Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 28th day of January, 1985.
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Health Quest filed an application for a Certificate of Need (CON) to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, Florida. The application was dated June 24, 1983, was filed on June 27, 1983, and projected the project cost to be $5,557,000. The application was denied by DHRS by letter dated December 19, 1983. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the application met all of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, except for Rule 10-5.11(21), hereinafter referred to as "the bed need methodology." The relevant service area for determination of need is the Lee County subdistrict of DHRS District B. The district poverty ratio is .68; the bed need ratio is 18.3 beds per 1000 for District B. For District 8, the projected 1987 elderly population is 213,561, and for Lee County it is 69,649. By applying the bed need ratio to the projected elderly population, a raw numeric need is established of 3,910 beds for District 8 and 1,275 beds for Lee County. In District 8 there are 3,671 beds licensed and 1,053 beds approved, for a total bed inventory of 4,724 beds. This exceeds the numeric need of 3,910 and results in no need showing. In Lee County there are 808 beds licensed and 332 beds approved, for a total bed inventory of 1,140 beds. This is less than the numeric need of 1,275 and results in a need showing for Lee County. Where there is no need in the District and need in the subdistrict, subsection 10-5.11(21)(e)(1) becomes operative and the situation is denoted as "c2". For category c2, the current utilization threshold is 90 percent occupancy in the subdistrict. Lee County, with a current utilization of 95.5 percent meets this threshold. By applying the occupancy rate of 95.5 percent to the 808 licensed beds, it is determined that the patient census for Lee County is 772. For a c2 subdistrict the prospective base rate of utilization is 80 percent. The limit for projected need for the subdistrict is the maximum number of beds for which the census would produce an occupancy rate of 80 percent. Here, patient census of 772 divided by 80 percent produces a limit of 965. The inventory of 1,140 beds in the subdistrict is greater than the limit for projected need. Approval of additional beds would be inconsistent with these calculations of need under Rule 10-5.11(21). Lee County has a low supply of nursing home beds in comparison with the remainder of District 8. District 8 has a low supply of nursing home beds in comparison with the remainder of the State of Florida. The beds currently in operation in Lee County are being fully utilized. Nursing home facilities do not operate at 100 percent capacity. For all practical purposes, a 95.5 percent occupancy rate indicates full utilization. There are currently four approved nursing home facilities in Lee County. DHRS has received no correspondence from residents of Lee County or other interested persons indicating the presence of waiting lists at existing nursing home or claiming the unavailability of accessible nursing home facilities in the service area.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, DIANE K. KIESLING, held a formal hearing in this case on September 11, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Clearwater Land Company (CLC) is a Florida corporation which owns, operates, and is the license holder of the Regency Oaks Continuing Care Retirement Community (Retirement Community) and Regency Oaks Nursing Center (Regency Oaks) located in Clearwater, Florida. The Johnson Ezell Corporation is a closely held private corporation owned by two shareholders who are also shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell provides management, financial services, data processing services, collective purchasing, and other aspects of management for CLC. CLC and Johnson Ezell Corporation are affiliates; two shareholders of Johnson Ezell comprise two out of the four shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell is also the contract manager of CLC. Three of the four shareholders of CLC own 100 percent of two other large continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) in Florida. One of these communities, located in Port Charlotte, is known as South Port Square. A second retirement community, Lake Port Square, is in the mid-development stage in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. Typically, CCRCs offer a broad spectrum of services or a continuum of care ranging from independent living apartments, to assisted living, to skilled nursing which often includes home health care. South Port Square has 440 independent living apartments in which the holders of continuing care agreements reside. South Port also has a 120-bed community skilled nursing facility, originally CON approved in 1984. There are 140 additional units of assisted living. The first phase of the 240 independent living units opened in October of 1987, and the second and final phase of 200 continuing care apartments opened in October of 1990. Lake Port Square currently has 200 continuing care apartments with 205 additional apartments currently under construction. Lake Port also has a 60-bed skilled nursing facility which was originally licensed as a sheltered nursing home facility. It is now a licensed community nursing home. Lake Port also has 35 units of assisted living. Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. The Beverly family of companies operates 838 nursing homes in 48 states. It is the largest provider of long-term care services in the country. Beverly Savana Cay Manor will receive substantial financial, managerial, operational and program support from Beverly Enterprises Florida's regional office. These are specific services which will be available to Beverly's proposed project from its parent's Florida regional office: A nurse consultant who is a former director of nursing will monitor the overall performance of the nursing staff and will assist in maintaining quality assurance and proper staffing patterns; a registered dietician will provide consulting dietary services; and a financial consultant will monitor and assist with the orientation of staff on all financial matters, including implementation of the billing system for Medicare and Medicaid. An area manager who is a licensed nursing home administrator will coordinate the support services. Other consulting services available through the Florida regional office include: an activities consultant, a trained social services consultant, a rehabilitation program coordinator, a rehabilitation clinical coordinator, an accounting-finance department, and a quality assurance department that conducts inspections and reviews the facility's compliance with governmental requirements. The regional maintenance department will oversee the care and maintenance of the physical plant. The regional purchasing department coordinates purchases of food, chemicals, and other items more economically purchased in large volumes. The human resources department assists in the implementation of uniform personnel and wage policies, the training of supervisory and managerial personnel, and the monitoring of facility participation in government programs. CLC Project: Regency Oaks CLC filed two CON applications: In CON Application No. 7503 (now withdrawn), it requested approval of a new 120-bed community nursing home through the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 60 community nursing home beds. CLC also filed CON Application No. 7503P, the subject of this de novo review, to convert Regency Oaks Nursing Center's 60 sheltered nursing home beds to 60 community nursing home beds. CLC's project calls for a reclassification of existing services and assets. There is no capital required, no renovation costs, and no new equipment. The project basically involves moving from one state classification category to another, i.e., sheltered nursing home beds to community nursing home beds. The project under consideration involves Regency Oaks Nursing Center, a 60-bed facility which commenced operations and was licensed in August of 1991. Regency Oaks is a part of a 40-acre campus. The Regency Oaks Retirement Community has approximately 200 units located in a separate five-story structure which also commenced operations in August or September of 1991. There are an additional 201 independent living units in a separate phase that is also located in a separate five-story structure on the campus that is currently under construction. When fully developed, the retirement community's independent living units will be roughly equivalent in size and substantially the same as the operations at its sister communities at Lake Port and South Port. Sheltered nursing home beds are often located in a CCRC. A continuing care provider is authorized to provide a certain number of sheltered nursing home beds based upon the number of independent living apartments that are being constructed, operated and licensed pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Chapter 651 first authorized CCRC's to apply for and receive sheltered nursing home beds in 1986. A CCRC is regulated by statute and markets and provides services pursuant to a continuing care agreement in which the continuing care resident is provided with shelter, food, and some element of health care in exchange for a specified lump sum payment of money and the payment of a monthly maintenance or service fee. The business was largely unregulated until major revisions were incorporated into Chapter 651. Pursuant to section 651.118(4), Florida Statutes, Regency Oaks originally applied for and was granted a CON to construct a 60-bed sheltered nursing home based upon the ratio of one sheltered nursing home bed for every four residential units in the retirement community. The prevailing wisdom in the early 1980's, when Chapter 651 was enacted, held that the 1:4 ratio was appropriate. The underlying assumption was the utilization of the sheltered nursing homes by the residents in the retirement community on a 1:4 ratio should result in a fully occupied and financially feasible nursing center. The ratio also ensured that residents could gain access to nursing home care. In the last half of the 1980's the prevailing wisdom held that the 1:4 ratio was still appropriate but only after allowing for several years of "aging in place" by the residents of the retirement community. To provide needed occupancy during the initial years of operation, subsection 651.118(7) allows the sheltered nursing home to admit residents from outside the resident community for a period of up to five years from the date of the issuance of the original license. For the first five years of operation, the nursing home beds are available to residents and nonresidents of the senior living community. However, at the end of the five year period, the nursing home is not allowed to accept any additional patients from outside the senior living facility because residents alone are expected to need the beds. In 1986, CLC had no intention of converting its CON approved beds to community nursing home beds. For several reasons, including the general health of retirement community residents and their willingness to pay for home health services in order to stay in their own apartment, the 1:4 ratio is no longer a reasonable projection of sheltered nursing home bed need. In the last two years at Regency Oaks, there was an average daily census of 3.5 to 5 patients in Regency Oaks originating from the independent living facility. Of the 200 units, an average daily census of 5 patients converts to a 1:40 ratio rather than the 1:4 ratio that was included in the sheltered bed model. Currently over 90 percent of Regency Oaks' patient days are patients who do not live in the senior housing facility. Without the approval of this project, by September 1996, Regency Oaks will no longer be able to admit outside community residents. Based upon current and projected ratios, this will have an impact on the ability of Regency Oaks to continue to operate in an economical and financially feasible manner. CLC's experience at South Port Square illustrates this problem. The first phase of South Port's independent living apartments has been in operation for 7.5 years. Phase Two has been in operation more than 4.5 years. The demographics of the population area served by Regency Oaks and South Port are almost identical. The South Port community has had 7.5 years to "age in place." For the first ten months of South Port's 1994 fiscal year, 27 percent of the patient days of the South Port's 120-bed skilled nursing center were attributable to contractual requirements of residents of the independent living apartments. Twenty-three percent of the patient days were attributable to campus residents (non- contractual) who were either private pay or some other source of payment. At the top end of the scale, Regency Oaks expects to experience between 25 percent to 30 percent, and up to 40 percent, of its admissions from independent living apartments on campus. CLC does not intend to apply for new sheltered nursing home beds to complement the additional 201 independent living units now under construction. According to its qualified health care planning expert, Mark Richardson, at full build-out, CLC will need to hold (at the high end of the range) 30 beds to fulfill its contractual obligations to its life care residents. (Transcript, pp. 332-3) At full build-out, the approximately 400 independent living units will house 550 to 600 residents, all eligible for nursing home care, when needed, under their continuing care agreements. Beverly's Project: New Crown Beverly proposes a new, 120-bed community nursing home in the Seminole Park area of Pinellas County (New Crown) using 66 beds from the fixed need pool and 54 beds made available from the delicensure of its existing Crown Nursing Center (Old Crown). Granted by CON No. 7505, Old Crown originally was constructed as a motel in the 1940's and has been a nursing home since the 1960's. Although Old Crown currently holds a superior license, the facility is outmoded and is reaching the end of its useful life as a nursing home. There is no room to expand or renovate the existing physical plant, and it is perpetually in need of costly repairs. It is not in compliance with modern building codes and is allowed to continue to operate only by virtue of grandfather clauses. Resident rooms are undersized, and corridors are only 5.5 feet wide rather than the 8 feet currently required. Room doors are narrower than those required in new facilities and will not accommodate moveable beds. Bathroom doors will not accommodate wheelchairs, and there is no central air conditioning. The floor plan also is inconsistent with modern nursing home standards. The building is multistory with outside stairs. This configuration is highly undesirable because it restricts the freedom of movement of residents who are physically impaired, makes it difficult to monitor resident movement, requires extra nursing stations, and slows evacuation in an emergency. Old Crown has one four-bed ward and eight three-bed wards. Space limitations at times require that men and women reside in the same ward. There is no room for specialized services such as adult day care, subacute services or separate Alzheimer's care. Nursing stations are undersized and medical/chemical supplies must be kept in an outdoor shed. Laundry space is inadequate, and linens must be stored outside and in hallways. One room serves as the employee break room, the uniform storage room and the beauty parlor. The kitchen is too small and there is inadequate food storage. The dining area is located in the old motel lobby. Outdoor activities must be conducted in the back parking lot and there is no outdoor ambulation/recreation space. There is only one small space for physical, occupational and speech therapy, requiring that therapies sometimes be administered in hallways or bedside. This arrangement is particularly undesirable for residents receiving speech therapy, as they tend to be self- conscious about their inability to speak, eat and swallow. There is only one activities room, and it is located on the second floor. The second floor contains asbestos, and removal would require the evacuation of the entire second floor. In contrast, New Crown will meet or exceed all existing licensure requirements for construction and safety codes. It will contain 53,310 square feet of space on a single story, and is designed to optimize operational efficiency, minimize institutional effects, and emphasize a home-like atmosphere. All areas within the facility will meet federal guidelines for handicapped accessibility and use. Corridors will be 8 feet wide, and the doors to resident rooms will accommodate moveable beds. These features will eliminate the movement, monitoring and safety shortcomings inherent in Old Crown's two- story motel floor plan. There will be plenty of storage, a modern kitchen and laundry facility. Residents at New Crown will reside only in private and double occupancy semi-private rooms. Each room will feature private toilets, telephone, cable T.V., and individual thermostat controls. Homelike furnishings will be used throughout the facility. There will be two large day rooms adjacent to the nursing stations with access to three enclosed outdoor courtyards, a large restaurant-like dining area, a secured patio and an activity room. The day rooms will have aquariums, large screen televisions and VCRs. A large solarium/greenhouse will be located adjacent to the dining area. AHCA's approval of Beverly's application for New Crown is expressly contingent on the approval of expedited CON application 7505 to delicense Old Crown. This CON has been granted. Beverly will not allow operation of the two facilities to overlap. Old Crown will remain fully operational until New Crown is operational and placement is made for every Old Crown resident. Beverly will transfer Old Crown residents to New Crown, and will assist residents who choose not to move to New Crown in making whatever other arrangements the resident chooses. No resident will be "put out on the street." Compliance With The Local Health Plan The Health Council of West Central Florida, Inc. has identified three preferences, the first of which is a preference to new nursing homes which commit to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the "health service area." That relevant average (subdistrict) is 55.32 percent. Beverly commits to 56 percent total Medicaid days for New Crown; Old Crown is at 59.24 percent; and other Beverly facilities have a high record of Medicaid services (nationally at 68.5 percent, and in Florida an average of 66 percent). CLC commits to 31.58 percent, which is a reasonable expectation since the Medicaid days will be generated primarily, if not exclusively, from patients drawn from the community at large and not from the independent living facility. CLC's Regency Oaks market is dominated by residents and potential residents from a narrow service area with higher financial resources than the southern end of Pinellas County. The second allocation factor gives a preference to applicants who propose specialized services, including adult day care, to meet identified needs. Beverly has conditioned its application on the provision of a wide range of specialized services. New Crown will provide distinct subacute care in a 20-bed Medicare certified subacute unit with four ventilator-dependent beds, and comprehensive rehabilitation in a 3,404 square foot physical therapy site with physical therapy gym, hydrotherapy area, "activities of daily living" room and outdoor ambulation court. It also will provide adult day care services in a 987-square foot Adult Day Care Center, Alzheimer's care in an 18-bed Alzheimer's wing that includes separate dining/activity areas and an enclosed courtyard, respite care services, care to individuals with mental disorders, care to individuals who are HIV+ or who have AIDS, and hospice care. Beverly also will make a $10,000 grant to Florida State University School of Nursing for research into gerontological issues in the nursing home environment and will make its facility available to nursing students for clinical rotations. CLC proposes intensive rehabilitation services, respite care, subacute care, hospice care and care to mental health patients. Its current facility has not provided respite care and it does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients. The third local health plan allocation factor gives preference to applicants who demonstrate an intent to serve HIV-infected patients. Both applicants commit to provide AIDS and HIV-positive health care. Beverly has documented its experience with these patients at its Old Crown and other facilities. CLC simply has stated that it does not discriminate in admissions of these patients; it also asserts that it has no idea which, if any, of its patients have been HIV-positive or AIDS patients since that information is not disclosed by the patient. Compliance With The State Health Plan The State Health Plan contains twelve allocation factors. Factor 1 gives preference to applicants locating in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Pinellas County's occupancy rate of 90.23 percent qualifies both Beverly and CLC. Allocation Factor 2 gives preference to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents at the subdistrict Medicaid average. Exceptions are considered for applicants who propose the development of multi-level care systems. The applicants' Medicaid commitments are addressed above in paragraphs 23 and 24. The applicants' experts disagree on whether the Regency Oaks facility is truly "multi-level," as contemplated by the exception. The availability of different levels of care: independent living, assisted living and nursing home, on a single campus does represent a "multi-level" care system. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 3 gives preference to applicants proposing specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Both applicants, as discussed in paragraphs 26-28, above, have described in detail their proposals for specialized services. Beverly's experience in the past and specific plans for discrete subacute, ventilator-dependent and Alzheimer's units lend credibility to its commitment to those specialized services. CLC's commitment is more general. Its proposed staffing is too low to provide the level of care proposed for New Crown's subacute unit, but its staffing would be increased as needed by the patient population. Regency Oaks has 12 Medicare certified skilled nursing beds in the general nursing home population. None can accommodate a ventilator- dependent patient. Allocation 4 encourages a continuum of services, including adult day care and respite care. Both applicants propose to meet this requirement of the State Health Plan. Again, Beverly's commitment is evidenced by a specific description of discrete programs, while CLC's plans are more general. CLC contends that there is "insufficient demand" in the area to support adult day care; Beverly proposes a 987 square foot "Adult Day Care Center" with its own staff, staff office and storage, to accommodate up to 8 guests, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., five days a week. Day care guests will have an individual care plan prepared by professional staff and will have access to the full facility and its recreational, therapeutic and social services. Beverly will implement a respite program at New Crown and has such programs at its other facilities. CLC offers respite care but has never had a respite care patient. Allocation Factor 5 gives preference to applicants proposing facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care. Both applicants qualify for this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Both applicants propose therapeutic programs consistent with Allocation Factor 6. Specialized rehabilitation, restorative care and normalizing training are described in both applications and are committed to by the applicants. Both propose a more aggressive, intensive rehabilitation than other nursing homes in the area. The highest Medicaid per diem rate in Pinellas County is $100.74 (January, 1994). Inflated forward to 1996, the planning horizon, that rate becomes $113.00. New Crown's proposed rate of $100.14, and Regency Oaks' proposed rate of $102.75 (for 1995) do not exceed that highest rate (even when Regency Oaks' rate is inflated 5 percent for 1996). Both applicants are entitled to the preference in Allocation Factor 7. Both applicants qualify for the preference under Allocation Factor 8, as both enjoy the highest (superior) rating. Three of Beverly's four facilities, including Old Crown, currently hold superior licenses, and the fourth has been recommended for a superior license. Regency Oaks was eligible for a superior license shortly after issuance of its original license and actually received the superior license, after some logistical mix-up, in December of 1994. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 9 gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. As a well-run existing facility Regency Oaks maintains appropriate staffing levels. The staffing proposed in its application omits one certified nurse assistant (CNA) on the 11:00 to 7:00 shift. The director of nursing monitors the patient population to assure that staff is added when needed. Beverly's proposed staffing plainly meets or exceeds standards, including statutory and regulatory requirements at all levels. Both Beverly and CLC use professionals from a variety of disciplines and both are entitled to the preference described in State Health Plan Allocation Factor 10. Likewise, both applications describe, and the applicants' experience bears out, a respect for residents' rights and privacy and a well- designed quality assurance and discharge planning program, as required in Allocation Factor 11. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 12 gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average nursing home costs in the district. As conceded by Beverly's expert health care planner, both applicants meet this preference criteria; however, Beverly's proposed administrative costs are lower, and patient costs are higher, than CLC's. Need and the Availability of Alternatives Nursing home occupancy rates in District V, subdistrict 2, Pinellas County, currently exceed 90 percent, and the need for 68 more nursing home beds in this district is undisputed. Evidence in this proceeding also established the need for such specialized services as subacute care (sometimes referred to as "step down" care), adult day care, HIV/AIDS care, Alzheimer's care and mental health care. Both applicants propose to meet a portion of the numerical need: Beverly with 66 new beds; and CLC with 60 beds converted from sheltered to community beds. Beverly's project more closely meets the numerical need; CLC concedes that some, and perhaps as many as 30, of its beds will be utilized by the residents of its independent living community. Both applicants propose outstanding programs for subacute care and other specialized services. As discussed above, Beverly's actual experience lends greater credibility to its commitment. Maintenance of the status quo in either case is not a viable alternative. Old Crown is only 54 beds; as of 1996, none of Regency Oaks' sheltered beds will be available for new community admissions. Without approval of one application or the other, the 68 bed need will remain wholly unmet. Availability of Resources, Including Staffing and Short-Term Funds Regency Oaks maintains a recruitment and staff development program designed to attract pools of qualified applicants for each personnel vacancy which occurs at the facility. This program has been effective in the recruitment and retention of high quality nurses and other professionals. Regency Oaks also maintains effective staff training and competency enhancement programs. The facility has a solid core staff in place. The parties have stipulated that Beverly will be able to hire the staff it needs at the proposed salaries and that Beverly's proposed recruitment plan career ladder, incentives and opportunities for advancement and efforts to recruit disciplines in short supply are reasonable and capable of being accomplished by the applicant. New Crown has the advantage of access to a statewide network of consultants who will draw from the expertise and resources of the Beverly companies. Since Regency Oaks is already built and in place, very little additional financial resources are needed in the short-term. The incremental project costs of $22,000 filing fee and $15,000 in consulting fees have already been expended. Whether it is a "zero cost" project or whether its cost should include the construction of the facility in 1991 for $2,634,441, as suggested by Beverly, CLC has the financial resources for short-term support of the project. Beverly likewise will be able to finance its total project cost of $6,361,751. Beverly's parent company has committed its substantial resources, including $80 million cash on hand, to finance the project. An issue arose in this proceeding regarding Beverly's failure to include on Schedule 2 of its application three nursing home facilities which it acquired on January 13, 1994. Two facilities, Old Crown and Beach Convalescent Center, were transferred to Beverly from its sister corporation, Petersen Health Care, Inc. The third facility, Clewiston Health Care Center, was transferred to Beverly from its "grandparent," Beverly California Corporation. Change of ownership applications addressing the transfers were filed with AHCA on October 15, 1993. CLC contends that these inter-company transfers involved expenditures that were "capital projects" within the meaning of section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore, Beverly should have included them on its Schedule 2. CLC introduced a closing statement and two deeds from the Beach and Old Crown change of ownership files in an attempt to suggest that Beverly had purchased the facilities in exchange for cash payments. Beverly established, however, that it gave no value of any kind in exchange for the transfers, which were accomplished simply by changing the corporate name on each facility's general ledger. Beverly prepared the documents in question only after the AHCA indicated that it would not approve the change of ownership applications until it received closing statements and deeds. No long-term debt was transferred, and each transferred facility had a positive asset value net of accumulated depreciation and amortization. Consequently, the transfers resulted in permanent additions to Beverly's equity (i.e. plant, property and equipment) valued at $3,882,033. Future Beverly audited financial statements will reflect the transfers as additions to paid-in capital. The operational assets of each facility far exceeded the operational liabilities (e.g. accounts payable) of each facility, and Beverly received net working capital in the total amount of $600,116. For reimbursement purposes, the transfers were treated as "related party transfers" and did not result in any change in Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates. Beverly California Corporation paid all the incidental expenses associated with the transfers such as application and legal fees. Beverly would not capitalize these expenses. Contrary to CLC's contention, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) statements 11 and 14 do not require that these transfers be treated as "capital expenditures." FASB Statement 11 deals with accounting for contingencies, and does not offer any insight into the proper characterization of the intercompany transfers at issue here. FASB Statement 14 requires that financial statements of a business enterprise include information about its "segments," i.e., operations representing at least 10 percent of the company's total revenues. There is no evidence that Beverly is a "segment," nor does FASB 14 define "expenditure" or "capital expenditure." FASB Statement 14 mentions capital expenditures only once. Paragraph 27 is titled "Other Related Disclosures." Paragraph 27(b) requires that "information for reportable segments shall be made as follows: . . . Disclosure shall be made of the amount of each reportable segment's capital expenditures, i.e., additions to its property, plant and equipment." (Transcript, pp. 623) This passing reference does not define capital expenditures for all purposes, or require that all additions to plant property and equipment be characterized as capital expenditures. Paragraph 27(b) of FASB Statement 14 merely advises accountants that the financial statement of a company must disclose the capital expenditures --- as opposed to expense items --- that a reportable segment of the company has made. Read in context, the reference to additions to plant, property and equipment is meant only as an example of transactions that, under circumstances not defined in FASB 14, might involve a capital expenditure. In the universe of additions to plant property and equipment, some may involve capital expenditures. However, the transfers here at issue demonstrate that a company can obtain additions to plant, property and equipment without incurring any expenditure at all. FASB Statement 6, at paragraph 66, provides that an increase in the equity of a business entity resulting from the transfer to it of something of value to obtain or increase an equity interest in the entity is considered an investment by owners, not an expenditure by the receiving entity. Health Care Financial Management Association Principles and Practices Board Statement No. 12 similarly would characterize the transfers at issue as equity investments by affiliated companies, not expenditures. This is the proper characterization of the transactions between Beverly and its affiliated companies. The equity contributions of its affiliated companies made Beverly a financially stronger and wealthier entity that was more capable of undertaking the proposed project, and did not involve an expenditure of any kind on the part of Beverly, and therefore cannot be characterized as "capital projects" according to credible, competent expert opinion. AHCA's sample Schedule 2 form does not provide a place to list the receipt of equity, but rather asks only for "expenditures." Had Beverly incorrectly included the transfers as "expenditures" in its Schedule 2, it would have had to show them as negative expenditures, thereby reducing the total amount of reported capital projects and improving Beverly's reported financial position. Upon inquiry, AHCA properly advised Beverly that since the transfers did not involve any expenditures by the applicant, it should not disclose them. Accessibility To All Residents of the Service District Regency Oaks has never turned away a Medicaid or other patient based on payor status and affirmatively accepts patients regardless of ability to pay. Regency Oaks also accepts AIDS/HIV patients, Alzheimer's and other specialty needs patients. Beverly also has this type of "open door" policy. Its experience, however, as discussed above, has been more successful in attracting and serving Medicaid patients and patients with special needs. As an integral part of a beautifully designed, upscale retirement community, Regency Oaks has not drawn the payor mix that Old Crown and its sister facilities have served. As the residents of the independent living units age in place and increase in number with completion of the additional units, accessibility to all residents of the service district is diminished, not enhanced, if the conversion from sheltered to community beds is approved for Regency Oaks. Long Term Financial Feasibility Review of financial feasibility of Regency Oaks is simplified by the fact that it has actual operating experience to support its projections. Opened in Fall 1991, the nursing home, as typically expected, showed losses for the first few years. It turned a profit in 1993. Regency Oaks has the necessary resources to continue to operate the continuing care apartments as well as the nursing home with net operating income, including net operating income from the completion and opening of the new 200 independent living units and further supplemented by the resources of the shareholders of CLC. The four CLC shareholders are personal guarantors on the mortgage indebtedness of all the property at Regency Oaks. Their net worth is in excess of $60 million and cash reserve is greater than $10 million. If the CON is approved and Regency Oaks is permitted to accept community bed patients it will be financially healthy. If, however, the facility is restricted in 1996 and the beds will be filled only from its continuing care units, the nursing home will become financially stressed. Neil Ezell, the corporate representative of CLC and chief financial officer for the Johnson Ezell Corporation, acknowledges the difficulty in making a profit in a smaller 60-bed nursing home because of the high fixed administrative costs. If the high-end estimate that 30 beds will be filled from the continuing care facility is accurate, Regency Oaks will be operating at 50 percent capacity in 1996 or shortly thereafter. The contractual obligations to Regency Oaks residents would still be honored in some fashion, but with substantial difficulty. Absent CON approval, Regency Oaks' cost per patient day will increase and will negatively impact Medicare since Medicare is a cost-based reimbursement system for skilled nursing facilities. Beverly's proposal for a new 120-bed facility at New Crown is financially more efficient than either Regency Oaks or the existing 54-bed Old Crown facility, even considering the $6,361,751.00 total project cost. The old facility is too dated and too small to be efficiently operated much longer. The 120-bed proposal meets the need for new beds and effectively puts to rest the old well-used beds. The patients at New Crown will come from the community at large and will also be transferred from the existing Crown facility. The projected utilization is reasonable and the projected pre-tax net income of approximately $299,000.00 at the end of the second year is likewise realistic. The proposal is financially feasible. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND BALANCING THE CRITERIA Both applicants presented outstanding proposals. There is no question that they have provided, and will continue to provide, superior quality of care in attractive, well-equipped and well-staffed facilities. Beverly's proposal enjoys the financial "economies of scale" advantage of a larger facility; CLC's proposal is financially appealing because it requires little or no additional start-up expenditures. Beverly effectively countered CLC's assertions that the application was defective for failure to include the three recently-acquired facilities as "capital expenditures". Beverly also appropriately addressed CLC's claim that it failed to consider the transfer of Old Crown residents in its projected utilization of beds at the new 120-bed facility. Approval of Beverly's application for 120 beds will not result in approval of an excess of beds left in the fixed need pool. Approval is conditioned on approval of delicensure. The old and new facilities will not be concurrently licensed. It strains common sense to find that the concurrent approval and delicensure process should somehow result in creating a need in some future planning horizon, rather than the immediate planning horizon. Both applicants avow their commitment to serve Medicaid and specialty needs population and to remain accessible to persons regardless of ability to pay. Beverly's commitment is underscored with an existing record of service and with its willingness to accept conditions of approval. More troubling than the Medicaid and special needs accessibility issue, however, is the concern that CLC's existing 60-bed facility at Regency Oaks will, upon conversion, fall substantially short of meeting the need for 68 beds. Its continuing care community is expanding and the demand for nursing home beds by that population will increase. Somewhere between 10 and 30 beds will be filled, leaving only 30 to 50 beds available to the population at large. CLC's financial dilemma is the result of a considered decision to build 60 sheltered nursing home beds to support a 200 unit continuing care facility. The only explanation in the record for exceeding the 1:4 ratio is that initially the plan was for 240 units. Even with 50, rather than 60 sheltered beds, the facility would have problems, since the prevailing wisdom based on actual utilization experience is that far fewer sheltered beds are needed. Although the anticipated financial dilemma will have some impact on Medicare reimbursement in the Regency Oaks' facility, there is no major health care planning impact from denial of the conversion. The impact is facility- specific and was at least partially foreseeable five years ago. That is, the statute, then as now, provided a fixed 5-year period for the use of sheltered care beds by the community at large. Balancing of the criteria and weighing the evidence results in a finding that Beverly's, rather than CLC's, application should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order denying Clearwater Land Company's application for CON #7503P and approving Beverly Savana Cay, Inc.'s application for CON #7508, conditioned upon 56 percent of patient days of care to Medicaid residents, and appropriate specific conditions for a ventilator-dependent unit, respite care, adult day care, Alzheimer's unit, and AIDS/HIV+ care. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Clearwater Land Company's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. and 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. 6. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 9. and 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 72. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. - 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 64. and 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Covered in Preliminary Statement. Covered in Conclusions of Law, paragraph 79. and 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. and 35. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 17 and 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 23 and 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 28. and 40. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in substance in paragraph 37. and 50. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 39. - 55. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 56. and 57. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 47 and 64. 58. and 59. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected, as to the comparative conclusion; otherwise accepted generally. - 64. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 62. - 71. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64, except as to the impact if Beverly is approved. That finding is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. and 75. Adopted generally in paragraphs 64 and 65. Accepted, as to no impact on existing providers; rejected, as to impact by Beverly. Adopted in paragraph 67 (as to Beverly's cost). - 82. Rejected generally as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 10. - 86. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Findings regarding the high quality of care and range of services are addressed above. 95. and 96. Adopted in part in paragraph 37; the one staffing omission was conceded by CLC's director of nursing. 97. - 99. Adopted in substance in paragraph 45. 100. - 117. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 118. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Beverly's Proposed Findings Addressed in Preliminary Statement. and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 9 and 12. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. and 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 70. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 51. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in substance in paragraph 53, although the testimony was related to both Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 56. Adopted in paragraph 57. and 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted generally in paragraph 24. Adopted generally in paragraph 26. Adopted generally in paragraph 27. Adopted generally in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted generally in paragraph 30, although "multi-level" was not defined, and CLC's assertion that it is a "multi-level" facility is generally accepted. Adopted in paragraph 31. - 64. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as to the characterization of CLC's rate; otherwise adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. and 68. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 69. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 38, except as to the conclusion that CLC does not meet the preference. 71. and 72. Adopted in part; rejected in part in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraphs 40 and 75. - 100. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 101. Adopted generally in paragraphs 72 and 73. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Griffin, Esq. Charles A. Stampelos, Esq. MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 600 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esq. Michael Manthei, Esq. BROAD & CASSEL 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 400 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Samuel D. Bunton, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium Building, Ste. 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32309 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Bldg. 3, Ste. 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact The semi-annual census report by DHRS for District. III dated December 1, 1984, (Exhibit 23) indicated a need for 615 additional nursing home beds for the January 1985 review cycle. Although this report cautioned that changes in reporting and pending litigation or appeals could change the count of approved beds, nevertheless, most of the applicants for beds in the January 1985 batching cycle relied on this report as the basis for their applications. At the time this report was submitted, District III was subdivided into seven sub districts, and the need for each sub district was separately listed. Prior to the completion of the review of the applications in the January 1985 batching cycle, some 500 nursing home beds in District III were allocated to applicants in earlier batching cycles whose applications had been denied for lack of need, and who were in the process of appealing those denials. Many of these applications had been updated and those beds were issued by DHRS pursuant to its then-current policy of issuing beds on a first come-first served basis. As a result, only some beds were allocated to those applicants in the January 1985 batching cycle before the pool of available beds was depleted. Furthermore, rule changes became effective before the January 1985 batching cycle applications were reviewed which eliminated sub districts in District III. Largely because of the allocation of beds to applicants in earlier batching cycles, but also due to population based changes in District III, the bed need methodology, using data current at the time of the hearing and computing need to January 1988, shows there will be an excess of 342 nursing home beds in District III in 1988. (Exhibit 33) Eustis Limited Partnership The initial application of Eustis was for 8 additional beds which involved construction costs. The amended application which was considered in this hearing is for three (3) beds with costs allocated only for the equipment and furniture needed to add a bed to three existing rooms. As amended, Eustis' application is very similar to the application of Oakwood Nursing Center who was granted a CON for the addition of three (3) beds without construction costs. At the time Oakwood's CON was granted, DHRS was in the process of granting CONs for 103 beds. At the time Eustis submitted its application, all of the 615 beds initially available had been dispensed and there was no need for additional beds. At this hearing, Eustis produced no evidence to show a need for the three (3) beds for which Eustis applied. The evidence submitted by Eustis primarily showed that by simply adding a bed to three existing rooms, the cost per bed added was far less than would be the cost of constructing new facilities. Inverness Convalescent Center (ICC) ICC proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County at a cost of $3,400,000. (Exhibit 15) Citrus County has four licensed nursing homes with a total of 430 beds and an average occupancy rate of less than 90% during the last reported six-month period. (Exhibit 17)- During the last quarter of 1985, the occupancy rate in Citrus County nursing homes was the lowest of the planning areas in District III, and in the first quarter of 1986, it was second lowest. ICC contends the need formula doesn't apply to their application because they propose to serve special needs of the elderly, such as institutionalized patients, head trauma patients, etc. However, the only testimony presented indicating a need in Citrus County for such special services came from ICC owners and employees who live in New Jersey. ICC further contends that since there are less than 27 nursing home beds in Citrus County per 1,000 residents over age 65, that an additional nursing home is needed in Citrus County. However, the 27-beds per 1,000 population is but one factor considered in determining need for nursing home beds. In short, ICC presented no evidence to show that need exists in Citrus County for the proposed facility. Beverly Enterprises Beverly's application is for a CON to add 60 beds to an existing 120-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, at Suwannee Health Care Center. This facility was opened in 1983 and reached full capacity in seven to nine months. There are two nursing homes in Suwannee County; Suwannee Health Care Center, (HCC) and Advent Christian Village, Dowling Park (ACV). The latter is a church owned retirementc ~B community of 550 residents which provides a continuum of care on five levels. Although Advent Christian is not licensed as a life care community, it gives priority of admission to its 107 licensed nursing home beds to residents of the life care community. As a result, there are few vacancies available for persons living outside the retirement community. Advent - Christian has a waiting list of 32 on the active waiting list and ~20 on an inactive waiting list. People on waiting lists are told the wait is from one to five years for admission. Suwannee HCC has an occupancy rate approaching 100% and a waiting list of approximately 50. As a result, the vast majority of Suwannee County residents needing nursing home care are sent to a nursing home outside Suwannee County, usually in Gainesville, some 65 miles from Live Oak. The planning area in which Suwannee County is located, formerly sub district 1 in District III, has five nursing homes with an average occupancy rate for the last three months of 1985 and the first three months of 1986, ranging from 96.91% to 99.75%. During the first three months of 1986, the occupancy rate of three of these nursing homes was greater than 99%' one as 98.7% and the lowest, Advent Christian, was 96.91% (Exhibit 17). The patient mix at Suwannee ACC is over 80% Medicaid and approximately one-third black. The black population is about 30% of the total population in Suwannee County. Suwannee HCC has had several superior ratings (Exhibits 9, 10), takes patients in order on the waiting list regardless of whether they are Medicaid or private pay, and has a very good reputation in the area for service. DHRS personnel who approve Medicaid placement of patients, hospital employees who have the duty of placing patients in nursing homes, nursing home personnel, and private citizens with relatives in nursing homes, all confirmed the critical access problems of Suwannee County residents for local nursing home placement. Live Oak residents, for example, who need placement in a nursing home are usually sent outside Suwannee County, have their names added to waiting lists at nursing homes in Live Oak, and nursing homes closer to Live Oak than the nursing home in which they are placed, and move to the closer nursing home when a vacancy occurs. As a result, most of the vacancies at Suwannee HCC are filled by patients who were, first transferred outside Suwannee County for nursing home placement, and got on the waiting list at Suwannee HCC. There are very few patients from Suwannee County who are initially placed in a Suwannee County nursing home. Southern Medical Associates (SMA) SMA proposes to construct and operate a free standing, 60-bed, skilled nursing home in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida, at a cost of $1,692,400. (Exhibit 19) When SMA's application was submitted the computation of bed need in Suwannee County under the sub district rule in effect when the application was submitted, showed 30 beds needed in Putnam County. This calculation included 36 beds earlier approved but not yet licensed. At the time of this hearing those approved 36 beds had been revoked by reason of not beginning construction in a timely fashion. The medical consultant who reviewed these applications and prepared most of the State Agency Action reports, (Exhibit 30) initially recommended that SMA'S application be granted. The two existing nursing homes in Putnam County have an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent for the latest reported 3 month period. (Exhibit 17) 85 to 90 percent of these patients are Medicaid patients. The one nursing home in Palatka, Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, is a 65-bed nursing home with an occupancy rate in excess of 99 percent for the past year, and on the date of hearing had 18 people on the waiting list for a bed. The turnover in this nursing home is about 50 percent each year, with most vacancies resulting from the death of a patient. Two HRS employees whose job it is to determine eligibility of residents of Putnam County for Medicaid reimbursement for nursing home care, testified that they very, seldom see a patient go to Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, that over half of the patients they qualify for eligibility are sent out of the county, and of those placed in the county, almost all are placed at Lakewood Nursing Home which is located 18 miles from Palatka. The only hospital in Putnam County discharges 5 to 6 patients per month who need additional nursing care after discharge. Most of these patients are sent to nursing homes in St. Augustine, Florida, a few are sent to Lakewood, but for very few is a bed available in Palatka.
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 The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, 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. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation the original parties described the background and general nature of the controversy as follows: In January, 1985, HCR filed an application for certificate of need to develop a new 120 bed nursing home in Collier County, Florida. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceeding, and the proceeding was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR has reduced this application to a 90-bed new nursing home. The nursing home will provide skilled nursing care to Alzheimer's patients and to patients discharged from hospitals in need of additional intensive nursing care, in addition to the typical nursing home patient. HRS has denied HCR's application because, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code there is insufficient need for the additional nursing home beds proposed by HCR. In the Prehearing Statement the Petitioner described its position as follows: HCR contends that there is an identifiable need for a nursing home in Collier County, Florida, to serve the needs of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and similar disorders and patients who are discharged from hospitals with a continuing need for a high level of intensive care, often provided through sophisticated technical or mechanical means. Existing nursing homes in Collier County do not offer adequate facilities for such patients and refuse admission to such patients. These patients have experienced an inability to obtain such care in Collier County. HCR's proposed nursing home will provide needed care which is otherwise unavailable and inaccessible in Collier County. The application meets all criteria relevant to approval of a certificate of need. HCR further contends that the nursing home formula shows a need for additional nursing home beds in Collier County. Previously, in circumstances where a need for additional nursing home services has been identified, HRS has approved certificates of need even though the nursing home formula showed a need for zero additional beds or a small number of additional beds. In the Prehearing Statement the Respondent described its position as follows: HRS contends, pursuant to the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, that there is insufficient need in the January, 1988 planning horizon demonstrated for additional nursing home beds in Collier County to warrant approval of a-new nursing home. Therefore, HRS contends that the HCR application should be denied. Further in its original application, HCR did not identify services proposed specially for Alzheimer's disease patients or "sub-acute" patients. HCR did not and has not complied with provision of Chapter 10-5.11(21)(b 10., Florida Administrative Code, regarding mitigated circumstances. The Respondent also identified the following as an issue of fact to be litigated. "HRS contends that it should be determined whether HCR's supplement dated May 15, 1986, is a significant change in scope for which the application was originally submitted." Because of its late intervention into this case, the Intervenor's position is not described in the Prehearing Statement. In general, the Intervenor urges denial of the application on the same grounds as those advanced by the Respondent. The Intervenor did not attempt to become a party to this case until the morning of the second day of the formal hearing. Respondent had no objection to the Petition To Intervene. The original Petitioner objected on the grounds that the effort at intervention was untimely and that the Intervenor was without standing. The objection to intervention was overruled and the Intervenor was granted party status subject to taking the case as it found it. Accordingly, intervention having been granted at the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation of the other parties, the Intervenor was not permitted to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits. Intervenor's participation before the Division of Administrative Hearings was limited to an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following the hearing a transcript of proceedings was filed on July 8, 1986. Thereafter, all parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders containing proposed findings of fact. Careful consideration has been given to all of the Proposed Recommended Orders in the formulation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on all proposed findings of fact proposed by all parties is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Petitioner also filed an unopposed post-hearing motion requesting that its name be corrected in the style of this case. The motion is granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admitted facts The parties agree that HCR properly filed a letter of intent and application for certificate of need for a new nursing home to be located in Collier County. The application was reviewed by HRS in the ordinary course of its activities, and HRS initially denied the application. HRS continues to oppose issuance of a CON because (a) there is an insufficient need, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for additional nursing home beds to warrant approval of a new nursing home [Section 381.494(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes]; (b) the long term financial feasibility and economic impact of the proposal is questionable because of low occupancy being experienced by existing nursing homes "Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes]. HRS proposes no other basis for denial of the application. The parties agree that HCR meets all criteria for a certificate of need, with the exception of those two criteria listed in the immediately foregoing paragraph relating to need and financial feasibility/economic impact (relevant to low occupancy), which HRS contends have not been met. The parties agree that HCR would provide good quality care to patients, that the project would be financially feasible if the occupancy projections asserted by HCR were obtained, that the costs and methods of proposed construction are appropriate and reasonable, and that the proposed facility would be adequately available to underserved population groups. The rest of the findings In January 1985, HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to develop a new 120-bed nursing home facility in Collier County, Florida. The original application described a traditional approach to nursing home care. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceedings and this proceeding ensued. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR made certain changes to its original application. These changes included reducing the size of the proposed nursing home from 120 to go beds and changing the-concept of the nursing home from a traditional nursing home to one specifically designed to address the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients and sub-acute care patients. The supplement specifically provided that 30 of the 90 proposed beds would be "set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alzheimer's or similar disorders." The project description in the original application contained no such provision. HCR's proposed facility would consist of 90 nursing home beds, 30 assisted living beds, and an adult day care facility located adjacent to the nursing home portion of the facility. Those portions of the facility relating to assisted living and adult day care do not require certificate of need review. The estimated cost of the portion of the project which requires certificate of need review is $3.5 million. HCR estimates that approximately 33 1/3 per cent of the patients in the facility will be Medicaid reimbursed. It is proposed that 30 of the 90 nursing home beds be designed and staffed specifically to provide care and treatment necessary to meet the special needs of certain patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and dementia and exhibit need for care different from that found in the typical nursing home. It is proposed that another 30-bed wing be staffed and equipped to provide sub-acute, high-tech services such as ventilator, I.V. therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and other forms of care more intensive than those commonly found in a nursing home and necessary for the care of patients discharged from hospitals and patients in the last stages of Alzheimer's disease. The remaining 30-bed wing would be devoted to traditional nursing home care. HRS has adopted a rule which establishes a methodology for estimating the numeric need for additional nursing home beds within the Department's districts or subdistricts. This methodology is set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. This rule determines historic bed rates and projects those bed rates to a three-year planning horizon. Allocation to a subdistrict such as Collier County is adjusted by existing occupancy in the subdistrict and the subdistrict's percentage of beds in relationship to the total number of beds in the district. Additional beds normally are not authorized if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. HRS calculated need utilizing current population estimates for January 1986 and projected need for the population estimated for January 1988, arriving at a need of approximately 16 additional nursing home beds for the January 1988 planning horizon. HCR projected need to the January 1989 planning horizon and projected a numeric need of approximately 38 additional nursing home beds. There are no applicants for additional nursing home beds in the January 1989 planning horizon (batching cycle). Alzheimer's disease is a primary degenerative disease of the central nervous system which results in a breakdown of the nerve cells in the brain. The disease is progressive, in that it begins subtly, often with forgetfulness or simple personality changes, and ultimately results in death following a phase in which the patient is bedridden and totally dependent upon others for survival. The cause of the disease is not known. The disease is much more common in the older age groups and is very common in the southwest Florida area. (However, nothing in the evidence in this case suggests that Alzheimer's disease is more common in southwest Florida than in other parts of the state.) There is no known cure for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease patients are characterized by such symptoms as memory loss, communication problems, difficulty understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, wandering, inability to socialize appropriately, and incontinence. The progress of the disease can be divided into stages. During the initial stage, the patients will display forgetfulness and subtle personality changes. As the disease progresses, the patients encounter increasing difficulty performing more than simple tasks, tend to be more emotional, become more confused, encounter difficulty with concentration and retaining thoughts, and often display poor judgment and a denial of the significance of their actions. In the next stage, the patients begin to require assistance to survive. Forgetfulness and disorientation increase and wandering patients are often unable to find their way. The patients become incontinent, experience sleep disturbances, become restless at night, and wander during the day, leading to considerable family distraction and difficulties for the care givers. The patients encounter difficulty recognizing family members and often become paranoid and fearful of those family members within the house. violence and aggressive outbursts may occur. Finally, the patients progress to a stage in which they are totally inattentive to their features physical needs, requiring total care. These Patients are totally incontinent, experience frequent falls, develop seizures, and eventually become bedridden, going into a fetal position and becoming totally unable to provide any care for themselves. Traditionally, most nursing homes offer no special programs for patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and mix these patients with other patients in the nursing home. There is no nursing home in Collier County which provides program specifically designed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients. The nearest nursing home where such care can be found is in Venice, some 92 miles from Naples. The total facility proposed by HCR is designed to provide a continum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients and their family care givers. The adult day care portion of the facility would enable family members to place Alzheimer's disease patients in day care for a portion of the day in order for the family care givers to maintain employment, perform normal household chores, and find relief from the extremely demanding task of constantly supervising and caring for an Alzheimer's disease victim. The adult day care portion of the facility would be designed and staffed to provide a therapeutic program for the Alzheimer's disease patient and the patient's family. The assisted living portion of the facility would allow an Alzheimer's disease patient in the early stages of the disease to live in an environment, with his or her spouse if desired, where immediate care and routine supervision at a level lower than that required by a nursing home patient would be provided. Thirty nursing home patient and who do not display those characteristics which are disruptive to non-Alzheimer's patients, such as wandering, combativeness, and incontinence. For those Alzheimer's patients who should not be mixed with other nursing home patients because of their disruptive routines and who require unique programs and facility design features to meet their specific needs, a 30-bed wing would be set aside. Finally, for Alzheimer's patients in the final stages of the disease who require total care and are bedridden, and for patients discharged from local hospitals who require high-tech services, a 30-bed wing designed, staffed and equipped to provide such services would be set aside. The facility would provide a high level of staffing to meet the demanding, personal care needs of Alzheimer's patients and would provide 24-hour nursing supervision in that portion of the facility dedicated to intensive services for the bedridden and high-tech patient. The design and equipment of the proposed facility are particularly addressed to the needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. Physically, the facility would allow patients freedom of movement both inside the facility and in an outside courtyard with porches, but the facility would be sufficiently secure to prevent the patient from wandering away from the facility. There would be amenities such as therapeutic kitchens which would allow patients still able to cook to do so. Fixtures in the facility would be designed so that the Alzheimer's disease patients could easily identify the functions of fixtures such as wastebaskets, toilets, and sinks. Features such as low frequency sound systems, lever door knobs, square instead of round tables, barrier-free doorways, special floor coverings, appropriate labeling, automatic bathroom lighting, and provisions for seating small groups of patients together would all provide the special care required by the Alzheimer's patient. The concept of a separate unit for Alzheimer's disease patients is a new one, growing out of increased medical awareness of the disease. The proposed unit would be a prototype for the Petitioner. There are four nursing homes in Collier County and 413 licensed nursing home beds. There are no approved but unlicensed nursing home beds in Collier County. At the time that HRS initially reviewed the HCR application, Collier County nursing homes were reporting an average occupancy of approximately 70 percent. At the time of the hearing, average occupancy of existing nursing home beds in Collier County was 83.5 per cent. Existing nursing home beds in Collier County are underutilized and there are a number of nursing home beds available to the public. Also there are available alternatives to nursing homes in Collier County. HCR has projected reaching 95 per cent occupancy within one year of opening. This projection seems overly optimistic and unwarranted by prior history, as only one existing facility has an occupancy rate that high. HCR's occupancy projections are based on assumptions that the future growth will be similar to that experienced between 7/1/85 and 12/1/85. But more recent data shows that growth has been decreasing and that there was no growth for the most recent period prior to the hearing. If projected occupancy is not met, projected revenues will not be realized, and projections of financial feasibility will not materialize. The record in this case does not contain evidence of patients' need for nursing home care documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by the staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 4) requires an occupancy level of at least 90 per cent before new nursing homes can be approved. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 6) also provides, "No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct either its original proposal or its supplemented proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 October, 1986.
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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
