The Issue Whether petitioner should be granted a certificate of need to build a 120- bed nursing and extended care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application be denied for failure to meet licensing criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The parties present at the hearing stipulated to the following facts which are hereby entered as findings of fact: All letters of intent submitted by the applicants involved herein with the exception of FCC were timely filed on or before December 15, 1984 and the relating applications by these applicants were timely filed on or before January 15, 1985. As a result, these applications addressed a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications, as mentioned above, were deemed complete by DHRS and were reviewed under a January, 1988 bed need planning horizon. All applications as cited above, were preliminarily denied by DHRS based on a lack of need and notice of these denials were timely published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All unsuccessful applicants herein thereafter timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of their applications. The application filed by FCC for CON number 2738, filed by the applicant in July, 1983, and addressing a July, 1986 bed need was initially denied by DHRS in November, 1983. FCC thereafter timely filed a petition for formal, administrative hearing contesting the denial of this application and on January 10, 1985, DHRS and FCC entered into a stipulated settlement in which DHRS agreed to grant CON Number 2738 to FCC. This CON was issued to FCC on January 19, 1985, for 91 community nursing home beds and on March 15, 1985, a Final Order was entered by DHRS confirming the grant off CON Number 2738 to FCC. FCC's original application under CON Number 2738 was for a 120 bed community nursing home to be located in Indian River County, Florida. DHRS's initial denial of FCC's application was based on a lack of bed need at the time. When DHRS entered into the stipulation with FCC reversing its position and granting a CON to FCC for 91 community nursing home beds, it did so on the basis of bed need figures utilizing statistics relating to the subsequent January, 1988 bed need planning horizon even though FCC's application did not pertain to that planning horizon. In fact the beds taken and awarded to FCC came from the fixed pool of beds that, under the DHRS rule in effect at the time, was reserved for applicants in the January, 1985 batching cycle with a planning horizon of January, 1988. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., sets out the bed need rule methodology for determining projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds. Pursuant to this rule, need is projected three years into the future. The methodology provided in this rule is clear and reasonable. If this methodology is followed precisely as set forth in the rule and utilizing the DHRS statistics available to personnel in the health care professions, such as its semi-annual nursing home census report as well as the Florida population estimates and projections by DHRS district and county, a net bed need of 116 additional beds in Indian River County is established for the period January, 1988. This figure does not, however, include an award of 91 beds to FCC under CON Number 2738 by DHRS under the terms of its settlement and those 91 beds are included within the 116. The expert testifying for the applicants herein concluded that the award of the 91 beds to FCC outside its planning horizon was erroneous and improper and based on no calculation of bed need appropriate to the applicant's original July, 1986 planning horizon and it was so found. In this case, DHRS, by awarding beds to FCC from a subsequent planning horizon is implementing a bed need policy which establishes a "planning horizon" three years from the date the Petitioners' applications were filed but updating all available data to that existing as of the date of the final hearing. This would include July, 1986 population data, current licensed beds, current approved beds, and the latest occupancy rate. The procedure followed by DHRS here is, however, a DHRS policy interpretation rather than a literal interpretation of the rule and the DHRS expert was unable to establish or in any way justify DHRS' policy of updating all data to the date of hearing in contravention of the terms of its own rule. If the unjustified and unsubstantiated DHRS policy were accepted and utilized here, calculations would reflect a surplus of 70 nursing home beds in Indian River County for the January, 1988 planning horizon as opposed to the more reasonable and rational bed need of 116.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Certificate of Need Number 2733, previously issued to Florida Convalescent Centers be rescinded and that the 91 beds relating thereto be returned to the January, 1988 planning horizon fixed pool. It is further recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a comparative hearing to evaluate the pending applicants within that batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 28th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by National Health Corporation, FMSC and Forum 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the actual calculations outlined in the formulas which are incomplete. 2 & 3 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-6 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 7-13 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 14 Not a Finding of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Health Care and Retirement Corporation Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the citation of the rule which is incomplete. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 5-9 Accepted. 10 & 11 Accepted. 12 Rejected as not the best analysis. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Beverly Enterprises 1-3 Accepted. 4-6 Incorporated into Findings of Fact. 7 & 8 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. & 11 Accepted. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Cumulative to other findings. Rejected as legal argument and not a Finding of Fact. Incorporated in Finding of Fact. 16-20 Legal Argument not a Finding of Fact. 21-22 Cumulative to other evidence of record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by DHRS 1-3 Accepted. 4-8 Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9 Accepted as to the calculation including the 91 beds available to FCC. Rejected as to the propriety of the award and the reason. Copies Furnished: William Page, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs a. through i., unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the application for certificate of need filed by Forum be Denied. DONE AND ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0704 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Sentence 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as misleading and/or subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nonprofit corporation located in Lehigh Acres, Lee County, Florida, with a membership of approximately 900 persons. The association's goals are to insure that quality health care services, including, but not limited to, long-term care services, are available to that community. The Community Health Association, Inc., was preceded by a non-profit corporation known as Lehigh Acres General Hospital, Inc. This corporation managed and operated the Lehigh Acres General Hospital, located in Lehigh Acres, Florida. In June, 1981, the corporation sold its license to operate this acute care hospital to Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). HCA took over management of the facility July 1, 1981. HCA is currently leasing the facility from Community Health Association, Inc. HCA applied for and received a Certificate of Need to construct a new hospital in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Construction of this hospital is underway and is to be completed on or about January 1, 1984, at which time HCA will turn the old hospital facility back to Community Health Association. At the time of the licensure sale by Community Health Association (Lehigh Acres General Hospital, Inc.) to HCA, the Lehigh Acres General Hospital operated an 88-bed acute care facility which had utilized, since 1970, 20 of the 88 beds as nursing home beds. In July, 1981, Community Health Association, Inc., filed a letter of intent with Respondent for a 60-bed nursing home to be operated in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Respondent advised Community Health Association, Inc., that its application for a CON was premature due to the pending CON issued to HCA to construct a hospital in Lehigh Acres. In early 1982, Community Health Association, Inc., employed Herman Smith & Associates, of Chicago, Illinois, health care consultants, to perform a long-term study concerning need for a nursing home or nursing home beds in the Lehigh Acres area. On the basis of its study, Herman Smith & Associates recommended that Petitioner seek authority to provide 110 nursing home beds in two phases. The first phase of the project would involve converting the 1970 wing of the previous hospital building for use as a 50-bed nursing unit at a cost of approximately $350,000. The second phase consisting of construction of a 60-bed addition, costing $1,380,000 for 15,527 square feet, would be completed in early 1985. The sale of the license to HCA brought Petitioner $1,000,000. These funds will cover the first phase and part of the second phase costs. Petitioner's prior experience in health care delivery and its community support, along with these financial resources, will enable it to construct and operate the proposed nursing facility. There are no existing or approved nursing homes or nursing home beds to be located in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Except as noted below, all existing and approved nursing home beds are located in western Lee County in Ft. Myers, Cape Coral or in other communities located approximately 30 minutes or more by automobile from Lehigh Acres. Upon completion of construction and abandonment of the old Lehigh Acres hospital building by HCA, the new hospital will discontinue the 20 nursing home beds currently operated. Approximately 75 percent of this hospital's patients are Lehigh Acres residents, with few if any patients from Ft. Myers or western Lee County. All the nursing home referrals from the new hospital will be required to leave Lehigh Acres unless Petitioner's proposed nursing home is constructed. Petitioner filed a letter of intent with Respondent, followed by an application for a CON on or about October 1, 1982, proposing the project as recommended by Herman Smith & Associates. Following the submission of the instant application, Respondent adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which became effective on November 9, 1982. That rule establishes the "Methodology to Determine and Calculate the Need for Community Nursing Home Beds" in a service district. About January 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that its application for a 110-bed nursing home in Lehigh Acres was denied as not consistent with the Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., nursing home bed need methodology. Respondent's State Agency Action Report stated that "A need does not exist to add nursing home beds in Lee County through 1985. There are 347 approved but not constructed beds in the county. The bed need methodology produces an excess of 494 nursing home beds in the county through 1985." The State Agency Action Report reflected 970 existing and approved nursing home beds in Lee County. The report also projected a need for 1,400 community nursing home beds for the year 1985 in Lee County. The testimony of its author established that the same portion of the rule applied to 1986 protected population figures would yield a need for 1,522 beds in Lee County in 1986. At the time Petitioner's application was evaluated by Respondent, nursing homes in Lee County had an average 95.8 percent occupancy rate. Based on the application of the current utilization formula contained in Chapter 10-5.11(21), F.A.C., Respondent calculated that 494 excess nursing home beds in Lee County are licensed or approved. Projected population of persons age 65 and over living in Lee County in 1985 is 60,463 and ir 1986 is 65,708. The application of these population figures to the formula contained in Ch. 10-5.11(21)(b), F.A.C., yields a nursing home bed need in Lee County for 1985 of 1,400 and for 1986 of 1,522. As noted above, there are currently 970 licensed and approved nursing home beds in Lee County. The "Nursing Home Plan Component" of the Local Health Plan of the District Eight Health Council of Sarasota, Florida, of which Lee County is a portion, adopted June 29, 1983, indicates a need for 501 additional beds in Lee County for the year 1986. In applying Rule 10-5.11(21), F.A.C., Respondent's determination was subject to two errors. The first, a mathematical error, caused a miscalculation of beds which could be added in Lee County using current patient count data and avoid falling below the desired 80 percent occupancy rate. The formula, properly applied, indicates there would be 239 excess beds rather than the 494 shown in the State Agency Action Report. The second error concerns Respondent's failure to reconcile and compare the determinations made under the need methodology contained in paragraph (b) of the rule and other portions of the rule, particularly the current utilization sections contained in subparagraphs (d) and (f). Section 10-5.11(21)(f), F.A.C., stated that "consideration of applications for additional nursing home beds will be premised on both the projected need for new bed capacity and current utilization." (emphasis added) The requirement for additional nursing home beds based on the projected need for new bed capacity, as well as current utilization, establishes a need for the 110 beds proposed by Petitioner. Further, the proposed location is consistent with the goal of accessibility and community need in Lehigh Acres.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 26th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald A. Labasky, Esquire Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 318 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James M. Barclay, Esquire DeparLment of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about July 15, 1986, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to construct a 60 bed community nursing home with a 45 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Highlands County, Florida. This application was identified as CON 4700. After preliminary review, Respondent denied this application on or about December 23, 1986, and Petitioner timely filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. Highlands County is in Respondent's Service District VI, Subdistrict IV. The parties stipulated that there was a net bed need in the July, 1989 planning horizon for Highlands County of an additional 28 community nursing home beds, based upon the bed need calculation set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. It was further stipulated by the parties that Petitioner's original application met all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a CON, but for the issue of need. Since the parties did stipulate to a need for 28 community nursing home beds, Petitioner sought, at hearing, to offer evidence in support of only an "identifiable portion" of its original application. Thus, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the application it filed with Respondent, and which was preliminarily denied on December 23, 1986. Rather, Petitioner sought consideration and approval of either 28 nursing home beds with 32 ACLF beds, or 30 nursing home beds with 30 ACLF beds. Since the stipulation of the parties could not cover the financial feasibility of either alternative because they were presented for the first time at hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish the financial feasibility of these alternatives. Based upon the testimony of Herbert E. Straughn, it is found that Respondent does not normally approve nursing home CON applications for less than 60 nursing home beds. However, Respondent has approved a CON application for 30 nursing home beds in association with 30 ACLF beds or some other similar service when the need for 30 nursing home beds was shown to exist. Respondent has also approved a CON for less than 30 nursing home beds in connection with an existing 60 bed facility when the stipulated need did not reach 30. In this case, Petitioner's original application was for 60 community nursing home and 45 ACLF beds, and it was at hearing that Petitioner sought to down-size its application to meet the stipulated need of 28 nursing home beds. There are no accessibility problems with regard to special programs or services, or any other problems of accessibility, in District VI, Subdistrict IV. Petitioner's request for partial consideration and approval of its application, which was presented at hearing, would not introduce any new services or construction not originally contemplated in its application, although the size of the project and number of beds sought would be reduced. In its original application, Petitioner proposed a nursing home with two 30-bed units, and now seeks approval for only one 28 or 30-bed unit. From a health planning standpoint, nursing home bed units usually occur in multiples of 60 due to staffing and equipment considerations. No evidence was offered to show why the Respondent should deviate from its usual practice in this case, other than the fact that a need for only 28 beds exists. At hearing, Petitioner introduced revised pro formas for 28 and 30 nursing home beds, associated with 32 and 30 ACLF beds, respectively. These revised pro formas were based on the same ratios of patients by payor class as in the original pro forma. The equity to loan ratios in the revised pro formas to finance the project remained the same as in the original application. The revised pro formas combine revenue and expenses for nursing home and ACLF beds. However, if revenue and expenses for nursing home beds is segregated from ACLF beds, it is found that a 30 bed nursing home facility would not be financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990, and a 28 bed nursing home facility would be even less financially feasible than a 30 bed facility. When revenues and expenses for the ACLF component of the project are considered along with nursing home bed income and expenses, the project shows only a marginal profit in the second year of operation with the 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative. It is barely break-even in the second year under the 28 nursing home bed-32 ACLF bed alternative. Thus, under either alternative, the project is not financially feasible in 1989, and the nursing home component of this project, standing alone under either alternative presented at hearing, is not financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990. The 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative is more financially feasible than the 28-32 alternative since the 28-32 alternative is barely break even in the second year of operation. Specifically, under the 28-32 alternative, pretax income of less than $9000 is projected in the second year of operation with total revenues of approximately $1.321 million and total expenses of approximately $1.312 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4700. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0667 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 9. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a statement of position and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 13-16 Rejected as conclusions of law and not proposed findings of fact; this legal argument has been considered in the preparation of conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. However the last sentence in the proposed finding of fact is rejected as unclear. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although from a health planning viewpoint a 30 nursing home bed unit is more functional and cost effective than a 28; it is also more financially feasible in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11, and otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Adams, Esquire 215 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty XII, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in November, 1982 seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. The original estimated cost of the project was $3,108,000; however, due to the passage of time since the original filing, petitioner now anticipates the cost to be $4,488,000. The proposal will be financially guaranteed by Health Quest Corporation, a corporation with principal offices in South Bend, Indiana. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action advising petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The proposed agency action was not introduced into evidence, but based on the stipulation of the parties, the denial was apparently predicated upon the lack of need for any additional beds in Broward County, Florida. The determination of need for nursing home beds is made pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Under the formula contained in that rule, only 101 additional nursing home beds were needed in Broward County, Florida, at the time of final hearing. However, HRS recently granted this allocation of beds to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in DOAH Case No. 83-882, Final Order entered on April 4, 1984. Accordingly, no need for any additional beds exists at the present time under the rule. Petitioner principally contended that non-rule factors must be considered in evaluating its application because Broward County is not "normal" within the meaning of the rule. In this regard, it offered evidence to show that Broward County has the fewest beds per capita of the eleven service districts in the state, that the county has a relatively low use of nursing home services by its indigent population, and that the county has a greater number of Medicaid patients per 1,000 indigent elderly than other counties. From this, it concluded that Broward County is abnormal to the extent that more nursing home services must be made available to the elderly indigent. However, these factors are incorporated within the rule and accordingly taken into account when determining need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty XII for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HEALTH QUEST REALTY XII, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1892 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
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
