall prepared no financial feasibility projections for the 100-bed nursing home which will result from the 27-bed conversion or for the 27-bed conversion. It is not possible to determine from the evidence submitted by Whitehall whether this 27-bed conversion or the resulting 100 nursing home bed operation will be financially feasible in the long term. Boulevard is an existing nursing home located in Boynton Beach in the mid-Palm Beach County area. Boulevard currently operates 110 nursing home beds. Boulevard has a license to operate 44 additional beds acquired from Mason's Nursing Home. Boulevard is constructing a new wing to house the 44 beds. During construction, those 44 beds are inactive. Twenty-five (22.7%) of Boulevard's existing 110 beds are certified for Medicaid and 56 are certified for Medicare. When the 44 additional beds become operational, Boulevard's Medicaid certified beds will increase to 43 (27.9%). Vari-Care, Inc., a Delaware public corporation established in 1968, operates 25 nursing care facilities throughout the country, 20 of which are nursing homes. Since its inception, Vari-Care has operated its nursing facilities consistent with its corporate credo, "health care hospitality," that is, providing a health care environment with many of the hospitality characteristics commonly offered by the hotel and restaurant industries. Vari-Care operates three superior-rated nursing homes in Florida including Boulevard Manor Nursing Center, located on Seacrest Boulevard in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, which it has operated since 1976 and purchased in 1988. All nursing homes owned or operated by Vari-Care in Florida, including Boulevard Manor, have received superior ratings since the rating system has been in effect in Florida. Vari-Care's nursing homes outside Florida have always received the highest or next-to-highest rating in states having a nursing home rating system. All nursing homes owned or operated by Vari-Care in Florida, including Boulevard Manor, comply with or exceed staffing ratio requirements established by applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Boulevard Manor is currently medicare certified, does not have any outstanding deficiencies with the Health Care Financing Administration, has satisfied the Health Care Financing Administration's conditions of participation during its past three surveys, and has never been the subject of any certification or licensure revocation proceeding or moratorium. Vari-Care has never owned or operated a nursing home which has had its license revoked, been decertified from Medicare, or had its Medicare participation status revoked. Vari-Care provides managerial, programmatic, and operational resources to nursing homes it owns and operates, including the provision of a full-time Operations Director, who performs an operational review in each facility on a quarterly basis. Vari-Care's quality assurance program at Boulevard Manor incorporates the use of a regional nurse to perform approximately 25 to 30 quality assurance audits in a nursing home for each visit. After conducting the audit, the nurse confers with the nursing home's Director of Nursing and Administrator to review the scoring results and analyze any problems discovered. The Director of Nursing then turns the audits over to an established quality assurance committee within the nursing home to review the audits and determine what corrective actions need to be taken. The quality assurance committee makes recommendations to the Administrator and Director of Nursing, who formulate and institute an action plan. Vari-Care's quality assurance program meets or exceeds legal requirements. Boulevard Manor's utilization review plan evaluates the effectiveness and appropriateness of care rendered to Medicaid and Medicare patients. Reviews are performed by a committee comprised of two physicians having no financial interest in Boulevard Manor, the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Assistant Director of Nursing, and other professional personnel. The utilization review committee meets at a minimum on a monthly basis and on an on- call basis if there is a need. Boulevard Manor's activity program offers 4 to 5 activities on a daily basis, including educational programs, entertainment, and religious activities. Residents of Boulevard Manor are apprised of daily activities through rounds made by Boulevard Manor's staff, daily announcements posted on the facility's bulletin board, and a monthly newsletter designed to inform the residents, staff, community, and families of activities and events at the nursing home. Quality of life enhancements available to Boulevard Manor residents include: an ice cream and gift shop; non-institutional, residential-style furniture throughout the facility; a private dining room for residents and their family members; a chapel and library; a special foster grandparents program; color televisions and private baths within each room; an on-site laundry facility; and a barber and beauty shop. Community programs at Boulevard Manor include: participation in a Meals-on-Wheels program in conjunction with a neighboring church; a "speakers bureau" where nursing home residents go out into the community; visits with students from area schools, including Atlantic High School; a volunteer program for community activities; a voter registration program for residents that are not currently registered voters; and a respite care program for residents requiring care for a short period of time to relieve their usual caretaker. Boulevard Manor has extensive links within the community through informal and formal agreements with acute care hospitals, HMOs, physicians, rehabilitation facilities, the area's Veteran's Administration hospital and clinics, mental health and substance abuse programs, other nursing homes, ACLFs, adult day care programs, adult foster homes, hospice and home health agencies, social service agencies, and other related health care and human services programs. Intensive rehabilitative services available to residents at Boulevard Manor include speech, occupational, physical, and musical therapies, extra- nutritional therapy and dietary training, reality therapy for dementia and other patients, chemical therapy for sufferers of terminal illnesses and severe pain, bladder/bowel retraining and managing of incontinence, active and passive range of motion exercises, and ambulation programs to learn or relearn how to use walking aids and prostheses. Boulevard Manor's provisions for treatment of residents with mental health problems include a contract with a local psychiatrist, Dr. Tom O'Leary, a contract with Hospice-by-the-Sea, in-house programs offered by specially trained staff for treatment of Alzheimer's patients, and relationships with other community mental health resources. The majority of Vari-Care's facilities, including Boulevard Manor, are "clustered" in a particular geographic region with at least two other facilities operated by Vari-Care. Economies of scale resulting from this "clustering" concept include the use of one Regional Director and QA Nurse for all facilities in a particular area, and the ability to enter into regional food vendor contracts which contemplate a similar menu at all area facilities for better quality food at significant savings. Boulevard Manor's educational program includes ongoing affiliations with training programs and schools in the immediate area including Palm Beach Junior College, in which professors from the college teach training courses on such subjects as sexuality, motivation, and controlling personal stress. The addition of a subacute care unit would expand the availability of training programs for professional staff. Career advancement opportunities and other incentives and employee benefits such as tuition reimbursement and recruitment bonuses enable Boulevard Manor to recruit and maintain highly qualified staff at all levels. Boulevard Manor is geographically accessible to its community. It is located 1/2 mile east of 1-95, is directly accessible by public transportation, and is adjacent to Bethesda Memorial Hospital. Boulevard Manor makes use of the out-patient services provided at Bethesda Memorial Hospital including patient therapy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, X-rays, and blood transfusions. Vari-Care integrates its "health care hospitality" philosophy into the design of its proposed bed addition at Boulevard Manor by offering non- institutional, residential-style furniture throughout the facility, corridors that are not straight but are avenues with room offsets, ceilings that are not flat but vary in height, and a mall concept around a courtyard with landscaping. Unique design features at Boulevard Manor include a drive-up entrance with a covered canopy, a large lobby with hotel-like furniture, a reception area, accent lighting, a beauty shop, a chapel and a study off the lobby, an ice cream and gift shop, a private dining room, a staff lounge and dining area, and a child day-care center for staff. Vari-Care's proposed 26 beds will be housed in semi-private accommodations wherein a partition wall enables each resident to have his or her own window, air conditioning unit, television, full bath, "roll-in" shower to accommodate wheelchairs, and walk-in closet. A partition in the room creates, in effect, a private room within a semi-private accommodation. There will be 120 square feet per resident in the semi-private rooms, which exceeds the State of Florida requirement for semi-private space in nursing homes. Vari-Care proposes to add 26 beds to its facility. Ten of the beds will be added by new construction in each wing of the existing 110-bed structure, bringing that structure up to 120 beds with two nurses stations. The remaining 16 beds will be added by converting 16 private rooms in the new 44-bed addition to semi-private rooms. There are no design changes required in the new wing, other than the conversion of 16 private rooms to semi-private rooms. Vari-Care proposes to certify 15 (58%) of the 26 additional beds to serve Medicaid-eligible residents. Vari-Care does not propose to certify any additional Medicare beds. Vari-Care projects a 32% Medicaid payor mix after addition of the 26 beds. This projection is based solely upon Vari-Care's intent to certify 58 (32% of 180) beds for Medicaid. Vari-Care's application describes a "high demand" for Medicaid beds and Vari-Care testified to a need for additional Medicaid beds. Nevertheless, only 25 of Boulevard's existing beds and 58 of Boulevard's proposed 180 beds will be Medicaid certified. Vari- Care's ability to serve Medicaid patients will be limited by the fact that it will certify only a portion of its beds. Vari-Care's projections of a 32% Medicaid payor mix are inconsistent with its historical payor mix of approximately 20%. Vari-Care's testimony that it will achieve 32% Medicaid simple because it will certify 32% of its beds is inconsistent with Vari-Care's testimony that it has never reached its maximum capacity for Medicaid patients in its existing facility. Vari-Care owns two other nursing homes in Palm Beach County, Medicana located in Lake Worth and The Fountains located in Boca Raton. Boulevard provided 18% of its patient days to Medicaid-eligible residents in calendar year 1988, and provided approximately 20% for the year to date at the time of hearing. In 1988, Medicana provided 15.5% of its patient days to Medicaid- eligible residents, and The Fountains provided 19.6%. Vari-Care's total project cost for the 26-bed addition will be $1,095,353 or $42,129 per bed. This cost includes the cost overrun anticipated by Vari-Care in its new wing but not included in the application estimates. The portion of that cost overrun allocable to the 16-bed conversion in the new wing is $106,408, or $6,650 per bed. Vari-Care's project cost estimates include land purchase costs of $107,620, or $4,139 per bed. Vari-Care projects patient charges in 1992 of $117 for a private room, $107 for a semi-private room, $87 as its Medicaid reimbursement, and $161 as its Medicare reimbursement. The long-term financial feasibility of Vari-Care's proposal is demonstrated by a positive net income for the first two years of operation, the ability of Vari-Care to service its debt adequately, its low debt-to-equity ratio, and its strong projected current ratio. Vari-Care testified that it does not intend to provide subacute care in its new 44-bed wing but that it would provide subacute care in the additional 16 beds in that wing. Boulevard's new wing incorporates design elements intended by Vari-Care to facilitate subacute care, such as piped-in oxygen. However, neither the design nor the construction of this new wing are contingent upon the approval of the 16-bed conversion. From a design standpoint, nothing proposed by Vari-Care in its application will enhance Boulevard's ability to provide subacute care. Boulevard's physical plant will be constructed to provide subacute care in the new wing, regardless of whether this application is approved. Vari-Care presented a schematic with its application which designated those private rooms to be converted to semi-private rooms. At final hearing, Vari-Care identified those rooms to be designated as the distinct subacute care unit. However, the rooms which Vari-Care designated for subacute care are not the same rooms to be converted from private to semi-private. Four of the rooms in the subacute care area are already semi-private rooms. Only four of the beds to be converted to semi-private use are located within the designated subacute care area. Therefore, except for four beds, Boulevard's designated subacute care unit will be in place upon completion of the 44-bed addition. Vari-Care described subacute care as care between acute hospital therapy and nursing home therapy or services not normally provided in a nursing home because of expense, specialized equipment and additional staffing that is necessary. Vari-Care cited examples of subacute care which it would provide to be respirator and ventilator care, tracheotomy care, IV services and decubitus care. However, Boulevard already provides subacute care, including tracheotomies, IV therapy, antibiotic therapy, pain management, dehydration and nutritional services, and decubitus care. Currently, subacute care at Boulevard is provided in the dedicated Medicare wing. The only type of subacute care which Boulevard will add is respirator and ventilator care. However, Vari-Care has not attempted to quantify the number of ventilator or respirator patients that it would treat. In any event, a CON is not required to provide ventilator or respirator care. The subacute care patients which Boulevard currently treats in the existing 110 beds are predominantly Medicare patients. Vari-Care expects 50% of the patients in the new 16 subacute beds and 10% of the patients in the 44 new beds to be Medicare patients. However, Boulevard does not propose to certify any additional Medicare beds, and only 1% of its Medicare patients will be treated in the existing 110 beds after construction of the new wing. Although Boulevard mist recently experienced a 14% Medicare utilization, or about 15 Medicare patients, Vari-Care's application assumes a 7.22% Medicare utilization, or about 12 patients (.0722 x 170), after the addition of a subacute care unit. The new subacute care beds will not increase the number of Medicare patients which Boulevard treats. Virtually all of the Medicare patient load which Boulevard now treats in its existing 110 beds will be treated in the new wing, and about half of Boulevard's current Medicare patient load will move to the new 16 subacute care beds. Subacute care requires a much higher level of staffing. The administrator of the Boulevard nursing home testified that the staffing ratios for the new addition, "as one of the conditions of the CON", are "much higher than" the current staffing levels, because of the planned subacute care. The CON condition referred to by the administrator was the condition imposed by HRS in its intent to approve the Vari-Care application. This condition would require a direct care staff to bed ratio (RNs, LPNs, and nurse aides) of .18 for the first shift, .12 for the second shift, and .08 for the third shift. Actually, these staff ratios reflect the current staffing levels at Boulevard's 110-bed facility. The testimony of the Boulevard administrator was contradicted by Vari-Care's Vice President of Operations, who testified that Boulevard's current staffing ratios will be maintained by Boulevard in the 26 new beds. There is no evidence that Boulevard will provide a much higher level of staffing in the addition. Boulevard's staffing is lower than that of any other applicant. Boulevard's proposed total nurse staffing for the second year of operation of the 180-bed nursing home is 73.5 total FTE, which is equivalent to a staff per resident ratio of .432. The shift staffing proposed by Boulevard is 33 FTE for the first shift, 24 FTE for the second, and 17 FTE for the third, which is equivalent to a shift staff per bed ratio of .18, .13, and .09 respectively. These staff ratios are roughly equivalent to those required by HRS in its condition for the 26-bed addition. Boulevard's proposed 16-bed subacute unit is closely related to its new 44-bed wing. However, the staffing proposed by Vari-Care for the new 44-bed wing is inconsistent with the staffing proposed by Vari-Care for the 16-bed subacute unit. When Vari-Care submitted its CON application for the new 44-bed wing, it proposed a direct care nursing staff of 88.02 total FTE for the resulting 154-bed facility. The staffing described by Vari-Care for the 154-bed facility is higher than the staffing which Vari-Care now proposes for the 180- bed facility. The staffing proposed by Vari-Care is inconsistent with its testimony that it did not intend to provide subacute care in the 44-bed addition and that higher staffing is required to provide subacute care. Vari-Care has not submitted an application consistent with its proposal for subacute care. Vari-Care has not quantified any need for the only two forms of subacute care, ventilator care and respirator care, which it does not currently provide. Although subacute care is acknowledged to require a higher level of staffing, the level of staffing proposed by Vari-Care is essentially the same as that in its existing 110-bed facility and is lower than that proposed for its 154-bed home. Boulevard's facility design is not dependent upon its proposal to provide subacute care. The rooms designated for subacute care are not the same as the rooms containing the beds to be converted from private to semi-private beds. The level of staffing proposed by Vari-Care is actually lower than that proposed by any other applicant, none of whom proposes to add subacute care through these pending applications. Manor Care is a 120-bed skilled nursing home facility in Boca Raton, south Palm Beach County. It holds final CON approval for a 30-bed dedicated Alzheimer unit. The Alzheimer unit will open in June, 1990. Manor Care currently holds a superior license and has held a superior license for as long as the facility has been eligible for one. Currently, 30% of its total patient days are for Medicaid residents. Of Manor Care's existing 120 beds, 36 beds (30%) are licensed for Medicaid. That is consistent with the CON condition on the original facility that 30% of the beds be licensed for Medicaid. Manor Care offers full physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy services. Manor Care offers a full complement of skilled nursing care, including tracheotomy, IV therapy and decubitus care. Manor Care classifies these specific services as skilled nursing care," not "subacute care." Manor Care characterizes "subacute care" as those services which would normally be delivered in a rehabilitation hospital. Subacute care requires 3 times the staffing normally provided in a nursing home. Manor Care believes that examples of subacute care are spinal cord injury and head trauma. On the other hand, Vari-Care chooses to characterize the services of tracheotomy, IV therapy and decubitus care as "subacute" care, and that is what it proposed to provide in its dedicated subacute unit. Manor Care offers these skilled services throughout its facility; it does not utilize a dedicated unit to provide them. Medicare patients in nursing homes normally require skilled nursing care. In this regard, 11.6% of total patient days at Manor Care in 1988 were for Medicare residents. That represents the highest Medicare percentage in Palm Beach County. Manor Care employs the state-of-the-cart approach for providing nursing home services. For example, Manor Care holds CON-approval to establish a 30-bed dedicated Alzheimer unit with specialized staff and programming. Manor Care is the only existing provider in this proceeding which treats Alzheimer disease in a segregated modality. (HCR's approved facility will also house a dedicated Alzheimer unit.) Manor Care has neither transferred nor voided any CON. Manor Care has had no Medicare conditions of non-compliance. Its license has never been revoked, suspended or denied. Manor Care has had no beds decertified by Medicare or Medicaid. Manor Care has no intention of selling its facility. Manor Care of Boca Raton, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care of Boca Raton is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Healthcare Corp. Manor Healthcare Corp. owns 155 nursing homed in 28 states. It has 9 nursing homes and 3 ACLFs in the State of Florida. Manor Healthcare has established six regional-based offices with a full complement of staff to assist its individual nursing homes in all areas of operations. It has a regional office in Orlando to service Florida. Through its corporate and regional offices, Manor Healthcare employs a team of professionals who are responsible for providing support functions to the nursing centers, such as: quality assurance, nursing training, administration, purchasing, facility planning, assisted living, Alzheimer care, managed care, accounting, dietary, marketing, staff recruitment, and chaplaincy. This centralized support system enhances operational capabilities and efficiencies. Manor Healthcare's primary goals are quality assurance and quality of care. It seeks to return nursing home residents to the community as soon as possible. In this regard, Manor Healthcare, on the average, returns 45% of its residents to the community. Manor Care proposes to add 30 skilled beds to its facility by locating them on the 2nd Floor above the 30-bed Alzheimer unit. This addition will include 15 semi-private rooms, lounge space, office space, conference space, an elevator, and a nursing station. Manor Care will offer the same quality, level and scope of skilled nursing services in the 30-bed addition as currently offered at its facility. The proposed addition will be integrated into the existing facility. The addition will be adjacent to existing therapy areas and near several dining room and lounge areas. Due to substantial existing ancillary areas, these 30 beds can be added without adding much ancillary spaces. Manor Care expressly agrees to the following CON conditions: 30 skilled nursing beds; 2.8 nursing hours per patient day; 37% Medicaid patient days in the addition; and 9400 square feet on the 2nd Floor. The total project cost (before CON application fee) for the 30-bed addition is $1,270,700. Manor Care projects that the 30-bed addition will be in use by June 1, 1991. The project cost will be 51% debt-financed; the rest will be financed with equity funds. The nursing and other staff at Manor Care are well qualified; its staffing ratios exceed licensure requirements by at least 25%. The proposed staffing levels, including the 30-bed addition, also exceed licensure requirements by at least 25%. Manor Care maintains an educational program plan to improve the ability of staff to meet the demands of its nursing home residents. These programs will continue to be employed at the Manor Care facility. All employees are required to attend educational programs pertinent to the improvement of skills within their respective disciplines. All employees are required to attend annual programs on fire prevention, accident prevention, infection control, effective communication, and the psychosocial/psychophysical aspects of aging. Health care seminars are sponsored by Manor Care on a quarterly basis. Topics cover a wide range of subjects related to enhancing quality of care in nursing homes. These seminars are available to facility staff and community health care professionals. Manor Care maintains a restorative program intended to enable each resident to achieve maximum function with the ultimate goal of returning patients back to the community whenever possible. For those unable to return home, the program seeks to ensure that all residents continue to function at their maximum potential. Examples of specific restorative programs include: progressive ambulation; bowel management; bladder management; self-feeding training; activities of daily living training; pain management for chronic and post operative pain; muscle control training and others. In this regard, Manor Care utilizes its "Excel Care" computerized system intended to document and evaluate the success of its restorative and rehabilitative programs. This program allows for the efficient monitoring of residents' responses to therapy and nursing care. Per this system, every unit of care is measured by outcome standards. The outcome standards describe the expected results in the patient's condition if treatment and therapy is successfully carried out. Manor Care maintains a utilization review committee comprised of three physicians, the administrator, the social services director, and the Director of Nursing. Its purpose is to meet every 30 days to assess patients and to ensure that appropriate and effective utilization of services is being provided. The purpose of Manor Care's QA program is to promote and support optimum quality standards in all disciplines. This objective is accomplished through: continuing in-service education programs; on-going consultation among corporate quality standards staff and QA regional specialists; unannounced annual surveys conducted by a Manor Healthcare QA team of health care professionals; and on-going surveying of guarantor/resident satisfaction with nursing home services. The Manor Care nursing home is reviewed annually on an unannounced basis by the QA interdisciplinary team of Manor Healthcare Corp. specialists. The QA review criteria meet all the minimum standards set by Medicare and exceed the most stringent state regulations throughout the country, including Florida. The unannounced annual review covers the following areas: resident care, dietary, activities, housekeeping, laundry, physician services, maintenance, medical records, pharmacy services, social services, administrative records and safety. Manor Care of Boca Raton was internally surveyed in January, 1989. It rated within the top 10% of all 150 Manor Healthcare facilities in the country. Within 30 days of an admission, the patient's guarantor is mailed a "satisfaction survey" form. The guarantor is asked to evaluate Manor Care's performance as to nursing, dietary, activities, therapies, etc. The form is self-addressed and is to be mailed to the Manor Healthcare corporate offices. Manor Care maintains an 800 toll-free health care hotline that is a direct line to the QA department of Manor Healthcare. This is available to all persons who want to ask questions, obtain information, make suggestions, or who require follow-up on unresolved concerns at the individual nursing home level. In effect, this serves as a consumer hotline. Manor Care designs and maintains activity programs that are responsive and appropriate to meet the physical, mental, and social needs of its residents. They include at least the following: various therapy activities; large group activities weekly; at least two religious activities per week; facility-wide general visits from the public; special events; birthday parties; activities after the evening meal; therapeutic programs for residents with special needs (such as stroke victims or blind persons); outings away from the nursing home; music activities; and special holiday events. Manor Care maintains a formalized program for involving families and community volunteers to promote the quality of life for its residents. Community volunteers participate on a routine basis in providing services to the residents, such as: reading to residents, distributing newspapers and magazines, assisting on community outings, and assisting with correspondence. These services bring the community closer to the nursing home residents. Manor Care establishes and maintains linkages with state and local health care providers to ensure that a continuum of care is available to residents and to facilitate community involvement by the nursing center. These community linkages and referral agreements include: local hospitals, physician specialists, therapists, home health agencies, adult day-care centers, area agencies on aging, homemaker services, private insurance companies, ACLFs, and other community agencies. Manor Care currently holds transfer agreements with four local hospitals. Manor Care works very closely with local agencies to ensure that residents are located in the most appropriate setting for their needs. Manor Care maintains linkages and agreements with less intensive institutions to meet the needs of those persons or residents who do not require or no longer require nursing home care, such as: adult day-care, meals-on-wheels, and senior centers. Due to existing ancillary space, Manor Care can add its proposed 30- bed unit at a relatively small cost. Manor Care already has ample dining room space, activity areas, therapy areas, and social areas which can accommodate an additional 30 beds without difficulty. In addition, Manor Care already retains the core nursing, administrative, therapy, and other staff required to operate a nursing home. As such, additional staff for the 30-bed addition is not substantial. The Manor Care application therefore provides a cost-effective approach to add nursing home beds to the community. Manor Care currently offers and will continue to offer clinical and training opportunities to students currently enrolled in nursing educational programs at local technical schools and universities. Manor Care also provides services to persons seeking to become certified nursing assistants. Manor Care serves as a clinical site for gerontological rotations for nursing students at Palm Beach Community College. Manor Care is developing a similar internship program with Atlantic Vocational Technical School and seeks to develop clinical affiliations with South Technical Vocational School and Florida Atlantic University. This working relationship not only trains students and health care professionals, but also provides Manor Care valuable resources in staff recruitment and development. Manor Care sponsors and will continue to sponsor nurse "refresher" courses which are taught by local area nursing school instructors. Persons wishing to renew their nursing licenses and certification can do so through this course work. Manor Care finances these nurse refresher programs. Manor Care sponsors and finances various health care seminars on a quarterly basis. These seminars are advertised in local hospitals, adult day- care centers, and other agencies. These seminars are available to both Manor Care staff and community health care professionals. Manor Care maintains a "career ladder" program which enables Manor Care employees (both at the facility and within the Manor Healthcare Corp. system) to reach their career goals through promotion, career advancement programs, and tuition support for additional schooling. Both the financial statements of Manor Care of Boca Raton and Manor Healthcare Corp. (which will provide the debt financing) demonstrate the financial strength and financial resource availability to accomplish and operate the proposed 30-bed addition. Manor Care has historically been very accessible to Medicare and Medicaid residents. In 1988, 11.9% total patient days were for Medicare patients. This represented the highest percentage in Palm Beach County. In calendar year 1989 to date, Manor Care has provided 30% of total patient days to Medicaid patients. For its proposed 30-bed addition, Manor Care commits to a minimum of 37% Medicaid If the 30 beds are approved, Manor Care's total facility after one year of operation would provide 34% Medicaid. Manor Care's historical and projected Medicare/Medicaid commitment is substantial, particularly when considered with the other existing providers/applicants in this case: Actual Actual Projected 1988 Medicare 1988 Medicaid Total Facility Medicaid After First Year of Operation Whitehall 1.3% 0 0 Vari-Care 5% 18.0% 26.65% Manor Care 11.9% 26.8% 34% The pro formas in the Manor Care application are reasonable. These pro formas demonstrate that the Manor Care proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. The pro formas are based on reasonable assumptions. The projected utilization underlying the pro formas is reasonable. The projected charges are reasonable. The projected staffing levels, staff salaries, and the other expenses were based on existing data and expense levels, and then reasonably inflated forward. Manor Care's proposed 30-bed addition will be integrated into the existing facility. The addition will benefit from existing, innovative quality of life features designed to enhance privacy and personal choice options for residents and family members. These features include: beauty/barber shop, formal private dining room, lobby areas, therapy areas, activity/recreational areas, specially-equipped rehabilitation dining room, distinct lounge area for families, self-contained Alzheimer's unit, carpeted conference room, several private room accommodations, outdoor patio areas, each patient room with its own bathroom, and reading rooms. In addition, the patient rooms are larger than the state requires and are very proximate to the nursing stations. The Manor Care facility incorporates many residential design and home-like features. Color schemes are emphasized for a home-like atmosphere, such as: muted vinyl wall covering; color-coordinated draperies, bedspreads and curtains (residents can choose their color scheme at admission); and lounges which are theme-decorated around particular purposes, such as a game room. Patients are permitted to exercise choice in furnishings and decorations. Patient room size is a major factor in controlling construction costs. At Manor Care, the rooms are rectangular with the shorter walls on the outside. This design minimizes exterior wall space, which is more expensive to construct than interior wall space. Minimized exterior walls also improve energy efficiency. The proximity of nursing stations to the patient rooms at Manor Care is cost-effective. The rectangular room shape reduces the cost of construction by reducing corridor length and square footage. Shorter corridors are less costly and also are more operationally efficient. The central core area at the facility concentrates the ancillary and support areas. Administrative areas are centrally located for easy access by residents and families. Resident lounges are located near the nursing station, thereby facilitating supervision by nursing staff. The State Health Plan consists of three broadly-stated goals. Goal 1 is to develop an adequate supply of long-term care services throughout Florida. Each of the four proposals for additional beds is consistent with this goal in that each proposal contributes to the supply of beds determined to be needed in Palm Beach County. Goal 2 of the State Health Plan is to develop a supply of appropriate long-term care services that are accessible to all residents. The HCR, Manor Care, and Vari-Care proposals are consistent with this goal in that each would supply nursing home services to those in need of such services, and their nursing homes will be accessible to all residents of the planning district, including Medicaid patients. Further, HCR will be the only new facility in northern Palm Beach County, and Manor Care is located in southern Palm Beach County, which experiences the highest demand for nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. Lastly, all three of those applicants will accept a significant number of Medicaid and Medicare patients. On the other hand, the Whitehall application is not consistent with this goal. First, Whitehall has never served Medicaid residents and does not propose to do so. Second, Whitehall does not provide substantial Medicare: .7% in 1987, and 1.3% in 1988. Third, Whitehall may not be affordable for many Palm Beach County residents. Its charges are the highest in Palm Beach County. Fourth, Whitehall markets itself to non-Florida residents. About 20% of its nursing home and ACLF patients reside outside Florida. Hence, approval of Whitehall's 27-beds does not promote access for Palm Beach County or Florida residents. Goal 3 is to insure that long-term care services are appropriately utilized throughout Florida. All four applicants have in place utilization and pre-admission screening programs for appropriate utilization of nursing home services. Accordingly, the proposals of HCR, Vari-Care, and Manor Care are consistent with the State Health Plan; however, the proposal of Whitehall is not. The District IX Local Health Council has adopted five long-term care CON allocation factors which are applicable to proposals for additional nursing home beds in Palm Beach County. The first factor is that freestanding nursing homes should have a minimum of 120 beds in urban subdistricts. Palm Beach County is an urban subdistrict in District IX. HCR's proposal is consistent with this recommendation in that the HCR proposal will bring HCR's nursing home up to the minimum 120-bed size unit. Manor Care is consistent with this recommendation in that it is an existing 120-bed facility with a 30-bed Alzheimer unit approval. Likewise, Vari-Care meets this recommendation since it is a 154-bed facility. Whitehall, however, fails to meet this recommendation since it only has 73 nursing home beds and only seeks approval for 27 more, for a total of 100 beds. Within this first recommendation is a recommendation that priority be given to additions to nursing homes so that the total capacity would reach, but not be greater than, 120 beds. The HCR proposal is consistent with this recommendation in that its proposal, if granted, would increase the number of beds in that facility to only 120. Accordingly, HCR should be given priority in this proceeding in order to meet the first recommendation in the Local Health Council. To the contrary, Whitehall should be given no priority since it does not propose to meet the first recommendation of the Local Health Council. The second recommendation of the Local Health Council is that all new nursing homes and expansions should agree that a minimum of 30% of its patient days will be provided to Medicaid-eligible patients, if such patients are available within the subdistrict. Medicaid-eligible are available within the subdistrict and accounted for more than 700,060 patient days in Palm Beach County in calendar year 1988. HCR's proposal for 42% of its additional patient days to be devoted to Medicaid-eligible patients exceeds the recommendation of the Local Health Council, and the facility-wide commitment to 35% of its patient days to Medicaid-eligible patients likewise exceeds the recommendation. Similarly, Manor Care agrees to a 37% Medicaid condition to its CON approval and, therefore, this factor is satisfied. Likewise, Vari-Care projects a 32% Medicaid payor mix. Whitehall will serve no Medicaid patients, and, accordingly, fails to comply with this recommendation of the Local Health Council. The third recommendation of the Local Health Council is that priority should be given to applicants who demonstrate a range of long-term care services. HCR's 120-bed facility would offer a range of services to all of its patients including those in the proposed addition. Similarly, Manor Care Vari- Care, and Whitehall propose and provide a range of services to their patients and will do so in their proposed additions. The fourth recommendation of the Local Health Council is that priority should be given to applicants who demonstrate a documented history of providing good residential care, staff ratios that exceed minimum requirement, provisions for the treatment of residents with mental health problems, and the inclusion of intensive rehabilitation services The HCR, Manor Care and Vari-Care proposals are consistent with this recommendation in that their staffing ratios exceed minimum requirements, they provide treatment for residents -with mental health problems, they have documented their ability to provide good quality care by operating facilities with superior licenses, and intensive rehabilitation services will be available to their residents. Medicare participation often indicates the level of intensity of skilled services offered at a facility. In this regard, Whitehall's Medicare participation of .7% in 1987 and 1.3% in 1988 does not demonstrate a substantial commitment to intensive skilled or rehabilitation services. The fifth recommendation of the Local Health Council is that priority should be given to applicants who propose service to a distinct patient population that currently is not being served within the Subdistrict. No applicant identified a distinct patient population that is not currently being served within the Subdistrict. Whitehall suggests that its application promotes this factor since it has Jewish patients. It does not suggest that the other applicants do not have Jewish patients. However, there are already three dedicated Jewish nursing homes in Palm Beach County. The presence of three dedicated Jewish nursing homes clearly indicates that the Jewish population is currently being served within the Subdistrict. Whitehall further concedes that its services (frozen Kosher dinners) is not the equivalent of those services of offered at a dedicated Jewish nursing home. Accordingly, no applicant should receive priority pursuant to this final recommendation of the Local Health Council since no applicant has identified a distinct population not currently being served, and no applicant has proposed to serve such a population. Accordingly, the HCR, Vari-Care, and Manor Care proposals comply with the District IX Local Health Council plan, but the Whitehall application does not. HCR's proposed facility will be located in northern Palm Beach County, Vari-Care's facility is located in central Palm Beach County, and Manor Care and Whitehall are located in very close proximity to each other in southern Palm Beach County. The two facilities in southern Palm Beach County both have licensure ratings of superior. It is clear that Whitehall's facility is more luxurious than that of Manor Care (and the other applicants for that matter), and its patient charges are high enough to offer many quality of life enhancements which other facilities are unable to offer. For example, Whitehall offers its patients room service, complimentary beer and wine, and a chauffeur- driven Cadillac for excursions outside the nursing home. However, Manor Care offers services more indicative of a high quality of care than Whitehall. Per its application, Whitehall will not staff its 3-11 or its 11-7 shift with nursing administrators, therapists, nurse-aides, activity directors, or social services. In comparison, Manor Care will provide such staff in its 3- 11 shift, and nurse-aides in the 11-7 shift. Whitehall does not provide in- house physical therapists. Manor Care employs physical therapists. Whitehall provides minimal skilled nursing services based on its small levels of Medicare participation. Whitehall proposes no additional Medicare-certified beds. Manor Care maintained the highest level of Medicare participation in Palm Beach County in 1988. At Whitehall, Alzheimer's patients are mingled in with other nursing home patients. Manor Care has final CON approval to establish a 30-bed dedicated Alzheimer unit so as to treat Alzheimer disease in the most appropriate modality. Whitehall mixes its ACLF and nursing home residents. They share dining rooms, activities, staff, and occupy the same floor. That is very uncommon. Regents Park of Boca Raton (hereinafter "Regents Park"), operated by Petitioner Health Quest Management Corporation III, is a 120-bed nursing center located in Boca Raton. Whitehall is located only about one mile from Regents Park, and Manor Care is located three to five miles from Regents Park. Approximately 90% of Regents Park's patients come from the Boca Raton area. Most are referred to the facility by Boca Hospital and West Boca Hospital. Like Regents Park, Manor Care and Whitehall also receive referrals from Boca Hospital and West Boca Hospital. Regents Park's general nursing program is the bedrock of the facility's service program. Additionally, Regents Park offers an established rehabilitation program. The facility maintains a fully equipped rehabilitation department housed in a specialized module that was built onto the facility some years ago. All of Regents Park's Medicare patients, as well as a substantial proportion of its skilled care patients, participate in the rehabilitation program. Boca Raton's local hospitals refer patients to Regents Park for rehabilitation. Most nursing homes experience less than half the Medicare utilization of Regents Park and Manor Care. These two facilities have historically ranked among the largest providers of Medicare services in Palm Beach County, despite their close proximity. Regents Park also offers an established program for low-functioning patients, which includes Alzheimer's patients and patients suffering from other dementias. Approximately thirty residents participate in the low-functioning program, and the program has four specialized staff. Health Quest claims that it would lose staff and patient days if Whitehall or Manor Care were approved. At the same time, Health Quest admits: it would not release staff; it would not limit current services; Health Quest is an excellent provider and can compete in the future for new residents; and Health Quest staffs well above minimum licensure requirements. Hence, by its own admission, Health Quest failed to show any credible or meaningful adverse impact if Manor Care or Whitehall were approved. Health Quest estimates it might suffer only a $12,000 or a $26,000 net loss if either application were approved. That amount does not constitute substantial, adverse impact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order Approving the application of HCR for a CON for 30 additional nursing home beds; Approving the application of Manor Care for a CON for 30 additional nursing home beds; Denying the application of Vari-Care for a CON for 26 additional nursing home beds; and Denying the application of Whitehall for a CON for 27 additional nursing home beds. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd of January, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NUMBERS 89-2502, 89-2504, 89-2505, 89-2506, and 89-2507 Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 26, 28, and 31 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 7, 27, and 32 have been rejected as unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 11-15, 21, 23-25, 29, 30, and 33-35 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 16-20, 22, and 36 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 37 and 38 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues involved herein. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 39-48 have been rejected as not constituting' findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, recitation of the testimony, or conclusions of law. Health Quest's proposed findings of fact numbered 49-79 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, and 5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 2 and 6 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 3 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, recitation of the testimony, or conclusions of law. HRS' proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. HRS' proposed finding of fact numbered 9 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. HRS" proposed finding of fact numbered 10 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. HCR's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-29 and 31-54 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. HCR's proposed finding of fact numbered 30 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 18- 23, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41 42, 48, 50-54, 58, 61, 64, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, and 82 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 12, 24-27, 66, 69, 74, and 91 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in his proceeding. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 9-11, 28, 30, 40, 43, 44, 63, 77, 80, 84, 85, and 90 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, recitation of the testimony, or conclusions of law. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 16, 32, 35, 36, 39, 45-47, 49, 59, and 73 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 17, 29, 55, 65, 67, 68, and 72 have rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 56 and 81 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues involved herein. Vari-Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 57, 60, 62, 71, 83, and 86-89 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 39, 47, 75-77, 82, 84, 85, 93, 118, 119, 146, and 151 have been rejected as being immaterial to the issues involved herein. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 30, 34, 41, 48, 51, 54-56, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, 74, 78, 88-90, 92, 96, 97, 99, 106, 121, 124, 126, 137, 139, 141, 142, 147, 148, and 150 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 7-9, 12, 13, 17-19, 29, 31, 40, 43-46, 63, 64, 83, 86, 91, 107, 128, 131, 136, 140, and 152 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 50, 101, 111-117, 125, 129, 155, and 156 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 20, 23-25, 27, 38, 42, 49, 52, 57, 60, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 79-81, 87, 94, 95, 98, 100, 102-105, 108- 110, 120, 122, 123, 127, 130, 134, 135, 143-145, and 149 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, recitation of the testimony, or conclusions of law. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 22, 26, 28, 36, 37, 53, 62, 68, 71, 132, 133, 138, 153, and 154 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Whitehall's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 15, 32, 33, and 35 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-24, 27-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71-73, 75-78, 80, 81, 83, 89, 93-99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 110-113, 121, 130-141, 143-145, 147, and 149 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 101, 104, 106, 117, and 148 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, recitation of the testimony, or conclusions of law. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 12, 38, 49, 55, 56, 59, 65, 67, 68, 74, 82, 90, 92, 100, 114, 116, and 118-120 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 26, 41, 44, 46, 52, 61, 62, 70, 79, 86-8, 105, 109, 115, 122, 142, 146, 150, and 151 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Manor Care's proposed findings of fact numbered 25, 84, 91, and 123- 129 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Manor Care's proposed finding of fact numbered 85 has been rejected as being immaterial to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel J. Dubbin, Esquire Gerald M.Cohen, Esquire STEEL HECTOR & DAVIS 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty XII, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in November, 1982 seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. The original estimated cost of the project was $3,108,000; however, due to the passage of time since the original filing, petitioner now anticipates the cost to be $4,488,000. The proposal will be financially guaranteed by Health Quest Corporation, a corporation with principal offices in South Bend, Indiana. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action advising petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The proposed agency action was not introduced into evidence, but based on the stipulation of the parties, the denial was apparently predicated upon the lack of need for any additional beds in Broward County, Florida. The determination of need for nursing home beds is made pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Under the formula contained in that rule, only 101 additional nursing home beds were needed in Broward County, Florida, at the time of final hearing. However, HRS recently granted this allocation of beds to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in DOAH Case No. 83-882, Final Order entered on April 4, 1984. Accordingly, no need for any additional beds exists at the present time under the rule. Petitioner principally contended that non-rule factors must be considered in evaluating its application because Broward County is not "normal" within the meaning of the rule. In this regard, it offered evidence to show that Broward County has the fewest beds per capita of the eleven service districts in the state, that the county has a relatively low use of nursing home services by its indigent population, and that the county has a greater number of Medicaid patients per 1,000 indigent elderly than other counties. From this, it concluded that Broward County is abnormal to the extent that more nursing home services must be made available to the elderly indigent. However, these factors are incorporated within the rule and accordingly taken into account when determining need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty XII for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HEALTH QUEST REALTY XII, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1892 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner qualifies for grant of a certificate of need (CON) for construction of a 60 bed addition to its existing Stuart Convalescent Center nursing home facility in Stuart, Martin County by establishing a bed need of 60 beds. By stipulation, bed need is the only issue to be determined in these proceedings. POST HEARING SCHEDULE The parties joined in filing transcript of the proceedings on October 10, 1985, and by stipulation, proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law as well as supporting memoranda were timely filed by each party within 20 days thereof. Due to the extended period agreed upon, the 30 days for entry of this Recommended Order has been waived. All proposed findings of fact have been considered in preparation of this Recommended Order and each proposed finding of fact is ruled upon in the appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Eden Park is a for-profit corporation which constructs and operates nursing homes in Florida and elsewhere. Its principal offices are located in the state of New York and its local office is located in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. Eden Park demonstrated that all of its facilities in Florida are currently rated "superior" by the DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification. This indicates at least peripherally that current nursing home residents at existing Eden Park facilities, including Stuart Convalescent Center in Martin County, receive a high quality of care. Eden Park's amended application contemplates adding 60 nursing home beds to its Stuart Convalescent Center, in Stuart, Martin County. Stuart Convalescent Center is the only licensed nursing home within the City of Stuart. Martin County constitutes a sub-district within DHRS District IX. St. Lucie County, is in the same DHRS District as Martin County, but is a separate and distinct sub-district as mandated by Rule 10-17.021(1)(b) and (e) Florida Administrative Code. Eden Park currently operates a nursing home in the City of Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, which it maintains has an overflow of patients and a waiting list which needs to be absorbed by the proposed addition to its Stuart Convalescent Center in Martin County. The two counties are contiguous and it is possible for persons residing in St. Lucie County near the county line to be closer, physically, to Petitioner's existing Martin County facility than to Petitioner's existing St. Lucie County facility. The Cities of Stuart, Martin County and Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County are also characterized as physically contiguous cities. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that any existing nursing homes in St. Lucie County other than its own St. Lucie County facility had waiting lists. Petitioner presented no evidence to clearly establish that the patients on the Petitioner's St. Lucie County facility's waiting list could not be placed at other nursing homes in St. Lucie County. (See discussion of waiting lists infra.) Respondent presented testimony that two recent certificates of need have been granted in St. Lucie County to two other nursing home applicants, Beverly Enterprises and Florida Convalescent Centers. These facilities are not yet licensed and in operation nor are they required by their certificates of need to locate in any designated physical location within St. Lucie County. However, it is anticipated by DHRS personnel that completion of these facilities will adequately accommodate any nursing home bed need currently existing in St. Lucie County. Exhibit P-6, the Stuart Convalescent Center Martin County May 29, 1985 Census, shows 131 beds occupied by Martin County residents, 12 by St. Lucie County residents, 31 by residents of other Florida counties and 6 by patients originating out of state. Out of state patients are not calculated, and Florida patients from outside Martin County are not considered in the present calculation of bed need employed by DHRS for Martin County but Florida patients from outside Martin County are considered in bed need determinations for the counties in which they reside. For instance, the bed need of St. Lucie County residents has been calculated and provided for by the two nursing home CONs as recently issued for that sub-district and discussed above in paragraph 6. A CON was issued to Beverly Enterprises in 1982 for 120 new nursing home beds in Martin County. As of the date of formal hearing, these beds had been licensed and the nursing home was in operation. Although Mr. Kane, operational director for Eden Park Management, testified that the Beverly facility was only about one-fourth full at the time of formal hearing, he conceded that the Beverly facility would have an impact on Petitioner's Stuart Convalescent Center facility's waiting list although it has not impacted yet. Mr. Kane represents that the Beverly home is not presently taking Medicaid or Medicare patients. The predicate for Mr. Kane's knowledge on this point is weak, but even if it could be accepted, it does not, in isolation, provide any gauge of unfulfilled bed need in Martin County. Mr. Jaffe testified that Beverly's CON carries the proviso that Beverly must maintain one-third Medicaid occupancy when filled. Mr. Kane's testimony is accepted that historically Petitioner's Martin County facility has maintained a 50 percent Medicaid and Medicare population. Testimony of Respondent's expert, Reid Jaffe, is accepted that poverty level in a sub-district such as Martin County in relationship to its district, District IX, does not impact on the current bed need methodology established by rule and that the relevant factor is poverty level in the district in relationship to the state poverty level. Petitioner's existing St. Lucie County and Martin County nursing homes currently have a combined waiting list of 80 persons. For the Martin County facility, it is more like 32 on the waiting list (P-5). However, this waiting list's accuracy is suspect in that it includes persons hospitalized since December, 1984 and Mr. Kane could not state that the lists were correct, or whether the people on them were still hospitalized, at home, or exactly where they were. More recent data appears on P-3 (Eden Park's St. Lucie County facility's waiting list) but it shares the same paucity of in formation on the status of the listees and what other nursing home options are or are not available to them. Petitioner was previously granted three separate 60 bed projects, an original and two additions to its St. Lucie County facility. It took three months to fill the first 60 beds, two months to fill the second 60 beds and three and one half months to fill the next 60 beds. Past fill rate in St. Lucie County appears largely irrelevant, even given Petitioner's argument on the contiguous nature of the sub-districts. Petitioner appears to argue in its proposals that these additions were to its Martin County facility (Stuart Convalescent Center) but that is not what the undersigned understands from the testimony in the record (TR 48-51). Moreover, this rate of fill occupancy in 1978 has no probative value for currently projected future bed need whether it applied in St. Lucie or Martin Counties. Contrariwise, Petitioner's amended application (P-1) indicates the Stuart Convalescent Center was built for 120 beds in 1973 with a 60 bed addition in 1976 and that the St. Lucie County facility was built for 180 beds in 1980. In conjunction with Mr. Kane's testimony, this latter date also has no probative value for currently projected future bed need in Martin County. Martin Memorial Hospital is located in Martin County in near proximity to Petitioner's existing nursing facility, Stuart Convalescent Center. DHRS has recently granted a certificate of need to Martin Memorial Hospital for 150 hospital beds. Petitioner desires that the inference be drawn from the foregoing fact regarding new hospital beds that a need for 60 additional nursing home beds is established, but the two cannot be related as a quid pro quo. Petitioner is in the process of constructing a 150 unit adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Martin County, which it proposes will provide an alternative to existing services in Martin County. Mr. Jack Kane testified that the Eden Park ACLF will foster the most efficient use of services allowing people to be cared for in the most appropriate setting based upon their individual needs especially as these needs change in the continuum of care. This testimony is accepted but it does not, without some statistical evaluation or projection of potential nursing home candidates arising out of that ACLF environment, provide any useful information for determining current nursing home bed need or even for projecting, per the formula established by rule, the future nursing home bed need in Martin County. Jack Kane served seven years as the director of the Palm Beach Health Planning Council, was president of the Florida Health Care Association for a period of two years, served as senior vice-president for the Florida Health Care Association for two years and as regional vice-president for five years. Mr. Kane testified to a number of factors which, during his tenure on the Palm Beach Health Planning Council, would have been applicable to the bed need formula used then. A process or formula applicable on a local basis prior to adoption of the present statewide system and prior to the present rule's adoption is not applicable in this instant proceeding. Here, there is no evidence of current revised sub-district designations by a local health council within either sub- district or even within District IX which have not already been accounted for by the rules. (See discussion in Conclusion of Law Paragraphs 8a-d). Determination of nursing home bed need used to be on a beds-per- thousand basis but the new methodology now precludes that formula. The present formula application, as clarified by expert testimony from Mr. Reid Jaffe, medical facilities coordinator for DHRS's Office of Community Medical Facilities, only permits application of a 27 beds-per-thousand formula if two events exist: the district percentage of elderly in poverty is greater than that which the state has and there are fewer beds than 27 per thousand. A poverty ratio was not established sufficient to bring Martin County within this rule. Any further discussion of the bed need rule is more properly discussed under the following conclusions of law. Although a specific location of facility is requested on the CON application there is no statutory requirement that the facility, as constructed, be located there.
Recommendation That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the denial of Petitioner's certificate of need application for 120 nursing home beds and further denying the amended application for 60 nursing home beds. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 84-0260 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore, subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinated unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Rejected as background procedure only and therefore subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Constitutes an evidentiary matter and not a finding of fact, and therefore requires no ruling. Accepted but modified and amplified to conform to the evidence. See Finding of Fact Paragraphs 2 and 13. Adopted. See Findings of Fact Paragraph 12. Rejected as setting forth a Conclusion of Law and to the extent it may constitute a proposed finding of fact is contrary to the competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Rejected as a proposed conclusion of law and as a proposed recommendation. It is not a proposed finding of fact requiring a ruling. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The proposals of fact herein are adopted. Other assertions which are essentially procedural are rejected as unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. Adopted. Adopted. Adopted Adopted. Adopted. Up to the word "but" the proposal is accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary, and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. The remainder of the sentence is accepted but not adopted as stating a conclusion of law. See Finding of Fact Paragraph 14. Conceded that the proposal constitutes a portion of the expert opinion testimony of DHRS' expert witness but as expressed is a proposed conclusion of law requiring no ruling. To the extent it may constitute a proposed finding of fact it has been accepted and modified to conform to the competent substantial evidence contained in the record as a whole. See Finding of Fact Paragraphs 9b and 14. If this constitutes a proposal of fact that DHRS previously considered certain circumstances or as a matter of custom considers certain circumstances, it is accepted but not adopted as subordinate, unnecessary and not dispositive of any issue at bar due to the de novo nature of these proceedings. If it constitutes legal argument or a conclusion of law, it requires no ruling. Similar subject matter is covered by Finding of Fact Paragraphs 9a and 14. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark W. Hoffman, Esquire 87 Columbia Street Albany, New York 12210 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On November 23, 1988 petitioner, Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home (applicant, Shady Rest or County), filed its application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), for a certificate of need (CON) seeking authorization to replace one hundred and five existing beds and to add seventy-five nursing home beds so as to create a one hundreds eighty bed community nursing home facility at 3922 Michigan Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. In the alternative, the County requested a partial award of replacing its existing facility add adding fifteen beds so as to create a one hundred twenty bed facility. Under the alternative plan, the County projected an anticipated capital expenditure of $5,490,500. The County has agreed that, if the application is approved, the additional beds would be dedicated exclusively to Medicaid patients. After reviewing the application and certain additional information filed by the County through the omissions process, HRS deemed the application to be complete on January 9, 1989. Thereafter, on March 10, 1989 HRS issued proposed agency action advising the County that its application had been denied. As grounds, the agency generally stated that its evaluation of the application revealed the applicant had not satisfied certain statutory and rule criteria. In addition, HRS concluded that the County had failed to provide adequate documentation prior to the January 9, 1989 "completeness" date to support its request. This action prompted the County to request a formal hearing to contest the agency's preliminary decision. However, the appeal is limited to the partial award request to add fifteen beds and establish a one hundred twenty bed facility. It is noted that there were no other applicants in the November 1988 batching cycle and no existing providers have intervened in this proceeding. The Applicant The County's facility is located in subdistrict 5 (Lee County) of HRS District 8. The County has owned and operated Shady Rest Nursing Home for approximately twenty-eight years. Now licensed for one hundred five beds, the facility is categorized by HRS as a community nursing home. This means that it serves the population at large and has not received a certificate of need designating the beds as sheltered beds in accordance with Chapter 656, Florida Statutes (1987). As a publicly owned facility, the nursing home provides service to the public regardless of profit. Although the facility received annual subsidies from the County until as recent as four years ago, the facility now operates on a fiscally sound basis. The most typical patient at Shady Rest is Medicaid eligible. Because the plant is around thirty-one years old, the County desires to construct a new, more efficient and less costly to operate facility. In this regard, it is noted that HRS supports the construction of a new facilites for the existing one hundred five beds but opposes the authorization for any new beds. Since by law a facility can have no more than sixty beds for each nursing station, it was more logical and efficient for the applicant to design a facility having one hundred twenty beds, or one that required two nursing stations. Thus, besides need, the additional fifteen beds are predicated on economic and planning considerations. Motion in Limini There is no specific methodology that is prescribed by HRS to inform applicants of what is needed to meet the burden of proof regarding not normal circumstances. Rather, applicants must rely on the language in Rule 10- 5.11(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code (1987). As noted in finding of fact 8, HRS has just begun using a new CON application form for nursing homes. The County's application was submitted in the first batching cycle in which the new CON application form was used. In its application, the County stated it was applying for more beds than were contained in the published fixed need pool pursuant to the special circumstances contained in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(k)2.j. of Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Also attached to the application was what the County describes as "detailed evidence" of need for Medicaid-eligible nursing home beds in Lee County and the then current number of Lee County residents were located in out-of-county nursing homes. The detailed evidence is found on page one of two of Appendix 1 (1B2 - Optional) of the application and consists of the statement that "approximately 750-775 Lee County residents are reported in this (Medicaid) program as being in nursing care facilities. Approximately 130-150 of these residents are located in nursing homes outside of Lee County. Shady Rest Nursing Home experiences a waiting list of approximately 8 to 15 Lee County residents per month." Aside from this, no other information or documentation concerning special circumstances was included with the application. Although the County had at least three corroborating patient lists in its possession at the time the application was filed, it chose not to include them with the initial application or through the omissions process. At hearing, the County proffered into evidence the waiting lists and a more recently prepared letter of support and quality assurance manual on the theory they merely supplemented the statement set forth in Appendix 1 of the application. However, HRS did not consider these to be matters within the general scope of the application, deemed them to be impermissible amendments and objected to their admission by a motion in limini. The Review Process As an aid in evaluating applications for nursing home facilities, HRS recently instituted a somewhat complicated scoring system which involves an analysis of the responses provided by the applicant in its application. The scoring system is not codified in rule or statute form but is utilized on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The evaluation process rates an applicant's compliance with eight objectives which are designed to track the CON review criteria. The objectives are described in detail in HRS exhibits 3 and 4 received in evidence. Each objective has been assigned a certain number of points in the scoring process ranging from thirty to five hundred, or a total possible score of 1,398 points. The responses are measured by two HRS in-house consultants against this established point system, and numerical scores are assigned by them to each of eight categories of objectives. The two scores are averaged, and the overall score is then evaluated as a percentage of total points attained. Since a maximum of 1,398 points may be attained by an applicant, the overall average score is applied to that number to attain the applicable percentage. According to HRS, if a sufficient proportion of the total available points is achieved, the achievement indicates that the proposal is in conformance with the statutory and rule review criteria. The agency points out, however, that there is no passing score per se but rather the goal is to attain the highest score possible. In addition, the successful applicant will achieve a consistently high number in each of the eight rated objectives. This is because HRS equates consistency with capability to implement a successful project. In this case, HRS's review of the County's application resulted in the County achieving an overall average score of 710.81 points on its partial award request. This equated to a "score" of 50.84 percent of the 1,398 maximum assignable points. The agency then concluded that the applicant had "not demonstrated sufficient compliance with all relevant certificate of need review criteria for the approval of nursing home beds." The state agency action report received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2 indicated that the County's overall strengths were determined to be objectives 6 and 7 while its major weakness was noted in objective 1. The latter objective related to the identification of the nursing home fixed need bed pool and conformance with the local and state health plans. Compliance with Rule Criteria For purposes of determining the need for additional community nursing home beds in Lee County, HRS used a planning horizon of July 1991. In other words, through the use of a formula embodied in a rule, the agency calculated the number of new community nursing home beds projected to be needed in Lee County (the applicable subdistrict) at a relevant future period of time. The parties have agreed that under this formula no new beds are projected to be needed in Lee County during the planning horizon. As a general rule, additional beds would not normally be approved under these circumstances. However, the County contends that "not normal" circumstances are present that justify the need for an additional fifteen beds. Under this approach, an award of additional beds can be made even if no formula need exists if the applicant can show "special circumstances". One such special circumstance recognized by HRS is the inability of residents to obtain access to licensed and unoccupied beds in the area. The County has relied upon this exception and contends there is a demonstrated shortage of community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for Medicaid eligible patients. Underpinning the applicant's use of the exception are three waiting lists maintained by the facility over the past year and a half. They were proffered to show that persons with a need for nursing home care have been denied access to currently licensed but unfilled beds. One list (petitioner's exhibit 5) begun in 1987 contains the names of a large number of individuals who have filed applications with Shady Rest, of whom the County identifies twenty- one as being Medicaid-eligible and appropriate for immediate placement. A second list (petitioner's exhibit 6) contains the names of persons who made a phone inquiry with the home. Although there was no supporting documentation to show those individuals' demonstrated need for nursing home care as required by the rule, the facility's social service coordinator testified without contradiction that the above twenty-one persons were all determined to be Medicaid eligible and appropriate for placement in a nursing home. Even so, there was no independent or corroborative evidence that those twenty-one individuals had been denied placement in other Lee County nursing homes. This infirmity supports the claim of HRS that the list, in its present form, is not probative of the issue of need because clients often sign up on multiple lists or have a preference for a particular facility. This assertion was not contradicted by credible evidence. A third list (petitioner's exhibit 7) reflected that each month from August 1988 until July 1989 there were between one hundred fourteen and one hundred thirty-four Medicaid eligible Lee County residents in nursing homes outside of Lee County. This information was derived from monthly Medicaid billing summaries compiled by HRS. While it is probably true, as HRS suggests, that some of these patients by choice are residents of out-of-county facilities, it is just as likely that some patients did not voluntarily choose to be placed outside the county. This is because placement in an out-of-county home is inconvenient for a patient's family, particularly one at the poverty level. To the extent involuntary out-of-county placements have occurred, it is because some nursing homes may not always accept a Medicaid patient. For example, a nursing home may not be equipped to handle a particular client's medical condition. However, this type of client will always have a more difficult time being placed than others. Therefore, there are occasions when vacancies at nursing homes do not correspond with the ability to place a Medicaid-eligible patient in Lee County. To corroborate the contention that it has been unable to accept all applicants, the County established that its September 30, 1988 utilization rate was 98% with the percentage of Medicaid patients at 88% of the 98%. It was also established that the rate has not decreased since that time. According to the County, this high utilization factor has contributed to the County's inability to provide service to all applicants. Even so, a high utilization rate alone is not dispositive of the accessibility issue. While County representatives contended they have had difficulty in placing Medicaid eligible patients not only in their facility but also in other Lee County nursing homes, the HRS District 8 administrator, who is responsible for assisting those individuals in securing placement, had no "hard data" to confirm this. Indeed, her subordinates, who also testified, indicated that the alleged difficulty in placement arose only "at times". Given these considerations, it is found that persons with a need for Medicaid services are reasonably able to access existing services in the subdistrict and that the required not normal circumstances within the meaning of the rule are absent. Compliance with Statutory Criteria Prior to hearing the parties stipulated that various statutory and rule criteria were not applicable in this proceeding. After the evidentiary hearing was held, the agency acknowledged in its post-hearing proposed order that only five statutory criteria in Subsection 381.705(1), Florida Statutes (1987) are still in issue and that only two paragraphs in rule 10-5.011(1) apply. The first three statutory criteria pertain generally to need and accessibility and require that HRS consider the need for the project in relation to the applicable district and state health plans, the adequacy of existing providers and whether the proposed services will be accessible to all residents. In addition to the findings in paragraph 12, it is noted that for purposes of planning and review of nursing home care in District 8, the local health plan, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 6, recommends that "preference . . . be given to new and existing community home bed developments that dedicate a substantial percentage of their beds for Medicaid patients." In addition, it recommends that "expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given prefernce over construction of new facilities in the same health service area." Applicant's proposal is in agreement with those objectives, and it is found that the proposal is consistent with the local health plan. As required by law, the application also mandates that the applicant demonstrate compliance with relevant portions of the state health plan, including justification for an award of beds in excess of the zero fixed need pool. Those portions of the plan have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. In its application response, the County simply stated that it did not have a copy of the state plan and therefore could not furnish an answer to this inquiry. At hearing, the County relied upon the special circumstances proof to show compliance with the state health plan. Since special circumstances were not shown to be present, the applicant also failed to show that the project is in conformity with the state health plan. Finally, it was established that the project will be accessible to all residents in the district. In its proposed order, HRS appears to have conceded that the County will provide adequate quality of care to to its patients. Nonetheless, and in an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made on this issue. The issues of whether the County can provide quality of care as well as the applicant's past record of quality of care are relevant. In this regard, the parties offered into evidence the records of past inspections by HRS personnel to show the historical record of care on the part of the facility. These records reflect that HRS gave the facility a standard rating in 1986 and 1987. In 1988, an initial inspection resulted in the facility receiving a conditional rating. However, the facility appealed that decision and was successful in getting the conditional rating removed. Since May 16, 1988 the County has maintained a superior rating which is indicative of the high quality of care rendered to its patients. These findings were corroborated by local HRS employees who characterized Shady Rest's' quality of care as "high". Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The next criterion in issue relates to the long-term financial feasibility of the project. As noted earlier, the facility was subsidized by the County until four years ago. Since then, it has operated in the black. According to the County's consultant, if the project is approved, the County will provide subsidies of $900,000 and $250,000, respectively, during the first two years of operation and any other required funding thereafter. It should be recognized, however, that the first year is the start-up of operations, with relatively high costs due to inventories, working capital and the like. The witness further opined that he expected the facility to be financially sound in the future. This is true even though the facility projects a payor mix of decreasing Medicaid days in the future. Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The only remaining criterion in issue concerns the costs and methods of the proposed construction and whether there are less costly alternatives. The agency's principal objection concerns the failure of the County's architect to document on the plans whether the project would be in compliance with local, state and federal building codes. More specifically, HRS's objection is based upon contentions that the County (a) did not document local, state and federal code references on the schematics, (b) did not address the relationship of the replacement facility with the bed addition, and (c) did not sufficiently document the support functions on the schematics. In response to the first objection, the registered architect who drafted the plans established that there are some forty-five codes that the structure must meet in order to pass muster with HRS. He did not identify each of the codes on the drawings because (a) the pertinent rules do not call for such a representation at this phase of the project, (b) "it is obvious what codes it would be built under", and (c) the plans would be subject to three more reviews by HRS, and a more detailed analysis would be given during that part of the process. It is noted that the architect has constructed more than twenty nursing home projects in Florida and used the same plans here as are being currently used on four other facilities now under construction in the state. As to the agency's objection to the failure to show where the additional fifteen beds will be placed in the facility in relation to the other one hundred and five, the architect pointed out that the new facility will have one hundred twenty beds, all of which are "new" in a sense, and it is irrelevant where the fifteen "new" beds will be located from an architectural standpoint. Finally, the architect responded to the last criticism by explaining that the drawings are self-explanatory and show designated support areas with the associated square footage devoted to a particular function. The witness added that the drawings submitted by the app1icant are "a very basic schematic" and in an early preliminary stage. This testimony is accepted and it is found that this statutory criterion has been met.
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 the Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home for a certificate of need to add fifteen beds and construct a new one hundred twenty bed community nursing home facility in Fort Myers, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander, 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 8th day of November, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 7, 1981, HCM was issued CON No. 1616, authorizing construction of a 78-bed nursing home facility to be located in Lee County, Florida. HCM has commenced construction of this project on a 120-bed frame. Subsequently, HCM applied to HRS for a CON for an additional 42 nursing home beds to be added to the above-described project. By letter dated April 28, 1983, HRS informed HCM of its intent to deny HCM's application for the additional 42 nursing home beds on the grounds that the proposed project was not consistent with the nursing home bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Lee County has been established as a specific subdistrict of HRS District VIII for determination of nursing home bed need. Rule 10-5.11(21)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The record in this cause establishes a percentage of 8.61 of elderly living in poverty in Lee County, as compared to a percentage of 12.70 statewide. There exists a statewide bed need of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population age 65 years and older. Finally, a population of 65,703 is projected for Lee County in 1986. When these factors are combined in accordance with the need methodology formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), a need of 1,203 community nursing home beds is established for Lee County in 1986. When this same calculation is made districtwide, using a projected 1986 population for District VIII of 201,392 age 65 and older, a need for 3,686 community nursing home beds results. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 748 existing licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County, and an additional 222 such beds which had previously been approved by HRS. When the total of 970 existing and approved beds are subtracted from the 1986 projected bed need in Lee County, a net bed need of 233 beds results for 1986. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 3,335 existing licensed community nursing home beds in District VIII, and an additional 1,337 which had been approved. The total of 4,512 existing and approved community nursing home beds in District VIII exceeds the need in District VIII according to the requirements of Rule 10-5.11(21) by 824 beds. Where, as here, the evidence establishes that a subdistrict indicates a need for additional bed capacity, but the district as a whole shows no additional need, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(f)2, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a current utilization threshold of 90 percent or higher in the subdistrict. In this case, the evidence establishes that the appropriate current utilization rate for Lee County is 91.5 percent. In addition, Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires a prospective base rate of utilization of 80 percent when the need methodology indicates a subdistrict need and the lack of need in the district as a whole. The evidence in this cause establishes an average Lee County patient census of 684, and 970 currently licensed and approved community nursing home beds which must be factored together with HCM's request for an additional 42 beds. When the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(g) is applied to this data, the prospective utilization rate is 67.6 percent, which fails to meet the threshold 80 percent requirement contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2. HCM apparently does not contest the results of the application of the bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), but instead argues that the results of the formulae should not be applied to its application because of the existence of exceptional circumstances in Lee County. In this regard, HCM adduced testimony attempting to establish an historical imbalance between the number of community nursing home beds located in Lee and Sarasota Counties, purportedly necessitating the placement of Lee County residents receiving Medicaid or assistance from the Veterans Administration 70 to 100 miles from their families, or continuing hospitalization of those patients in a more costly acute care facility. It is specifically concluded, that the record in this cause fails to contain any competent, credible evidence to establish that Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County have been so historically underserved as to merit the granting of the 42 additional nursing home beds requested by HCM. Further, even if this were not the case, HCM has failed to establish that the 222 additional community nursing home beds approved for Lee County will not adequately serve the interests of Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County in 1986. Rule 10-5.11(21) purports on its face to account for the needs of the elderly over 65 years of age living in poverty, and this record contains no showing that the rule in any way underestimates that need.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether a certificate of need should be issued to permit Tamarac Hospital, Inc. d/b/a University Community Hospital (Tamarac) to convert 10 acute care medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds. Based on their presentations at the final hearing and their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the central issue is whether there is a need for the proposed nursing home beds.
Findings Of Fact Tamarac proposes to convert 10 currently licensed medical/surgical acute care beds into skilled nursing facility beds. The skilled nursing beds would be available at the hospital to treat patients who no longer require acute hospital care but do require skilled nursing services beyond those required by ordinary nursing home patients. (Tr. 15-16) 1/ The capital cost of the project would be approximately $20,000 for renovation to provide a private bathroom in the existing group of hospital rooms which would be converted to use as the skilled nursing facility (Tr. 25). The testimony of the petitioner with respect to the financial feasibility of the project was undisputed (Tr. 25, PX 1, p.14). Tamarac has encountered problems in placing patients who no longer require acute hospital care in nursing homes in HRS District 10, Broward County, when those patients require more than normal nursing home services. These patients, due to their diagnosis or treatment, require more skilled nursing care, more technical assistance, supplies or more frequent checking than traditional nursing home patients (Tr. 15). These are patients with infectious diseases or draining wounds who require isolation; patients requiring ongoing intravenous administration of medications including antibiotics and narcotics; patients on chronic ventilator support; patients with tracheostomies requiring respiratory support, suctioning or oxygen; patients with naso-gastric feeding tubes and patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (PX 1, application, p. 2). Tamarac introduced a study it had conducted concerning discharge delays for the one year period prior to its application which included 70 patients (Tr. 12, PX 3). The study is anecdotal in nature. The director of social services for Tamarac, who is in charge of discharge planning coordination, testified that the 70 cases were representative and randomly sampled (Tr. 12, 21). There was no specific evidence of the sampling methodology, however. In the absence of better evidence of the sampling methodology it is not possible to determine what inferences validly may be drawn from the information presented in PX 3. For example, the evidence fails to show whether the 70 cases included represent 1 percent or 100 percent of the instances where a discharge was delayed. All that is known is that in 53 percent of those 70 cases studied the discharge delay occurred because the patient could not be placed in a nursing home (Tr. 12). These 37 patients might have been served at Tamarac if a skilled nursing facility had been in operation. Due to the limited evidence of how the sample was chosen, the study has been given little weight. In addition, the application and Tamarac's study focuses solely on the experience of Tamarac in attempting to place patients who no longer required acute care in a nursing home. There is no basis for determining whether there is a general community need for the project proposed. The narrowness of the proof offered is apparently due to the restriction Tamarac made in the application that "this project is for [Tamarac] hospitalized patients only". Application, PX 1, page 6 paragraph 4. Tamarac also conducted a survey of Broward nursing homes to determine what services they provide, PX 4. That survey indicates that there are some specialized nursing services that are not available in nursing homes in Broward County, e.g., services for patients on chronic ventilators and patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (although Tamarac did not indicate that it proposed to offer services to AIDS patients). There are also services which are not commonly available. Many nursing homes will not accept patients on intravenous medication in the form of chemotherapy or narcotics or patients with draining wounds, and the few that do generally require no pathogenic organism be present as shown by negative culture test. Even when some nursing home in Broward County provides a specific service, a bed at that nursing home may not be available to a patient in Tamarac Hospital ready for discharge from acute care when the bed is requested (Tr. 14- 15). Tamarac's placement problem is made more difficult because it is to some extent in competition with other Broward County hospitals for the available nursing home beds for patients needing skilled, subacute nursing services (Tr. 16). This generalized evidence of competition does not rise to the level of demonstrating a need in HRS Service District 10 for the proposed skilled nursing facility. Tamarac has attempted to persuade existing nursing homes to expand services to accept on a routine basis patients needing the type services which Tamarac proposes to provide, but has been unsuccessful (Tr. 16). The bed need calculation methodology set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for the July 1988 planning horizon shows a surplus of 92 nursing home beds in Broward County (RX 1 and 2, Tr. 32-44). Approximately 258 nursing home beds are unoccupied in Broward County on a daily basis, assuming 100 percent occupancy actually could be achieved (Tr. 39). The availability of empty nursing home beds in the district does not necessarily mean that beds are available for a particular patient at Tamarac Hospital who needs more than normal nursing services on a specific day (Tr. 55). Individual patients requiring subacute care may remain in the hospital (Tr. 18). Patients ready for discharge from acute care are not eligible for Medicare coverage (Tr. 17), and are potentially liable for their hospital costs incurred awaiting placement. If they were transferred to a skilled nursing facility such as that proposed by Tamarac, those patients would be eligible for the Medicare benefits for the first 20 days, with an additional 80 days of co- insurance reimbursement thereafter (Tr. 26). The average hospital room, board, and ancillary charges at Tamarac is $900 per patient and per day. The charge to be made in Tamarac's proposed skilled nursing facility would be $115 per day (Tr. 26). According to the application (PX 1, table 7, utilization by the class of pay), 65.6 percent of its patient days of service are provided by Tamarac to Medicare patients. Tamarac would recover approximately $115 per patient per day for patients utilizing its skilled nursing facility, rather than writing off, as it does now, approximately $900 per day for those Medicare patients requiring subacute care who remain in Tamarac due to an inability to identify an appropriate skilled nursing facility in Broward County to accept them when their care requirements are greater than that normally provided by Broward County nursing homes (Tr. 29). Few Medicaid patients utilize the services of Tamarac because of the nature of the population surrounding the hospital. Referring again to the evidence of utilization by class of pay, only one tenth of one percent of the patient days spent at Tamarac during the period January 84 through December 84 were days spent by Medicaid patients. There would be no restriction on access to the skill nursing facility unit if one of the rare Medicaid patients at Tamarac Hospital required those services (Tr. 27-28).
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Tamarac Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital to convert 10 medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1986.
